The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Contents
Acknowledgements
Summary and Overview
Background
Research questions and summary of key findings
Overview of the report
CHAPTER 1. Varieties of Truth in Sentencing
Introduction
Background on the federal truth-in-sentencing grant program
Evolution of eligibility for federal TIS grants
Truth-in-sentencing grants awarded to states
Truth in sentencing in the states
Conclusions
CHAPTER 2. Influence of Federal Truth-in-Sentencing Reforms on
States' Sentencing Systems
Introduction and purpose of this chapter
Change in states' sentencing structures associated with federal reforms
Analysis of the patterns of change in states' truth-in-sentencing laws
Conclusions about the federal grant program role in influencing
truth in sentencing in the states
CHAPTER 3. Analysis of the Influences of Changes in
Sentencing Practices on Prison Admissions and Prison Populations
Introduction and summary of findings
Approach to the analysis
Analysis of percent of sentence served
State-specific results
Conclusions from the comparisons of the influences of sentencing
reforms on prison populations in the seven states
State-specific results
CHAPTER 4. Methodology
Analysis of 1994 and 1996 federal truth-in-sentencing legislation in chapter 1
Matrix of changes in state sentencing structures in chapter 2
Estimation of expected length of stay in chapter 3
Decomposition of changes in admissions and expected
prison population in chapter 3
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grant #NIJ 98-CE-VX-0006 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.
William J. Sabol served as the Principal Investigator and lead author of this report. Katherine Rosich contributed extensively to the conceptualization and writing of Chapters 1 and 2. Kamala Mallik Kane wrote the preliminary versions of these chapters and contributed to the analysis of changes in sentencing practices in Chapter 3. David Kirk and Glenn Dubin contributed to the conceptualization of the study and analysis of changes in sentencing practices. James P. Lynch of The American University contributed to the conceptualization and organization of the report.
Dr. Steve Van Dine, Director, Bureau of Research, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction provided data for this project. Dr. Allen J. Beck, Chief, Corrections Unit, and Doris Wilson and Paula Ditton of his staff provided assistance with the National Corrections Reporting Program data.
NIJ Program Monitors Janice Munsterman and Jordan Leiter (original grant monitor) provided assistance in the progress of this report.
Summary and Overview
BACKGROUND
Truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the states and in the federal government, there has been, during the past decade, much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. The federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (hereafter, the Crime Act), as amended in 1996, provided for federal grants to states to expand their prison capacity if they increased the incarceration of violent offenders. The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant programs represented two federal efforts to encourage states to increase the use of incarceration. To receive VOI funding, a state only needed to give assurances that it had or will implement(ed) policies that ensured that violent offenders served a substantial portion of their sentences, that made punishment for violent offenses sufficiently severe, and that assured that time served was appropriately related to the violent offender's status and to protect the public. States that met these requirements could receive some funding and all states did receive funding under these criteria. States could enhance their VOI funding by demonstrating that they increased punishment for violent offenders.
The VOI grant program did not require states to change their sentencing laws; however the TIS grant program required that states demonstrate that they has specific laws regarding the sentencing of violent offenders. As originally enacted under the Crime Act, the TIS grant program had two general requirements for states to receive TIS funding:
- First, that states have implemented laws requiring convicted violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence imposed; or
- Second, that states show that they have been increasing their punishment of violent offenders in recent years, and that they have laws requiring serious repeat violent offenders and drug offenders to serve 85 percent of their imposed sentences.1
Subsequent amendments to the law in 1996 required states to demonstrate that they enacted laws that were to be implemented within 3 years of their grant application that required violent offenders to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed. Chapter 1 provides more detailed description of the specific requirements contained in the laws. The Crime Act of 1994 provided that only states that had determinate sentencing could qualify for federal TIS grants. Subsequently, the 1996 amendments to the Crime Act expanded the requirements for TIS grants in several important ways, most notably, by allowing states that practiced indeterminate sentencing to qualify for federal TIS grants.
Upon expanding the eligibility requirements for federal TIS grants, the federal program recognized the variety of sentencing structures throughout the states and acknowledged that the federal requirements for grants could not require states to make dramatic changes to their sentencing practices in order to qualify for federal grant dollars (e.g., changes such as replacing indeterminate sentencing with determinate sentencing). Subsequently, the federal TIS grant program awarded grants to states that had forms of truth in sentencing that varied widely from the forms stated in the original, 1994 Crime Act grant eligibility requirements.
1 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, PL 103-322 § 20102 (a).
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:
Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.
Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
