United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

February 1998 TRUTH IN

SENTENCING

Availability of Federal

Grants Influenced

Laws in Some States

GAO/GGD-98-42

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-278066 

February 4, 1998

The Honorable William D. Delahunt

The Honorable Carolyn C. Kilpatrick

The Honorable Bart Stupak

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

The Honorable Vic Fazio

The Honorable Max Sandlin

The Honorable Bob Etheridge

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren

House of Representatives

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as amended,1

 provides, among other things, incentive grants to states that have, in

general, truth-in-sentencing (TIS) laws requiring violent offenders to serve

at least 85 percent of their imposed sentences. You asked us to determine

(1) the number of states that have enacted TIS laws that meet the federal

grant eligibility requirements, (2) whether the availability of federal grants

was a factor in these states’ decisions to enact TIS laws, and (3) reasons

why other states have not enacted TIS laws that meet the federal grant

requirements.

In addressing these issues, our work largely consisted of a telephone

survey of state officials to obtain testimonial evidence of why states have

or have not enacted TIS laws that meet federal grant requirements.

Although we requested legislative history and other documentary

materials, in some of the states, such materials either were not available or

were not readily identifiable by the state officials we contacted. Even if

such materials were available, measurement of the influence of federal

incentive grants on state legislative action could still be difficult,

particularly due to the multiplicity of factors that may be involved in the

political and legislative processes.

Nonetheless, in inquiring about how many states have enacted

grant-qualifying TIS laws and the factors that led the states to pass these

laws, we obtained from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Corrections

Program Office lists of the states that received TIS incentive grants in fiscal

years 1996 and 1997. Using these lists, we contacted (by telephone) the

grant coordinator in each state—generally a designated position

responsible for violent offender incarceration grants as well as TIS grants

within an executive branch agency, such as the state’s department of

1

Public Law 103-322, Sept. 13, 1994, (the “1994 Crime Act”).

Page 1 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

corrections—for his or her insights and opinions regarding the influence

of the federal incentive grants on the state’s decision to enact a TIS law. We

followed a similar procedure in contacting those states that had not

enacted grant-qualifying TIS legislation as of the time of our review. That is,

in each state, we contacted the violent offender incarceration grant2

coordinator to confirm whether or not the state had a grant-qualifying TIS

law, and, if not, the reasons why the state had not enacted one.

To corroborate this testimonial evidence, we asked that each grant

coordinator refer us to other knowledgeable officials in the

state—including legislative branch officials as well as officials in other

executive branch offices or agencies, such as sentencing commissions.

Also, in our telephone discussions with the grant coordinators and other

officials, we requested a copy of any available legislative history materials

(e.g., conference or committee reports) and any other documentary

evidence (e.g., cost-benefit analyses or studies regarding the advantages

and/or disadvantages of the federal TIS grants).

We performed our work from September 1997 to December 1997 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix I provides further details about our objectives, scope, and

methodology.

Background The 1994 Crime Act, as amended, authorized DOJ to provide TIS incentive

grants to eligible states for building or expanding correctional facilities

and jails to increase the secure confinement space for persons convicted

of Part 1 violent crimes.3

 The federal TIS grants, which are administered by

DOJ’s Corrections Program Office, are, in general, to be awarded to states

that have a law requiring convicted violent crime offenders to serve at

least 85 percent of the sentence imposed.4

 The TIS awards are formula

grants, which are to be allocated, in general, to each eligible state on the

basis of its share of the average annual number of violent crimes for the

preceding 3 years, as reported to the FBI for all eligible states.

2

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories have received violent offender incarceration

grants, which also were authorized by the 1994 Crime Act.

3

For the purposes of the TIS grant provision, the term “Part 1 violent crimes” means murder and

nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, as reported to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.

4

The federal TIS grants are available to the states, the District of Columbia, and the territories (namely,

Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands). However,

in our study, we surveyed only the states and the District of Columbia.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

According to DOJ’s grant application guidelines, in calculating time served,

a state may include only the actual time an offender is committed to the

care and custody of the correctional agency. Thus, any administrative or

statutory time credits—such as reductions for good behavior, earned time,

meritorious conduct, or population control releases—should not be

included in the time-served calculations. Further, any probation and parole

time should not be included in the calculations. However, jail time served

can be included in the calculations, as can be the time served in

community and reintegration placements.

Results in Brief At the time of our review, based upon determinations made by DOJ, 27

states had TIS laws that met the requirements for receiving federal TIS

grants.5 For each of these 27 states, we contacted state officials to

determine whether the availability of such grants was a factor in the

respective state’s decision to enact a TIS law. Based on the responses to

our telephone survey, the states can be grouped into three categories—TIS

grants not a factor (12 states), TIS grants a partial factor (11 states), and TIS

grants a key factor (4 states).

The other 23 states and the District of Columbia did not receive federal TIS

grants in fiscal year 1997. In our telephone survey, we confirmed these

jurisdictions did not have TIS laws that met federal grant requirements. For

these 23 states and the District of Columbia, we contacted state and

District officials to determine why the respective jurisdiction had not

enacted TIS legislation that meets federal grant eligibility requirements.

The reasons given in response to our telephone survey can be grouped

into three categories—(1) prison construction and/or operation costs

would be too high, even with the federal grant money (16 states);

(2) current sentencing practices appear to be working well (5 states); and

(3) various other reasons (2 states and the District of Columbia).

Number of States With

TIS Laws That Meet

Federal Grant

Requirements

As table 1 shows, for fiscal year 1996, DOJ determined that 25 states met

the eligibility requirements for federal TIS grants. For that year, a total of 30

states applied for TIS grants, but DOJ determined that 5 applicant states did

not meet the eligibility requirements. To the 25 eligible states in fiscal year

1996, DOJ awarded a total of $195.8 million in TIS grants, ranging from

$76,322 for North Dakota to about $45.8 million for California.

5

All 27 of these states received TIS grants in fiscal year 1997.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

For fiscal year 1997, DOJ determined that 24 of the 25 states that received

grants in fiscal year 1996 were eligible for TIS grants, along with 3 new

applicant states (Maine, New Jersey, and Oklahoma). Thus, to the 27

eligible states in fiscal year 1997, DOJ awarded a total of $234.9 million in

TIS grants, ranging from $100,433 for North Dakota to about $55.7 million

for California.

Table 1: States With TIS Laws That Met

Federal Grant Eligibility Requirements

(Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997)

States Amount awarded 1996 Amount awarded 1997

Arizona $4,144,752 $5,379,028

California 45,789,751 55,740,321

Connecticut 2,058,686 2,586,755

Delaware 665,908 868,724

Florida 22,739,227 28,726,509

Georgia 6,889,904 8,770,736

Illinoisa 16,362,634 0

Iowa 1,342,501 1,659,781

Kansas 1,697,302 2,088,064

Louisiana 6,282,717 7,849,531

Maineb 0 297,453

Michigan 10,181,903 12,368,459

Minnesota 2,270,145 3,014,541

Mississippi 1,822,374 2,481,235

Missouri 5,416,082 6,590,986

New Jerseyc 0 8,601,321

New York 24,970,018 28,555,605

North Carolina 6,677,873 8,429,425

North Dakota 76,322 100,433

Ohio 7,806,005 9,654,038

Oklahomad 0 3,889,841

Oregon 2,276,727 2,934,952

Pennsylvania 7,312,870 9,624,634

South Carolina 5,299,787 6,867,037

Tennessee 5,643,092 7,470,690

Utah 850,225 1,170,147

Virginia 3,411,490 4,351,063

Washington 3,847,430 4,806,020

Total $195,835,725 $234,877,329

(Table notes on next page)

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

aAccording to an Illinois official, Illinois law requiring violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent

of the imposed sentence applies only to violent crimes involving bodily harm. The Illinois official

told us that, in 1996, the state was awarded TIS grant funds with the understanding that the state

must change its law to include other violent crimes as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports

to receive grant money in subsequent years. The Illinois official said that the state did not change

its definition to meet the federal eligibility requirements and, thus, did not apply for grant money in

1997.

bMaine did not apply in fiscal year 1996.

cNew Jersey applied in fiscal year 1996, but its application was not approved due to state law

parole provisions. New Jersey changed its law in 1997.

dOklahoma did not apply in fiscal year 1996.

Source: DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, Corrections Program Office.

Some States Say That

the Availability of

Federal TIS Grants

Influenced Enactment

of Laws

For each of the 27 states that received federal grants in fiscal year 1997,

we contacted state officials to determine whether the availability of such

grants was a factor in the respective state’s decision to enact a TIS law. On

the basis of responses to our telephone survey, we grouped the 27 states

into the 3 categories shown in figure 1—(1) TIS grants not a factor, (2) TIS

grants a partial factor, and (3) TIS grants a key factor.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

Figure 1: Influence of Federal TIS

Grants on State Laws Influence of federal

TIS grants on state laws

Arizona

California

Delaware

Georgia

Michigan

Minnesota

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Utah

Washington

Connecticut

Florida

Iowa

Mississippi

Missouri

New Jersey

North Dakota

South Dakota

Tennessee

Virginia

Louisiana

Maine

New York

Oklahoma

1993

1994

1989

1994

1994

1992

1993

1995

1995

1911

1985

1990

1995

1995

1996

1995

1994

1997

1995

1995

1995

1994

1996

1995

1995

1997

1/01/94

9/21/94

6/30/90

1/01/95

6/27/94

8/01/93

10/01/94

7/01/96

4/01/95

1911

12/01/85

7/01/90

7/01/96

10/01/95

7/01/96

7/01/95

8/28/94

6/09/97

8/01/95

1/01/96

7/01/95

1/01/95

1/01/97

10/01/95

10/01/95

7/01/98

State Grants not a

factor

Grants a partial

factor

Grants a key

factor

Year

passed

Date

effective

Kansas 1992 7/01/93 a

aKansas amended its law in 1995 to conform to the federal TIS eligibility requirements.

Source: GAO summary of information provided by the states, including opinions of state officials.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

TIS Grants Not a Factor As figure 1 indicates, state officials in 12 states told us that their respective

state’s legislation was not influenced at all by the availability of the federal

grants. In several of these states, for example, TIS legislation was enacted

long before the 1994 Crime Act. The clearest illustration is Pennsylvania,

which, according to a state official, enacted its legislation in 1911.

Some states, such as Georgia and California, enacted TIS laws at

approximately the same time that the 1994 Crime Act was passed. Officials

in these states told us that the federal grants authorized by the 1994 Crime

Act did not influence the respective state’s TIS legislation. California was

one of the few states where we were able to corroborate such testimonial

evidence by obtaining and reviewing legislative history materials. For

example, we did not find mention of the federal grants in any of the

legislative history. Rather, among other things, the legislative history

reflected concern that violent offenders were eligible for generous

sentence reductions (based upon work credits), whereas “victims often

serve a lifetime sentence.”

Figure 1 also shows that Ohio is 1 of the 12 states included in the

not-a-factor category. According to Ohio officials, the state passed its TIS

law in 1995, which is later than the enactment date of the 1994 Crime Act.

However, the officials told us the state law was based on a July 1993

report by the Ohio Sentencing Commission. Thus, according to the state

officials, the availability of federal grants did not influence the state’s

decision to pass TIS legislation. Rather, according to Ohio officials, a

widespread concern about early release of violent crime offenders was a

major factor in the state’s decision to pass TIS legislation.

TIS Grants a Partial Factor Figure 1 shows that 11 of the 27 grant-recipient states are included in the

partial-factor category. Officials in these 11 states told us that the federal

grants played a role, although not necessarily a major or decisive one, in

the passage of the respective state’s TIS legislation. Generally, the officials

told us that the major factors were the respective state’s

get-tough-on-crime initiatives, which they said were begun independently

of the 1994 Crime Act.

Mississippi is one of the states included in the partial-factor category. A

Mississippi official told us that, in addition to the availability of federal

grants, various other factors—particularly the state’s get-tough-on-crime

initiatives and dissatisfaction with the parole system—led to the passage

of Mississippi’s TIS law. This official estimated that the federal grants were

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

perhaps a “25-percent” factor in influencing enactment of the state’s TIS

law.

TIS Grants a Key Factor Finally, figure 1 shows that 4 of the 27 grant-recipient states are included

in the key-factor category. That is, in these four states, officials told us that

the availability of the federal grants was a key factor in the respective

state’s decision to enact tougher sentencing laws. For example, of the four

states included in the key-factor category, Oklahoma has the most recent

TIS law enactment. Officials in Oklahoma told us that, initially, the state

was considering a TIS law requiring offenders to serve 75 percent of the

court-imposed sentences. The officials noted, however, that state

legislators changed to an 85-percent requirement in order to qualify for the

federal grants.

Reasons Why Some

States Say That They

Do Not Have TIS Laws

That Meet Federal

Grant Requirements

As discussed above, at the time of our review, DOJ had determined that 27

states had TIS laws that met federal grant requirements in fiscal year 1997.

The other 23 states and the District of Columbia did not receive federal TIS

grants in fiscal year 1997. These jurisdictions did not have TIS laws that

met federal grant requirements.

For the 23 states and the District of Columbia that did not receive federal

TIS grants in fiscal year 1997, we contacted state and District of Columbia

officials to determine the reasons why the respective jurisdiction had not

enacted TIS legislation that meets federal eligibility requirements. On the

basis of responses to our telephone survey, we grouped the reasons given

by the states and the District of Columbia into the three categories shown

in figure 2—(1) prison construction and/or operation costs would be too

high, even with the grant money; (2) current sentencing practices appear

to be working well; and (3) various other reasons.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

Figure 2: Reasons Why Some

Jurisdictions Have Not Enacted TIS

Laws That Meet Federal Grant

Eligibility Requirements (as of

November 1997)

Reasons TIS law not enacted

Alabama

Arkansas

Colorado

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Maryland

Montana

Nebraska

New Mexico

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Vermont

West Virginia

Wyoming

Idaho

Massachusetts

Nevada

New Hampshire

Texas

Alaska

District of Columbia

Wisconsin

Prison construction and/or

operation costs would

be too high

Current sentencing

practices appear to

be working well

Other reason: grant applied 

 for, but existing TIS law did 

 not meet federal requirements

Other reason: considering a 

 TIS bill at the time of our

Jurisdiction review

a

aIllinois received a federal TIS grant in 1996 but not in 1997 (see figure 1, note a).

Source: GAO summary of opinions of state and District of Columbia officials.

Construction and/or

Operation Costs Too High

As figure 2 shows, officials in 16 states identified costs as the main

impediment to passing TIS legislation. Various officials commented that the

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

federal grant money would cover only a small percentage of a state’s

prison construction and operation costs. For example, an official in

Vermont told us that implementing a TIS law meeting the federal

requirements would cost Vermont several million dollars, whereas the

state would receive only about $80,000 in federal TIS grants.

Current Sentencing

Practices Are Satisfactory

Officials in five states (Idaho, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire,

and Texas) told us that the current sentencing practices in the respective

state appear to be working well. Thus, according to these officials, the

respective state is satisfied with its current sentencing practices and is not

pursuing TIS legislation that would meet the federal grant eligibility

requirements.

Other Reasons As figure 2 shows, one state (Alaska) and the District of Columbia applied

for federal TIS grants. However, DOJ determined that the TIS laws in these

two jurisdictions did not meet the federal grant eligibility requirements.

Also, at the time of our review, another state, Wisconsin, was considering

a TIS bill. A Wisconsin official told us, however, that there has been

considerable debate whether the TIS funding is important enough to

change the state’s current legislation.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We sent a draft of this report to the Attorney General for comments. On

January 6, 1998, we received writtent comments from DOJ’s Corrections

Program Office. DOJ generally agreed with the content of the report and

provided technical comments and clarifications. We have incorporated

these comments and clarifications where appropriate in this report.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 5 days from the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the

Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate

Judiciary Committees; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the

House and Senate Appropriations’ Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice,

State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies; the Attorney General; the

Director, Office of Justice Programs; the Director, Corrections Program

Office; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and officials we

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
B-278066 

contacted in each state. We will also make copies available to others on

request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If you have any

questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777.

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration

 of Justice Issues

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

14

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

20

Tables Table 1: States With TIS Laws That Met Federal Grant Eligibility

Requirements

4

Table I.1: List of Organizations and Officials Contacted by GAO 16

Figures Figure 1: Influence of Federal TIS Grants on State Laws 6

Figure 2: Reasons Why Some Jurisdictions Have Not Enacted TIS

Laws That Meet Federal Grant Eligibility Requirements

9

Abbreviations

DOJ Department of Justice

TIS truth in sentencing

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In a letter dated July 9, 1997, nine Congressmen requested that we review

the impact on state sentencing practices of the truth-in-sentencing (TIS)

incentive grants established under title II of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322). As agreed with the

requesters, we conducted work in the states and the District of Columbia

to address the following questions:

• How many states have enacted TIS laws that meet the federal grant

eligibility requirements?

• Of the states that have enacted TIS laws that meet the federal grant

eligibility requirements, was the availability of these grants a factor in their

decision to do so?

• Of the states that have not enacted TIS laws that meet the federal grant

eligibility requirements, what are the reasons for their not doing so?

To determine how many states have enacted grant-qualifying TIS laws and

the factors that led the states to pass these laws, we focused on states that

received federal incentive grants in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The

Department of Justice’s Corrections Program Office, which administers

the federal TIS grants, provided us lists of these recipient states. We

confirmed this list by interviewing appropriate officials (by telephone) in

the states. For each state that received a federal grant, we contacted the

respective state’s TIS grant coordinator—generally a designated position

within an executive branch agency, such as the state’s department of

corrections. For the other 23 states (i.e., those that did not receive a TIS

grant in either year) and the District of Columbia, we contacted the

respective jurisdiction’s violent offender incarceration grant6

 coordinator

to verify that these jurisdictions did not have relevant TIS laws.

For each TIS state, we contacted the grant coordinator to obtain

information regarding the state’s TIS law, such as the enactment date, the

effective date, and whether any amendments have been made. We did not

independently verify the information provided to us by the states. Further,

in each TIS state, we asked the grant coordinator for his or her insights and

opinions regarding the influence of the federal incentive grants on the

state’s decision to enact a TIS law. To corroborate this testimonial

evidence, we asked that each grant coordinator refer us to other

knowledgeable officials in the state—including legislative branch officials

as well as officials in other executive branch offices or agencies such as

sentencing commissions.

6

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories have received violent offender incarceration

grants, which also were authorized by the 1994 Crime Act.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In our telephone discussions with these officials in each TIS

state—discussions that focused on trying to determine whether the federal

incentive grants were a factor in the state’s decision to pass TIS

legislation—we requested a copy of any available legislative history

materials, such as conference reports, committee reports, or records of

pertinent hearings. Also, if available, we requested a copy of any

cost-benefit analyses and/or other state studies regarding the advantages

and/or disadvantages of the federal TIS grants.

Legislative history and other documentary materials generally are sources

of evidence to help ascertain whether the federal grants were or were not

a factor in a state’s decision to pass TIS legislation. However, in some of

the states, such materials either were not available or were not readily

identifiable by the grant coordinators and other officials we contacted.

Even if such materials were available, measurement of the influence of

federal incentive grants on state legislative action could still be difficult,

particularly due to the multiplicity of factors that may be involved in the

political and legislative processes.

We followed a similar procedure in contacting those states and the District

of Columbia that have not enacted grant-qualifying TIS legislation. As we

did with the states with qualifying legislation, we contacted the violent

offender incarceration grant coordinator to obtain his or her opinions on

why the state did not pursue enacting legislation that would qualify it for

the TIS grant. In addition, to corroborate this testimonial evidence, we

likewise asked the grant coordinators to refer us to other knowledgeable

executive and legislative branch individuals to discuss reasons why the

jurisdiction had not enacted a TIS law that meets the federal grant

eligibility requirements. Also, in our telephone discussions with these

individuals, we requested a copy of any available documentary materials

(e.g., state studies or analyses, legislative reports, etc.) regarding this

issue.

Table I.1 lists the organizations and officials we contacted in each of the

states and the District of Columbia.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Table I.1: List of Organizations and

Officials Contacted by GAO Jurisdiction Organizations and officials contacted

Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs:

—Program Manager, Law Enforcement Traffic

Safety Division

Department of Corrections:

—Director, Research, Monitoring, and

Evaluation Unit

Alaska Department of Law and Corrections:

—Assistant Attorney General

Arizona Department of Corrections:

—Grant Manager

—Legislative Liaison

—Manager, Research Unit, Policy and Research

Bureau

Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration:

—Administrator, Office of Intergovernmental

Services

Sentencing Commission:

—Director

California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency:

—Deputy Secretary, Fiscal Programs

Department of Corrections:

—Fiscal Analyst, Planning and Construction

Division

—Senior Staff Counsel, Legal Affairs Division

Colorado Department of Public Safety:

—Planning and Grants Specialist for Violent

Offender and Residential Substances

Treatment Program, Division of Criminal

Justice

Connecticut Office of Policy and Management:

—Planning Specialist, Policy Development and

Planning Division

Delaware Department of Corrections:

—Deputy Principal Assistant to the

Commissioner

District of Columbia Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

—Program Manager, Office of Grants Management

and Development

Florida Department of Community Affairs:

—Community Program Administrator

Executive Office of the Governor:

—Senior Policy Analyst for Public Safety

Issues

Georgia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council:

—Chief of Staff

(continued)

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Jurisdiction Organizations and officials contacted

Hawaii Department of Public Safety:

—Administrative Assistant to the Director

Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections:

—Quality Assurance Manager

Department of Corrections:

—Administrator, Field and Community Services

Division

Supreme Court:

—Administrative Director of the Courts

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority:

—Senior Administrator, Federal and State

Grant Unit

Indiana Department of Corrections:

—Director, Planning Division

Iowa Department of Corrections:

—Executive Officer

Kansas Department of Corrections:

—Assistant to the Secretary of Corrections

Kansas Legislature:

—Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary

—Staff, Legislative Research Office

Kentucky Justice Cabinet:

—Grants Manager

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections:

—Executive Officer to the Under Secretary

Maine Department of Pubic Safety:

—Senior Planner/Justice Assistance Program

Administrator

Department of Corrections:

—Correctional Planning Specialist

Maryland Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention:

—Criminal Justice Grants Manager

Office of the Lieutenant Governor:

—Policy Director

Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety:

—Deputy Director, Committee on Criminal

Justice

Michigan Department of Corrections:

—Acting Administrator, Office of Planning,

Research, and Management Information

Services

Minnesota Department of Corrections:

—Project Manager/Prison Warden

(continued)

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Jurisdiction Organizations and officials contacted

Mississippi Department of Corrections:

—Deputy Commissioner for Institutions

Missouri Department of Corrections:

—Director of Planning, Research, and

Evaluation

—Legislative Liaison

Montana Department of Corrections:

—Grants Coordinator

Nebraska Department of Corrections:

—Manager, Planning and Research Division

Nevada Department of Motor Vehicle and Public Safety:

—Administrator, Office of Criminal Justice

Assistance

New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General:

—Director of Administration, Department of

Justice

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety:

—Grants Coordinator, Division of Criminal

Justice

—Deputy Director, Division of Criminal

Justice

New Mexico Department of Corrections:

—Planner, Administrative Services Division

New York Department of Criminal Justice:

—Director, Criminal Justice Services

Division, Office of Funding and Program

Assistance

—Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel

North Carolina Department of Corrections:

—Special Assistant to the Secretary of

Corrections

North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:

—Program Coordinator (Special Projects

Officer)

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction:

—Chief, Office of Grants Management

Sentencing Commission:

—Director

Oklahoma Department of Corrections:

—Assistant Director for Community Sentencing

—Policy Advisor, Chief of Staff Office

Oregon Department of Police:

—Grant Coordinator, Criminal Justice Services

Division

Oregon Criminal Justice Commission:

—Executive Director

(continued)

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Jurisdiction Organizations and officials contacted

Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency:

—Director, Bureau of Program Development

Rhode Island Department of Corrections:

—Associate Director of Financial Resources

—Associate Director of Planning and Research

South Carolina Department of Corrections:

—Chief of Financial Accounting

South Dakota Department of Corrections:

—Director, Juvenile Services Division

—Director, Program and Planning Division

Tennessee Department of Corrections:

—Assistant to the Commissioner

Texas Office of the Governor:

—Criminal Justice Policy Director

Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice:

—Director

Sentencing Commission:

—Director

Vermont Department of Corrections:

—Director of Planning

Virginia Department of Corrections:

—Capital Outlay Analyst, Administrative

Division

Washington Department of Corrections:

—Assistant to the Secretary for Federal

Relations

—Director of Research and Planning

West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety: 

—Justice Programs Administrator, Justice

Programs Section, Criminal Justice and

Highway Safety Division

Wisconsin Department of Corrections:

—Budget and Policy Analyst, Bureau of Budget

Wyoming Department of Corrections:

—Management Services Administrator

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Danny R. Burton, Assistant Director, Administration of Justice Issues

Anthony L. Hill, Evaluator-in-Charge

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Rachel DeMarcus, Assistant General Counsel

Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Senior Attorney

Dallas Field Office Donna B. Svoboda, Evaluator

(182044) Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100