Sidebar: Despite Progress, Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability Remain Limited
IJ’s Forfeiture Transparency & Accountability report cards grade each state, D.C., DOJ and Treasury on six key elements of forfeiture transparency and accountability. Few states earn high marks across the board: Only Arizona receives all As and Bs. At the other end of the spectrum, Alaska, Montana and North Carolina receive all Fs—reflecting a complete lack of transparency. Many other states receive mostly Ds and Fs. The following tables summarize how states perform on each element.
Tracking Seized Property
Tracking key details about seized property, as well as related forfeiture and criminal cases, allows officials to responsibly manage property and properly evaluate forfeiture programs.
| Grade | Number of Details Tracked | States and Federal Departments | State/Dep’t Counts |
|---|---|---|---|
| A+ | 20 | Arizona | 1 |
| A | 18–19 | New Jersey | 1 |
| A- | 17 | Kansas, DOJ | 2 |
| B+ | 16 | Vermont | 1 |
| B | 14–15 | Alabama, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia | 4 |
| B- | 13 | Michigan, North Dakota | 2 |
| C+ | 12 | Idaho, Minnesota, Utah | 3 |
| C | 8–11 | Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming, Treasury | 17 |
| C- | 7 | Arkansas, Washington | 2 |
| D+ | 6 | Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota | 3 |
| D | 4–5 | California, D.C., Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas | 9 |
| D- | 3 | Kentucky, New Mexico, Wisconsin | 3 |
| F | 0–2 | Alaska, Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina | 5 |
Accounting for Forfeiture Fund Spending
Specifying the purpose of forfeiture fund expenditures promotes legislative oversight and responsible management of public funds.
| Grade | Number of Spending Categories Tracked | States and Federal Departments | State/Dep’t Counts |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 9–10 | Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming | 12 |
| B | 7–8 | Pennsylvania | 1 |
| C | 4–6 | Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, DOJ, Treasury | 5 |
| D | 2–3 | Nevada, New York | 2 |
| F | 0–1 | Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington | 26 |
| N/A | Agencies not permitted to spend forfeiture revenue | D.C., Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina | 5 |
Note: New Jersey and West Virginia are excluded because their reports are not yet available.
Statewide Forfeiture Reports
Statewide (or department-wide) forfeiture reports make it easier to evaluate forfeiture programs. The best reports provide (1) agency-by-agency data about (2) both seizures and forfeiture fund spending, (3) are compiled annually and (4) are submitted to the legislature.
| Grade | Number of Criteria Met | States and Federal Departments | State/Dep’t Counts |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 4 | Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, DOJ | 12 |
| B | 3 | Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Wyoming, D.C., Treasury | 19 |
| C | 2 | Indiana, Kentucky, South Dakota | 3 |
| D | 1 | Texas | 1 |
| F | 0 | Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin | 15 |
Note: Alabama, North Dakota and New Jersey are excluded because their new reports are not yet available.
Accessibility of Forfeiture Records
Laws requiring that forfeiture reports and other records be published online make forfeiture information easily accessible to legislators and the public.
| Grade | States and Federal Departments | State/Dep’t Counts | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Required by law to be published online | Alabama, Colorado, D.C., Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, DOJ, Treasury | 21 |
| B | Published online, although not required to be | Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin | 13 |
| C | Designated by law as public records subject to freedom-of-information requests | Arkansas, Delaware, Ohio, South Carolina | 4 |
| D | Known to exist, but not explicitly designated as public records | Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming | 12 |
| F | No known records | Alaska, Montana, North Carolina | 3 |
Penalties for Failure to File a Report
Strict penalties for failure to file required forfeiture reports and to do so on time are more likely to induce agency compliance.
| Grade | States and Federal Departments | State/Dep’t Counts | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Forfeiture funds withheld until report filed and agency fined for late filing | Georgia | 1 |
| B | Forfeiture funds withheld until report filed | Arizona, Arkansas*, Delaware, Kansas*, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey* | 7 |
| C | Agency fined or forced to pay for audit | Colorado*, Florida*, Missouri, Texas* | 4 |
| D | Agency identified in statewide report for failure to file | California, Maryland*, Michigan*, Nevada*, Pennsylvania, Utah | 6 |
| F | None | Alabama, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana*, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska*, New Hampshire, New Mexico*, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia*, Washington*, West Virginia*, Wisconsin, Wyoming, DOJ*, Treasury* | 26 |
| Incomplete | No reporting requirements to enforce | Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota | 9 |
* Indicates agencies must file even when they have nothing to report. Such “null” reports enable oversight bodies to identify agencies that
are failing to comply.
Financial Audits of Forfeiture Accounts
Regular independent audits ensure greater integrity in accounting for forfeiture revenue and spending.
| Grade | States and Federal Departments | State/Dep’t Counts | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Annual or biennial independent audit | Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, DOJ, Treasury | 11 |
| B | Annual or biennial internal audit | Michigan | 1 |
| C | Subject to independent audit at government oversight body’s discretion | California, Georgia, New York, Virginia, West Virginia | 5 |
| D | Subject to internal audit at government oversight body’s discretion | Louisiana | 1 |
| F | None | Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming | 30 |
| N/A | All forfeiture proceeds directed to a general fund | D.C., Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina | 5 |
See ij.org/TransparencyReportCards for the full report cards and grading methods.