Director's
Message
Reentry Programs
for Women Inmates
The Voice
Response Translator: A Valuable Police Tool
Telemarketing
Predators: Finally, We've Got Their Number
Truth in Sentencing and State Sentencing Practices
Special Technologies for Law Enforcement and Corrections
Tracking Modern Day Slavery
Prosecutors'
Programs Ease Victims' Anxieties
The Decline of Intimate Partner Homicide
|
NIJ
Journal No. 252 • July 2005
Truth in Sentencing and State Sentencing Practices
by Katherine J. Rosich and Kamala Mallik Kane
This article is based on Influences
of Truth-in-Sentencing Reforms on Changes in States
Sentencing Practices and Prison Populations, by William
J. Sabol (Principal Investigator), Katherine J. Rosich,
Kamala Mallik Kane, David Kirk, and Glenn Dubin, The Urban
Institute, Justice Policy Center. This project was funded
by NIJ grant number 98CEVX0006. The full
report (NCJ 195161) and Executive Summary (NCJ 195163) are
both available from NCJRS.
Starting in the late 1980s, States enacted various
reforms to increase punishments for violent offenders and
ensure greater certainty in sentencing, including mandatory
minimum sentences and truth in sentencing (TIS).
TIS refers to practices designed to reduce the apparent
disparity between court-imposed sentences and the time offenders
actually serve in prison.
Federal legislation passed in 1994 as part of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (the Crime Act)
and amended in 1996 aimed to promote reform by providing
States with grants to expand their prison capacity if they
imposed TIS requirements on violent offenders. The Federal
TIS Incentive Grant Program was based on a so-called 85-percent
rule, meaning that States were to have or pass laws requiring
serious violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of
their imposed sentences in prison.[1]
Several grant eligibility criteria were established, allowing
States with diverse sentencing structures to qualify, including
those with determinate or indeterminate sentencing and those
with parole release.
An Urban Institute study sponsored by NIJ examined the
effects of this Federal TIS legislation on State TIS reforms
and of selected State TIS policies on prison populations.
The study focused on two questions:
- Did States incorporate TIS into their laws and, if so,
to what extent did the Federal TIS Incentive Grant Program
influence reforms?
Although many States had enacted TIS laws, the study concluded
there was limited Federal influence on State TIS policies.
State reforms typically pre-dated the Federal legislation
or were incremental adjustments to existing practices.
- Did State TIS practices lead to changes in prison populations?
The study found that State TIS practices generally increased
the expected length of time to be served, but these increases
were rarely the main contributor to increases in prison
populations. Changes in crime rates, arrests, and prison
admissions were often more influential.
Effects of the Federal TIS Incentive Grant Program on
State Reforms
The Federal TIS Incentive Grant Program was implemented
during a time when many States were already reforming their
sentencing structures, approaches, and practices. State
TIS reforms varied widelyfor example, the percentage
of sentence to be served differed and could be applied to
either the minimum or maximum termand many pre-dated
the enactment of the Federal grant program. By the end of
the 1990s, regardless of whether they received Federal
TIS grants, most States (41, plus the District of Columbia)
had implemented some form of TIS activity: 28 States and
the District of Columbia had met the eligibility criteria
for Federal funding and received grants, while 13 States
that had a form of TIS activity did not receive Federal
TIS grants. Having systematically reviewed all 50 States
sentencing reform activities before and after the enactment
of the Federal TIS Incentive Grant Program in 1994, the
researchers concluded that the Federal program, at best,
modestly influenced State TIS reforms.
Overall, Federal TIS grants were associated with relatively
few State TIS reforms. There was relatively little reform
activity after the 1994 enactment of the Federal TIS grant
program, as many States had already adopted some form of
TIS by that time. A comparison of States TIS provisions
before and after 1994 found that:
- Most States (30) made no further changes to their TIS
laws (including nine States that remained without any TIS
laws).
- Seven States made slight changes to the percentage of
sentence to be served by violent offenders (for example,
from 75 to 85 percent).
- Four States and the District of Columbia increased the
percentage of sentence to be served and eliminated parole
release for violent offenders.
- Nine States that had no TIS laws before 1994 passed sentencing
reforms that included TIS provisions.
Of the 21 States that enacted reforms after 1994, some
pursued Federal TIS grant funding and some did not. Analysis
of the reform process and reports from State officials revealed
that Federal TIS grant funding was a consideration in some
but not all of the States that made incremental changes
to increase the severity of existing TIS requirements. However,
Federal TIS grant funding was rarely the impetus behind
major reforms. In the nine States that introduced TIS provisions,
the reform process typically began before 1994 and, in all
but one, State officials cited it as a minor consideration
relative to other goals.
The analysis of reforms in just those jurisdictions that
received Federal TIS grants (28 States and the District
of Columbia) revealed a similar pattern of limited Federal
influence. Nearly half of the States (13) were funded on
the basis of preexisting TIS practices. Although Federal
TIS grant funding was often cited as influential in the
nine States that made incremental changes to their existing
TIS laws, among the seven jurisdictions (six States and
the District of Columbia) that undertook major reforms,
it was reported as a significant consideration in the reform
process by only one State.
Furthermore, among States that received Federal TIS funding,
the average annual grant award of $7.9 million was relatively
modest, equivalent to an average of 1 percent of the States
annual corrections expenditures.
ABOUT THE STUDYLEGISLATIVE EFFECTS
The effects of the Federal TIS Incentive Grant Program
on State laws were evaluated through an analysis of the
Federal legislation along with a systematic examination
of the timing and nature of relevant State legislation.
Interviews with State and Federal officials were also
conducted, and the existing literature was reviewed.
Effects of State TIS Practices on Prison Populations
The study also examined the effects of the various TIS
reforms implemented in the States during the early- to mid-1990s
on their prison populations. A quantitative analysis of
population, crime, arrest, and corrections data from seven
States focused on whether State TIS reforms led to changes
in punishments for violent offenders and, subsequently,
to increases in prison populations.
On the question of whether punishments for serious violent
offenders increased, the study found that the probability
of a prison admission given arrest for serious violent offenses
did not necessarily increase. The use of imprisonment increased
in four States, but decreased in the other three. However,
the severity of punishmentas measured by the expected
length of stay[2]for
those serious violent offenders who were sent to prison
increased in all five States that implemented reforms during
the study period. Conversely, in the two States that did
not implement TIS reforms during the study period, serious
violent offenders expected length of stay decreased
by 2 months.
Prison admissions and expected prison populations (the
prison population expected from prison admissions and expected
length of stay) increased in most of the States studied.
Expected prison populations, for example, increased in six
of the seven States. Some of these changes were influenced
by the States TIS reforms, but the study found that
sentencing decisions (i.e., the decision to imprison and
expected length of stay) were only one factor affecting
prison populations: changes in a States population,
crime rates, and arrests were also important. Although States
that implemented reforms during the study period could expect
longer lengths of stay to contribute to increases in expected
prison populations, this change was rarely the main factor
behind higher prison populations. In three States, increases
in arrests contributed the most to growth in expected prison
populations. In another three States, greater prison populations
were largely due to increases in their prison admission
rates. Only one States prison population increase
arose primarily from increased expected length of stay.
The study also examined whether States TIS reforms
influenced changes in the concentration of serious violent
offenders in prison. Although the number of serious violent
offenders admitted to prison increased in four of the seven
States studied, their share of total admissions rose in
only three States. Property and drug offense admissions
outpaced a rise in violent admissions in the remaining States.
Taking into account the expected length of stay for these
offenses, which often increased as well, serious violent
offenders share of the expected prison population
increased in only two States, stayed about the same in three
States, and decreased in the remaining two States.
The study concluded that State TIS reforms did not uniformly
account for changes in prison populations. An analysis of
the empirical changes in prison populations relative to
the patterns of sentencing reform led to several conclusions
about the preliminary effects of TIS in the seven States
studied:
- When implemented as part of a larger reform, TIS was associated
with large changes in prison admissions and expected populations.
However, the changes were more appropriately associated
with broader sentencing reforms than with TIS in particular.
Although TIS contributed to increases in the expected length
of stay, prison population changes were driven by differentials
in the probability of prison admission for violent and nonviolent
offenses.
- Violent prison admissions were sometimes outpaced by admissions
for property and drug offenses. Only two of the States studied
could expect violent offenders to comprise a greater share
of their prison populations in the postreform period. In
these two, sentencing reforms other than TIS emphasized
incarceration for violent offenses while simultaneously
encouraging alternate sanctions for other offenses.
- In States that made moderate or incremental reforms to
their TIS provisions, sentencing decisions influenced prison
populations, but their effects varied. In two States, increases
in the prison admission rate had a greater effect on prison
population than did changes in the expected length of stay.
The reverse was true in another State, where changes in
expected length of stay contributed more to prison population
growth than did changes in prison admissions.
- In States where TIS did not represent a change from previous
practice, changes in the volume and composition of prison
populations were more strongly influenced by presentencing
factors (such as crime and arrest rates) than by sentencing
decisions.
ABOUT THE STUDYPOPULATION EFFECTS
The effects of State TIS policies on prison populations
were examined through a quantitative analysis of State
populations, crimes, arrests, prison admissions, and sentence
lengths in seven States: Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington.
The study used a comparative case study methodology to
analyze changes in three outcomes: prison admissions,
expected length of stay, and the resulting expected prison
populations. Outcomes from a prereform period (1990 or
1991) were compared to outcomes in the postreform period
(1996 or 1998). Statistical decomposition methods were
used to determine the extent to which differences in expected
prison populations were influenced by sentencing reforms.
State outcomes were compared to identify possible commonalities
in patterns of change.
The seven States were chosen to reflect different models
of sentencing
and degrees of sentencing reform. Because truth in sentencing
is practiced within the context of other sentencing policies,
both determinate and indeterminate sentencing States were
selected, as were States with and without sentencing guidelines.
Two States New Jersey and Utahdid not implement
changes to their TIS practices during the study period,
but the rest made changes ranging from incremental adjustments
to comprehensive overhauls of the sentencing system.
Although the observations from these seven States are
informative, it should be noted that they were chosen
to illustrate different approaches to sentencing and are
not nationally representative. Further, because the analysis
was based on a limited postreform time frame, these findings
should be considered preliminary and updated with more
recent data to give a fuller picture of the effects of
truth in sentencing.
NCJ 208706
For More Information
- Contact Kamala Mallik Kane at the Urban Institute, Washington,
DC, 2022615857, kkane@ui.urban.org.
- Contact Katherine J. Rosich, Washington, DC, 2023621152,
krosich@erols.com.
- Contact William J. Sabol at the General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, 2025123464, sabolw@gao.gov.
Notes
- Serious violent offenses were defined as Federal Bureau
of Investigation Part 1 violent offenses: murder, rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault.
- The study used the concept of expected length of stay,
based on modeled estimates of time to be served under a
given sentencing regime, because the actual time served
by prisoners admitted in a given year cannot be known until
they are all released.
|
|