Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:46 pm
Time: 11:46 pm
Results for victim compensation
13 results foundAuthor: Button, Mark Title: Support for the Victims of Fraud: An Assessment of the Current Infrastructure in England and Wales Summary: There are hundreds of thousands of people who become victims of fraud every year in the U.K. Some do not know they are victims and some know but do not report it. Only a minority of victims (bar identity fraud) report it. The support those victims receive varies from nothing to the most extensive and very best support that could possibly be provided. The structures that exist for fraud victims also vary significantly from other crime victims. There is significant support provided by the private sector, voluntary bodies, and state organizations. This report seeks to capture this infrastructure of support offered to the victims of fraud setting out the strengths, weaknesses and gaps. It does this by mirroring the three main components of the process. First of all, support at the reporting stage is assessed, followed by the reported state, and finally the criminal justice system stage. Details: London: National Fraud Authority, 2009. 37p., app. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118818 Keywords: FraudVictim CompensationVictims of Crime |
Author: Bowles, Roger Title: International Development of Victims Funds Summary: Improving the quality of the experience for citizens coming into contact with the Criminal Justice System as a victim and/or witness is an important objective for government. The development of a Victims’ Fund which uses contributions from convicted offenders to make provision for victim support can be an important component in a strategy to build confidence amongst the public in the justice system. The experience of other countries which have implemented such schemes provides evidence as to their feasibility, strengths and weaknesses. Information about this experience and awareness of best practice internationally are invaluable in developing the best possible design for a Fund and a levy. The aim of the research reported here is to provide a review of the key issues, supported by a concise and informative resource outlining the practice of Government departments in other countries, which can support development of proposals for a Victims’ Fund in Northern Ireland. The focus is on instances where a central fund, based on a financial levy on offenders, is used to support victim-related initiatives and expenditure. The report reviews international experience of the process of developing and maintaining a victim fund and identifies significant themes arising from cross-country comparisons. It refers to the schemes run in countries which are known to operate one, namely: Australia, Belgium, Canada, England and Wales, France, New Zealand, Sweden and the USA. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice System Northern Ireland, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource; NIO Research and Statistical Series: Report No. 22 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118701 Keywords: Victim CompensationVictims of Crime |
Author: Lam, Janice Title: Opportunities and Obstacles: Ensuring Access to Compensation for Trafficked Persons in the UK Summary: Although there has been an increase in the number of convictions for human trafficking in the UK, legal remedies and compensation for trafficked persons have remained inaccessible. This report identifies the legal remedies available to trafficked persons in England and Wales and analyses the effectiveness of each remedy viewed in light of its accessibility to trafficked persons. Details: London: Anti-Slavery International, 2008. 51p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119276 Keywords: Human TraffickingVictim Compensation |
Author: Ruback, R. Barry Title: Evaluation of Best Practices in Restitution and Victim Compensation Orders and Payments Summary: Over the past 25 years, the use of economic sanctions has increased because of pressures to punish offenders, to reimburse victims, and to have offenders pay for the costs of prosecution, and fees, as well as mandatory restitution, fines, and various state costs. This research project was concerned with how these different economic sanctions are imposed and with whether they are paid. In addition, the research examined whether state fees and restitution to the state were mandated as imposed by law. Details: University Park, PA: Crime, Law, & Justice Program, Department of Sociology, Penn State University, 2006. 224p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119534 Keywords: RestitutionVictim CompensationVictims of Crime |
Author: National Center for Victims of Crime Title: Making Restitution Real: Five Case Studies on Improving Restitution Collection Summary: Across the country, policymakers, criminal justice officials, and victim advocates are becoming increasingly attuned to the problem of uncollected victim restitution. Even when ordered by the court, restitution often goes uncollected and victims remain without the financial resources they need to rebuild their lives after crime. While most jurisdictions do not track the amount of restitution ordered or collected (a problem itself), existing reports indicate a widespread failure to collect vast amounts of victim restitution. The most recent public figures show uncollected criminal debt at the federal level to be over $50 billion — most of which is restitution owed to individuals and others harmed by defendants. A study released in 2005 by the Government Accountability Office examined five high-dollar white collar financial fraud cases and found that only about seven percent of the restitution ordered in those cases was collected, up to eight years after the offenders’ sentencing. The experience at the state level is equally discouraging. In Iowa, for example, outstanding court debt, including restitution, amounted to $533 million as of 2010.3 Recent figures show that in Maryland, the Division of Parole and Probation had collected only 12 percent of the restitution that judges had ordered in fiscal year 2007 by December of 2008. In Texas, a 2008 examination found that more than 90 percent of offenders discharged from parole between 2003 and 2008 still owed their victims restitution. In Pennsylvania, $638 million in restitution was outstanding; in Arizona, the amount of unpaid criminal debt, including restitution, totaled $831 million; and in a single Nevada county, $70 million in victim restitution went uncollected during an eight year period. Behind these numbers are real crime victims in need — individuals trying to recover from financial losses related to the crime they experienced. They include victims without medical insurance struggling to pay off their hospital bills; victims suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder but forgoing counseling because they can’t afford it; small-business owners struggling to keep their businesses open after being defrauded by employees; and elderly victims who have lost their life savings to fraud and are suffering not only financial loss, but also the loss of their dignity, security, physical health, and independence. The recent economic downturn has further hampered the ability of victims to recover from crime-related financial losses. Repayment of victims’ financial losses from a crime, including property losses, can be crucial in helping to repair the damages from the offense. Repayment is also important as a tangible demonstration that the state — and the offender — recognizes the harm the victim suffered and the offender’s obligation to make amends. Failure to collect the ordered restitution creates another, even more insidious, harm: when court orders are regularly disregarded with no apparent consequence, it causes crime victims and the public to lose faith in the criminal justice system. Restitution is important for offenders as well. Courts have recognized that restitution is significant and rehabilitative because it “forces the defendant to confront, in concrete terms, the harm his or her actions have caused.” In fact, a study that examined the connection between restitution and recidivism found that individuals who paid a higher percentage of their ordered restitution were less likely to commit a new crime.7 Significantly, the payment of criminal fines did not have this effect, indicating that it is the act of reparation to the victim that is important. To improve the collection and payment of victim restitution nationwide, the National Center for Victims of Crime, with support from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, commissioned five papers by expert practitioners in the field of restitution who discuss their jurisdictions’ current issues, challenges, and promising practices. Drafts of these papers were presented at a national roundtable discussion with invited criminal justice practitioners, policymakers, and victim advocates to review these promising programs. That event was Webcast to another 200 professionals located throughout the United States. The five papers presented here offer valuable case studies. Two of those reflect statewide efforts — in California and Michigan — to promote and support greater collections. While these efforts differed in scale and some of the methods used, both were grounded in a commitment by their state’s chief justice to make increased collections a priority. Both states used deliberate approaches that sought input from stakeholders at the state and local levels. Both adopted statewide mandates that allowed for elements of local flexibility, allowing local jurisdictions to adopt a certain number of best practices from a list developed at the state level. And both created tools to help local courts improve their tracking and reporting of collections. A third paper also addresses a statewide effort, but one using a far different framework. Rather than improving local collection efforts throughout the state, Vermont created a centralized Restitution Unit that pays individual victims upfront and then takes on the burden of collecting from offenders. This program represents fresh thinking, as it reconceptualizes the process to restore victims through restitution. Two local programs are also featured. Maricopa County, Arizona, through the commitment of a local judge and the probation department, created a Restitution Court using existing legal tools to improve collection from offenders. And Project Payback, in Florida’s Eighth Judicial Circuit, embraced victim restitution as a means to rehabilitate juvenile defendants as well as restore their victims. Despite the variation in approaches among the five programs highlighted, they share important elements in common: • Leadership. Each program exists because an individual stepped forward with the authority to change the status quo. In two statewide programs it was the state’s chief justice; in the third it was the statewide victim services center. For one local program, it was the state’s attorney; for the other it was a superior court judge. • Commitment. Each program demonstrates a commitment to change, coupled with the development of partnerships and collaborations to transform good intentions into measurable progress. For four of the programs highlighted, this commitment included dedicated staff. • Openness to new thinking. In different ways, the approach of each program reflects an openness to new thinking. For some, that new thinking involved reframing the issue of uncollected criminal debt as an issue of the failure of courts to enforce their own orders. For the juvenile restitution program in Florida, it involved recasting the issue of financial responsibility as central in the rehabilitation of juveniles. And for Vermont, it was openness to a new model for victim restitution. The papers highlighted here address important lessons learned and the challenges that remain. From statewide, multi-year initiatives to vigorous local programs, it is our hope that these examples will inspire advocates and officials around the country to reexamine their own policies and programs and renew their commitment to improving the lives of crime victims through the collection of restitution. Details: Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime, 2011. 140p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=48480 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=48480 Shelf Number: 121882 Keywords: RestitutionVictim CompensationVictims of Crime (U.S.) |
Author: Piper, R.K. Title: Cost/Benefit Analysis of the Douglas County Drug Court Summary: The primary purpose of this cost-benefit evaluation of the Douglas County Drug Court (DCDC) is to provide administrators and policy-makers with critical information for future policy and funding decisions. This study expands and refines previous DCDC cost-benefit analyses through an investigation of drug court program investment, outcome and societal-impact costs and savings. This study employs a Transaction Cost model that examines complex, multiagency events and costs for participants in drug court and non-drug court comparison groups. A “cost-to-taxpayer” approach is used that includes any criminal justice related costs (or avoided costs) generated by drug court or non-drug court comparison group participants, that directly impacts citizens either through tax-related expenditures or personal victimization costs/losses due to crimes committed by drug offenders. Details: Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2004. 41p. Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.dc4dc.com/images/stories/forms/UNO_CostBenefit.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.dc4dc.com/images/stories/forms/UNO_CostBenefit.pdf Shelf Number: 123695 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Nebraska)Drug OffendersVictim Compensation |
Author: Uganda Human Rights Commission and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Title: “The Dust Has Not Yet Settled” Victims’ Views on The Right to Remedy and Reparation A Report from the Greater North of Uganda Summary: This report outlines the views and priorities of victims of serious violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law which resulted from the conflict between the Government of Uganda and the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). It details the serious violations that victims and victim-focused civil society organisations (CSOs) believe should trigger their right to remedy and reparation. Their priorities for remedy focus primarily on truth-recovery and accountability for harms committed. Recognising that reparations constitute remedies, their priorities for reparation rights include: physical and mental health services, education services, assistance to recover housing, land and inheritance, rebuilding of livelihoods, empowering of youth, public acknowledgement of harm and apologies, information on the disappeared, and the proper treatment of the dead. The report incorporates a strong gender focus and analysis. The report provides victims, CSOs, the Ugandan authorities, the United Nations, development partners, non-governmental organisations, and foreign agencies and specialists in transitional justice with a detailed outline of victims’ rights to remedy and reparation in international law. It also highlights the remedy and reparation principles and parameters outlined in the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, one of the five agreements (collectively known as the Juba Protocols) concluded in talks between the Government of Uganda and the LRA in Juba, Southern Sudan in 2006-2008. The Agreement1 and its Annexure2 form the basis on which the Government of Uganda is drawing key principles to frame policies, legislation, and programmes to determine facts around the conflict (itself a form of remedy)and determine the parameters and modalities for reparation. Details: Kampala, Uganda: Uganda Human Rights Commission and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2012 at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/WebStories/DustHasNotYetSettled.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Uganda URL: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/WebStories/DustHasNotYetSettled.pdf Shelf Number: 125068 Keywords: Human Rights (Uganda)ReparationVictim CompensationVictims of Crime, Services for |
Author: Granville, Sue Title: Making Justice Work for Victims and Witnesses Summary: The Scottish Strategy for Victims was published in 2001 and set out an action plan based on three core principles; that victims should be provided with generic and case specific information; that they should receive appropriate support; and that they should have their voice heard. Subsequently in 2005 the National Standards for Victims of Crime set out the level of service that victims and witnesses should expect in their dealings with the criminal justice and children’s hearing systems. Much of the work on witnesses in recent years has focused on implementing the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, phased in between 2005 and 2008; and providing greater focus on the needs of witnesses when giving evidence. The Scottish Government is planning to introduce a Victims and Witnesses Bill, to improve the support available to victims and witnesses and in May 2012 issued a consultation to obtain views on a number of proposals to improve the experience of such individuals. The consultation contained 54 questions in relation to a number of key proposals: • Introducing a victim surcharge so that offenders pay towards the cost of supporting victims; • Requiring the courts to consider compensation in every case where a victim has suffered injury, loss or distress; • Creating a duty on relevant public agencies to set clear standards of service for victims and witnesses; • Creating an automatic right to special measures for victims in cases involving sexual offences and domestic abuse; • Commissioning a feasibility study into how the SG can provide much better information for victims and the public about specific cases; • Improving the way cases are managed so that victims and witnesses can have far greater confidence that, where they are required to give evidence, the case will go ahead on the day as planned; • Victims should be able to make oral representations to a member of the Parole Board so that they can contribute effectively to decisions about parole for criminals subject to life sentences. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2012. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00412912.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00412912.pdf Shelf Number: 127479 Keywords: Victim CompensationVictims of Crime (Scotland)Victims ServicesWitnesses |
Author: Liberty Asia Title: Civil Remedies: Justice for Victims of Trafficking in Hong Kong Summary: - Victims of trafficking do not have a civil right of action against their traffickers for damages for the act of trafficking itself. However, there are a number of other potential civil claims that may be relevant in the circumstances of trafficking, depending on the facts of each individual's case. These include tortious claims such as trespass to the person, sexual harassment claims and employment law claims. - Overarching charters and the Basic Law of Hong Kong seek to protect basic civil rights, but these laws and charters do not of themselves provide an avenue for a civil claim. - Tortious claims are likely to apply to many trafficking situations. Even if the person against whom damages are claimed may not have sufficient resources to be in a position to pay a significant award of damages, the publicity and deterrent effect of bringing test cases in the Hong Kong Courts are likely to have value. - Employment tribunals are unlikely to offer an effective remedy for victims who are not legally employed. - There are other possible avenues of compensation for victims of crime including the Criminal and Law Enforcement Injuries Compensation Scheme, although there are a number of eligibility criteria to fulfil before access to this scheme can be gained. Details: Liberty Asia; New York: Hogan Lovells, 2014. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 23, 2015 at: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53038dd2e4b0f8636b5fa8c3/t/5436213de4b040d26af83286/1412833597832/1153819v4-Liberty+Asia+-+civil+remedies-HKGLIB01-1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Hong Kong URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53038dd2e4b0f8636b5fa8c3/t/5436213de4b040d26af83286/1412833597832/1153819v4-Liberty+Asia+-+civil+remedies-HKGLIB01-1.pdf Shelf Number: 134441 Keywords: Civil RemediesHuman Trafficking (Hong Kong)Victim CompensationVictims of Trafficking |
Author: Minnesota Restitution Working Group Title: Report to the Legislature 2015 Summary: In 2013, the Minnesota Legislature directed the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to convene a working group to study how restitution for victims in criminal cases is requested, ordered, and collected in Minnesota. The legislation creating the Restitution Working Group (RWG) arose from informal discussions among stakeholders with concerns about the current restitution process and the lack of information about the extent to which restitution is paid. Under the direction of the DPS Office of Justice Programs, representatives from all parts of the criminal justice system and victim support community engaged in an intensive examination of the restitution statutory framework, the practices of local and state agencies, and the experiences and perspectives of victims and practitioners. In addition, the State Court Administrator's Office (SCAO) conducted a comprehensive analysis of court data, providing much needed clarity on the payment of restitution in Minnesota. The RWG's examination revealed that a patchwork of approaches to restitution exists across the state, with inconsistencies spanning all parts of the process, including steps to request restitution, types of restitution that might be ordered, the process and impact of "reserving" restitution, the establishment of payment plans, and the effort devoted to restitution collection. In addition, the statutory framework was uniformly regarded as cumbersome and confusing at best, and underutilized and disregarded at worst, prompting considerable discussion on ways to clarify and improve it. These inconsistences in ordering, collecting, and enforcing restitution pose challenges for victims, offenders, and criminal justice system professionals. The RWG legislation directed the SCAO to provide the RWG with summary data on restitution. Using a cohort model, the SCAO conducted a comprehensive analysis of court data, examining restitution amounts ordered and paid by case type and offense level, identifying the extent to which payment plans are established, and summarizing restitution data by county and judicial district. The SCAO analysis identifies factors that affect the likelihood of an offender paying restitution. Most importantly, the analysis reveals that for many victims, restitution is not just an empty promise. While this result is encouraging, the SCAO's efforts also point to the usefulness of ongoing data review to uncover areas that require further attention, direct efforts for improvement, and prompt further analysis. The results demonstrate positive payment patterns in some types of cases, but they also reveal the need to find ways to improve payment rates in all cases. This corresponds with the predominant theme emerging from the RWG process of the importance of assessing whether nonpaying offenders truly lack the ability to pay and ensure that all offenders are paying restitution according to their ability. In this nearly year-long process, the RWG crafted more than 40 recommendations aimed at (1) improving the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of the process, (2) ensuring that all victims are well informed and have the opportunity to make appropriate restitution requests, and (3) improving the likelihood of payment by offenders. These recommendations, outlined in Part 4 of the report, call for changes and refinements to all parts of the restitution process, improved information to both victims and offenders, and comprehensive training of criminal justice professionals and partners. Most importantly, these overarching goals emerged as the group set out to identify ways to improve the restitution process: - Make restitution a priority: Restitution should be regarded as a right of victims who have been harmed by a criminal offense, and the justice system should take steps to ensure that offenders pay restitution to the greatest extent possible. - Establish a clear, consistent process: Strive for a measure of consistency and uniformity in restitution process and procedures across the state, with the end result that all victims have the same opportunity to be made whole. - Rely on data: Continue the comprehensive examination of restitution data, and determine ways to make relevant information readily available to stakeholders in the system. - Devote resources: Devote resources to the restitution process to make it more efficient and effective. Invest in technological strategies that can improve restitution processing and collection, track restitution payments, aid in ensuring that victims are a part of this process, and facilitate the evaluation of restitution collection efforts. - System oversight: Establish an ongoing, collaborative group of stakeholders responsible for overseeing restitution on a statewide level, including review of new statutory provisions to ensure they have the desired effect, monitoring the restitution collection data, and promoting adoption of recommendations from the RWG. The end result of the RWG process was a set of statutory and practice recommendations put forward by the RWG to stakeholder constituencies and the legislature for future implementation. To ensure that these recommendations are implemented, the RWG proposes the following: - Form a drafting committee: An ad hoc drafting committee should be convened in 2015 to undertake the task of revising Minnesota Statutes section 611A.04 to incorporate statutory changes recommended by the RWG and improve the overall organization and clarity of the statute. - Distribute findings: Publicize the findings of the RWG, and encourage the adoption of improved restitution practices by those involved in the process. Present the findings from the RWG to all key stakeholder groups. - Request legislative action: The RWG requests that the Minnesota Legislature consider the comprehensive legislative proposal to be submitted in the 2016 session. Further, the RWG requests continued support from the Legislature for all efforts aimed at increasing the efficiency of the process, improving the likelihood of collecting restitution, and focusing efforts on those offenders with the ability to pay restitution. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 2015. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/Restitution%20Working%20Group/Minnesota%20Restitution%20Working%20Group%20Report%20January%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/Restitution%20Working%20Group/Minnesota%20Restitution%20Working%20Group%20Report%20January%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 136414 Keywords: RestitutionVictim CompensationVictims of Crime |
Author: Johnston, David W. Title: Victimisation, Wellbeing and Compensation: Using Panel Data to Estimate the Costs of Violent Crime Summary: The costs of violent crime victimisation are often left to a judge, tribunal or jury to determine; leading to the potential for considerable subjectivity and variation. Using unique panel data, this paper provides compensation estimates that can help reduce the subjectivity of awards by giving a benchmark for the compensation required to offset direct and intangible costs. First, individual-area fixed-effects models allowing for adaptation to crime are estimated to assess the effects of violent crime victimisation on diverse measures of wellbeing.These results are then subsequently used to calculate the monetary compensation required to offset the wellbeing losses. Estimates allowing for the endogeneity of income suggest that A$88,000 is required to compensate the average crime victim. We find some evidence that compensation estimates are larger if the wellbeing losses of female family members are considered, and are larger for females if the perpetrator of the crime is a stranger rather than a partner, friend or relative. Details: Berlin: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 9311 : Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2655351 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2655351 Shelf Number: 136709 Keywords: Costs of Crime Victim CompensationVictimization Violent Crime |
Author: U.S. General Accounting Office Title: Federal Criminal Restitution: Most Debt Is Outstanding and Oversight of Collections Could Be Improved Summary: One of the goals of federal criminal restitution is to restore victims of federal crimes to the position they occupied before the crime was committed by providing compensation. Various entities within the federal government are involved in the process of requesting, ordering, and collecting restitution for crime victims, including DOJ and the judiciary. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 includes a provision for GAO to review the federal criminal restitution process for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. This report addresses, among other things: (1) the extent to which information is available on restitution requested by DOJ and ordered by courts; (2) the amount of restitution debt DOJ collected and the amount that remains outstanding; and, (3) the extent to which DOJ has conducted oversight on the collection of restitution. GAO analyzed laws, policies and procedures as well as USSC data on restitution orders and DOJ data on restitution collected from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. GAO also selected a non-generalizable sample of six federal judicial districts based on restitution collections and spoke with USAO officials and federal probation officers. What GAO Recommends - GAO is making three recommendations. GAO is making one to the judiciary to determine why data on restitution orders are incomplete. GAO is making two recommendations to DOJ, including one to implement performance measures and goals for the collection of restitution. The judiciary and DOJ concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2018. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-203: Accessed February 2, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689830.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689830.pdf Shelf Number: 148979 Keywords: Restitution Victim CompensationVictims of Crime |
Author: Victorian (Australia) Auditor General Title: Follow up of Asset Confiscation Scheme Summary: Asset confiscation is a tool that Victoria's law enforcement and public prosecution agencies use in response to criminal activity. There are three key agencies that work together to achieve the objectives of the Asset Confiscation Scheme-Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Justice & Regulation. This follow-up audit examined the progress the three agencies have made in implementing actions to address the 25 recommendations from our 2013 audit of the Asset Confiscation Scheme. While all recommendations were accepted, this has not necessarily translated into timely implementation of business improvements. The audit found that agencies were slow to address the 2013 recommendations. To some extent, agencies were hindered by leadership changes at two of the agencies, legislative reform and the inevitable challenges of seeking agreement across three independent organisations. We found that there has been recent progress in terms of the partner agencies agreeing to a new governance framework and strategic plan, with further work required on the operational plan and performance framework. With new leadership appointments at Victoria Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions, there is a new opportunity to ensure that various issues with the governance arrangements for the Asset Confiscation Scheme are addressed in a timely manner. Details: Melbourne: Author, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2019 at: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160608-ACS.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160608-ACS.pdf Shelf Number: 154894 Keywords: Asset Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Restitution Victim Compensation |