Truth In Sentencing: Availability of Federal Grants Influenced Laws in
Some States (Letter Report, 02/04/98, GAO/GGD-98-42).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed truth-in-sentencing
(TIS) laws, focusing on: (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.
GAO noted that: (1) at the time of GAO's review, based upon
determinations made by the Department of Justice (DOJ), 27 states had
TIS laws that met the requirements for receiving federal TIS grants; (2)
for each of these 27 states, GAO 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; (3) based on responses to GAO's
telephone survey, the states can be grouped into three categories--TIS
grants not a factor, TIS grants a partial factor, and TIS grants a key
factor; (4) the other 23 states and the District of Columbia did not
receive federal TIS grants in fiscal year 1997; (5) in GAO's telephone
survey, it confirmed these jurisdictions did not have TIS laws that met
federal grant requirements; (6) for these 23 states and the District of
Columbia, GAO contacted state and District officials to determine why
the respective jurisdiction had not enacted TIS legislation that meets
federal grant eligibility requirements; and (7) the reasons given in
response to the telephone survey can be grouped into three categories:
(a) prison construction or operation costs would be too high, even with
federal grant money; (b) current sentencing practices appear to be
working well; and (c) various other reasons.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-98-42
TITLE: Truth In Sentencing: Availability of Federal Grants
Influenced Laws in Some States
DATE: 02/04/98
SUBJECT: Correctional facilities
Federal/state relations
Federal grants
Criminals
Eligibility criteria
Prisoners
State-administered programs
State law
Law enforcement
Surveys
IDENTIFIER: District of Columbia
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
February 1998
TRUTH IN SENTENCING - AVAILABILITY
OF FEDERAL GRANTS INFLUENCED LAWS
IN SOME STATES
GAO/GGD-98-42
Truth in Sentencing
(182044)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOJ - Department of Justice
TIS - truth in sentencing
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
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
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 grant\2 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.
--------------------
\1 Public Law 103-322, Sept. 13, 1994, (the "1994 Crime Act").
\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.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
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.
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.
--------------------
\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.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
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).
--------------------
\5 All 27 of these states received TIS grants in fiscal year 1997.
NUMBER OF STATES WITH TIS LAWS
THAT MEET FEDERAL GRANT
REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
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.
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)
Amount awarded Amount awarded
States 1996 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
Illinois\a 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
Maine\b 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 Jersey\c 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
Oklahoma\d 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
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.
Figure 1: Influence of Federal
TIS Grants on State Laws
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\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.
TIS GRANTS NOT A FACTOR
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
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 perhaps a
"25-percent" factor in influencing enactment of the state's TIS law.
TIS GRANTS A KEY FACTOR
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
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.
Figure 2: Reasons Why Some
Jurisdictions Have Not Enacted
TIS Laws That Meet Federal
Grant Eligibility Requirements
(as of November 1997)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
As figure 2 shows, officials in 16 states identified costs as the
main impediment to passing TIS legislation. Various officials
commented that the 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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
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.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
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 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
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
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 grant\6
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.
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.
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 Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
Columbia --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
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
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
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\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.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II
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
*** End of document. ***