Suffolk Probation Held On To $1.3 Million In Restitution: Audit

YAPHANK, NY — Suffolk's Probation department officials are unnecessarily holding on to nearly $1.3 million in victim restitution — some collected in the 1980s, according to an audit by the state comptroller's office.

Over the audit period between Jan. 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, $2.3 million was collected and $2.4 million was disbursed, but auditors found $1.3 million idle victim money that was over one-year-old.

The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the Suffolk officials enforced restitution orders, notified the court when a probationer violated a court order and properly disbursed victim restitution payments, and auditors ended up finding that was not always the case.

Some victims may never receive the payments to they are entitled, his office said.

DiNapoli said "restitution is a key part of the legal process that allows crime victims to recoup losses caused by the crime."

"County probation departments need to step up their efforts to make sure that victims are getting the funds they deserve," he said.

Suffolk did not set adequate policies and procedures to enforce and monitor restitution orders, said the office, adding, that twenty-two of 44 restitution orders reviewed had uncollected payments totaling $47,831, and 870 listed outstanding checks that totaled $179, 159 and were not "properly followed up on and/or recorded accurately," DiNapoli's office said.

The audit period was extended back to March 23, 2015, so that victim location efforts for undisbursed restitution could be reviewed.

Suffolk officials did not maintain a complete and accurate list of unsatisfied restitution orders, nor did they distribute all of the restitution that was available, or maintain sufficient undisbursed restitution records, DiNapoli's office said.

The audit recommended that Suffolk establish adequate policies and procedures for enforcing and monitoring restitution obligations, as well as provide "meaningful oversight." It was also recommended to enforce and monitor restitution according to court orders and probation department policies and procedures.

County officials disagreed with some of the audit's findings and recommendations, according to DiNapoli's office.

In a response to the audit, county officials said that the depth of their response is "significantly compromised" because the probation director who was serving during the audit period is no longer working for the county.

Their letter goes on to say that the department's policy that was examined in the audit violates probation policy and references guidelines for violation criteria, but does not show enough detail for the "subject at issue" and outlines only more general procedures.

"It also appears outdated and ill-suited to current departmental philosophy and need," the county's response reads.