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

2,058,686

2,586,755

665,908

868,724

Florida

22,739,227

28,726,509

Georgia

6,889,904

8,770,736

Connecticut
Delaware

a

Illinois

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

b

Maine

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

0

8,601,321

24,970,018

28,555,605

6,677,873

8,429,425

New Jerseyc
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahomad

76,322

100,433

7,806,005

9,654,038

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

850,225

1,170,147

Virginia

3,411,490

4,351,063

Washington

3,847,430

4,806,020

$195,835,725

$234,877,329

Utah

Total

(Table notes on next page)

Page 4

GAO/GGD-98-42 Truth in Sentencing

B-278066

a
According 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.
b

Maine did not apply in fiscal year 1996.

c
New 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.
d

Oklahoma 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

Arizona

1993

1/01/94

California

1994

9/21/94

Delaware

1989

6/30/90

Georgia

1994

1/01/95

Michigan

1994

6/27/94

Minnesota

1992

8/01/93

North Carolina

1993

10/01/94

Ohio

1995

7/01/96

Oregon

1995

4/01/95

Pennsylvania

1911

1911

Utah

1985

12/01/85

Washington

1990

7/01/90

Connecticut

1995

7/01/96

Florida

1995

10/01/95

Iowa

1996

7/01/96

Kansas

1992a

7/01/93

Mississippi

1995

7/01/95

Missouri

1994

8/28/94

New Jersey

1997

6/09/97

North Dakota

1995

8/01/95

South Dakota

1995

1/01/96

Tennessee

1995

7/01/95

Virginia

1994

1/01/95

Louisiana

1996

1/01/97

Maine

1995

10/01/95

New York

1995

10/01/95

Oklahoma

1997

7/01/98

Gr
an
fac ts a
tor ke
y

Year
Date
passed effective

Gr
an
fac ts a
tor pa
rtia
l

State

Gr
an
fac ts n
tor ot a

Influence of federal
TIS grants on state laws

a

Kansas 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)

Jurisdiction

Pr
is
op on c
era on
be tion stru
too co ctio
hig sts n a
wo n d /
h
Cu
uld or
rre
pra nt s
cti ent
be ce
e
wo s ap ncin
rki pe g
ng ar
Ot
we to
h
for er re
ll
, b as
u
o
no
t
n
t m exi : g
ee stin ran
t fe g T t a
Ot
de IS ppl
he
ie
ral
l
TIS r re
req aw d d
as
id
u
b
i
o
r
rev ill a n:
em
iew t th con
en
e t si
ts
im de
e o rin
fo ga
ur

Reasons TIS law not enacted

Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Hawaii
Illinois a
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
a

Illinois 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
Figures

Table 1: States With TIS Laws That Met Federal Grant Eligibility
Requirements
Table I.1: List of Organizations and Officials Contacted by GAO
Figure 1: Influence of Federal TIS Grants on State Laws
Figure 2: Reasons Why Some Jurisdictions Have Not Enacted TIS
Laws That Meet Federal Grant Eligibility Requirements

4
16
6
9

Abbreviations
DOJ
TIS
FBI

Page 12

Department of Justice
truth in sentencing
Federal Bureau of Investigation

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