National Evaluation of the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant Program, 1996-1999

This study evaluated the Violent Offender
Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) incentive grant program
enacted in 1994. The program provided grants to states to be used to
increase the capacity of state correctional systems to confine serious
and violent offenders. This national evaluation addressed four broad
areas: (1) How had the federal government implemented the law? How
much money had been made available and what were the criteria for
disbursement? (2) How had the states reacted legislatively to the law?
Did states adopt truth-in-sentencing or statutes having equivalent
effect? (3) How had the state VOI/TIS money been spent and for what?
How much did it increased prison capacities? (4) Did the law increase
the number of admissions, length of sentences, and terms served for
violent offenders? In addition to these four major areas, the study
looked at related areas of interest, such as the impact of VOI/TIS and
other "get tough" legislation on prosecutorial and judicial attitudes,
policies, and practices. It also examined state spending on
corrections, particularly for construction. The researchers
collaborated with the American Correctional Association (ACA), the
American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), and the Justice
Management Institute (JMI) to conduct special surveys among state
correctional officials, prosecutors, and judges. The ACA surveyed
state departments of correction in the summer of 1998. States were
asked to indicate the extent of changes in a number of prison
operations and activities since 1996, when VOI/TIS funds became
available. In the summer of 1999 the APRI surveyed prosecutors
nationwide to ascertain their perceptions of the effects of "get
tough" legislation (including TIS) on a number of dimensions. In the
fall of 1999, the JMI surveyed judges nationwide on their impressions
of the effectiveness of several "get tough" measures in their states,
including VOI/TIS. In Part 1, American Correctional Association Survey
Data, state correction departments were questioned on the amount of
VOI/TIS funds spent by their state since 1996, number of beds added
using VOI/TIS funds and in what types of facilities, how VOI/TIS funds
were used to increase number of beds, average prison sentences in 1993
and 1998 for different types of offenses, average time actually served
in 1993 and 1998 for those offenses, the effects of VOI/TIS on prison
and jail admissions for different types of offenders, and its effects
on the composition of the prison population, prison inmate activities
and programs, prison staffing, and prison operations. In Part 2,
American Prosecutors Research Institute Survey Data, prosecutors were
questioned about what "get tough" policies their states had enacted,
the efficacy of "get tough" policies in achieving their goals, whether
these policies had unanticipated or negative consequences, expected
results of these policies, the percentage of cases to which these
policies applied, the extent to which these policies had helped
accomplish their office's goals, the effects of "get tough" policies
on budget and resources, sentences and time actually served, and the
criminal justice process, the size of their jurisdiction, and the
number of staff in their office. In Part 3, Justice Management
Institute Survey Data, judges were questioned about whether their
state had enacted "get tough" policies in the past ten years, what
kinds of policies were adopted, their effect on the efficiency of case
processing, the formal positions of the Judicial Council and Judges
Association on the policies, whether the respondent or other judges
had input into the policies, how likely "get tough" policies were to
achieve certain goals, what results the respondent expected from the
policies, the impact of the policies on the criminal justice process,
years experience on the bench, the percentage of their caseload that
involved criminal cases, whether they handled civil, family
law/domestic relations, or juvenile cases, and the population of their
jurisdiction.