{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "This study evaluated the Violent Offender\r\nIncarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) incentive grant program\r\nenacted in 1994. The program provided grants to states to be used to\r\nincrease the capacity of state correctional systems to confine serious\r\nand violent offenders. This national evaluation addressed four broad\r\nareas: (1) How had the federal government implemented the law? How\r\nmuch money had been made available and what were the criteria for\r\ndisbursement? (2) How had the states reacted legislatively to the law?\r\nDid states adopt truth-in-sentencing or statutes having equivalent\r\neffect? (3) How had the state VOI/TIS money been spent and for what?\r\nHow much did it increased prison capacities? (4) Did the law increase\r\nthe number of admissions, length of sentences, and terms served for\r\nviolent offenders? In addition to these four major areas, the study\r\nlooked at related areas of interest, such as the impact of VOI/TIS and\r\nother \"get tough\" legislation on prosecutorial and judicial attitudes,\r\npolicies, and practices. It also examined state spending on\r\ncorrections, particularly for construction. The researchers\r\ncollaborated with the American Correctional Association (ACA), the\r\nAmerican Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), and the Justice\r\nManagement Institute (JMI) to conduct special surveys among state\r\ncorrectional officials, prosecutors, and judges. The ACA surveyed\r\nstate departments of correction in the summer of 1998. States were\r\nasked to indicate the extent of changes in a number of prison\r\noperations and activities since 1996, when VOI/TIS funds became\r\navailable. In the summer of 1999 the APRI surveyed prosecutors\r\nnationwide to ascertain their perceptions of the effects of \"get\r\ntough\" legislation (including TIS) on a number of dimensions. In the\r\nfall of 1999, the JMI surveyed judges nationwide on their impressions\r\nof the effectiveness of several \"get tough\" measures in their states,\r\nincluding VOI/TIS. In Part 1, American Correctional Association Survey\r\nData, state correction departments were questioned on the amount of\r\nVOI/TIS funds spent by their state since 1996, number of beds added\r\nusing VOI/TIS funds and in what types of facilities, how VOI/TIS funds\r\nwere used to increase number of beds, average prison sentences in 1993\r\nand 1998 for different types of offenses, average time actually served\r\nin 1993 and 1998 for those offenses, the effects of VOI/TIS on prison\r\nand jail admissions for different types of offenders, and its effects\r\non the composition of the prison population, prison inmate activities\r\nand programs, prison staffing, and prison operations. In Part 2,\r\nAmerican Prosecutors Research Institute Survey Data, prosecutors were\r\nquestioned about what \"get tough\" policies their states had enacted,\r\nthe efficacy of \"get tough\" policies in achieving their goals, whether\r\nthese policies had unanticipated or negative consequences, expected\r\nresults of these policies, the percentage of cases to which these\r\npolicies applied, the extent to which these policies had helped\r\naccomplish their office's goals, the effects of \"get tough\" policies\r\non budget and resources, sentences and time actually served, and the\r\ncriminal justice process, the size of their jurisdiction, and the\r\nnumber of staff in their office. In Part 3, Justice Management\r\nInstitute Survey Data, judges were questioned about whether their\r\nstate had enacted \"get tough\" policies in the past ten years, what\r\nkinds of policies were adopted, their effect on the efficiency of case\r\nprocessing, the formal positions of the Judicial Council and Judges\r\nAssociation on the policies, whether the respondent or other judges\r\nhad input into the policies, how likely \"get tough\" policies were to\r\nachieve certain goals, what results the respondent expected from the\r\npolicies, the impact of the policies on the criminal justice process,\r\nyears experience on the bench, the percentage of their caseload that\r\ninvolved criminal cases, whether they handled civil, family\r\nlaw/domestic relations, or juvenile cases, and the population of their\r\njurisdiction.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03336.v1", "title": "National Evaluation of the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant Program, 1996-1999"}], "identifier": "3654", "issued": "2003-03-11T00:00:00", "keyword": ["correctional reform", "criminal justice system", "imprisonment", "legislative impact", "offenders sentencing", "program evaluation", "sentencing", "sentencing guidelines", "sentencing reforms", "state correctional facilities"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-03-30T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "National Evaluation of the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant Program, 1996-1999"}