APPENDIX IV

Findings and Recommendations
by Subject for the 25 States Reviewed

Source: OIG Inspection Reports

Inmate Tracking and Population Projections: The state’s automated inmate tracking system required extensive manual verification and changes, which increased the potential for error. The state had difficulty developing inmate population projections.
Proposed Projects: The state had changed projects from those originally proposed in the grant application, but did not inform the OJP Corrections Program Office.
Accounting Systems: The state’s accounting system did not show the total grant funds awarded.
Audit Issues: Prior audits of the state indicated unresolved issues that may affect the state’s ability to manage grant funds.
Matching Funds: The state did not provide the required 10 percent matching funds from an appropriate source.
Expenditures: The state had spent grant funds on items that were not allowable under the grant.
Disbursements: The state had requested and received funds in excess of its immediate disbursement needs.
Reporting: The state did not submit timely and/or accurate reports to the OJP Corrections Program Office.

APPENDIX V

Prior Coverage

Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, “Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons,” January 1999, NCJ 170032, summarized three decades of sentencing reform. The report shows that in the early 1970’s, indeterminate sentencing prevailed, with parole boards deciding when offenders would be released from prison. In the 1980’s, states enacted sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences to ensure longer sentences and more uniform punishment. In the 1990’s, more than half the states had implemented truth-in-sentencing laws, which usually require violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Before the implementation of truth-in-sentencing laws, violent offenders served about 50 percent of the average sentence prior to release. As a result of truth-in-sentencing practices, the states’ prison population is expected to increase through the incarceration of more offenders for longer periods of time. On average, between 1990 and 1997, the prison population grew by 7 percent annually. The Bureau of Justice Statistics did not make any recommendations in the report.

General Accounting Office (GAO)

GAO Report No. GGD-98-42, “Truth in Sentencing: Availability of Federal Grants Influence Laws in Some States,” February 1998, addressed whether the availability of federal grants was a factor in a state’s decision to enact TIS laws, and the reasons why other states have not enacted TIS laws. The GAO found that 15 of the 27 states with TIS laws passed those laws, in part, to receive TIS grant funds. At the time of the GAO study, the District of Columbia had not enacted a TIS law, however, on April 23, 1998, the District of Columbia passed TIS legislation. The other 23 states did not have TIS laws or receive TIS funds. The availability of the grant funds was not a factor in 12 states, was a partial factor in 11 states, and was a key factor in 4 states. The 23 states without a TIS law stated that the costs of prison construction (even with grant funds) were prohibitive and believed current sentencing practices were working well. The GAO did not make any recommendations in the report.

#####