Interviews revealed that criminal justice personnel were aware of and supported most of the changes in their States' rape laws. Most approved evidentiary changes and felt that they have resulted in more appropriate treatment of alleged offenders and more human responses to rape victims. Despite this acceptance, there were clear interjurisdictional variations in attitudes and in compliance with substantive and procedural restrictions. These variations were related to the types of reforms enacted. The presence of more restrictive rape shield laws was associated with improved attitudes toward and compliance with restrictions on the use of evidence about the victim's past sexual history. Despite the effect of reforms in socializing criminal justice actors, the only direct effect found across jurisdictions was an increase in the average sentences imposed for sex offenses. Only Detroit, the jurisdiction that enacted the strongest and most comprehensive reforms, showed expected increases in reported rapes, indictments, convictions, convictions on original charge, incarcerations, and average sentences. The lack of impact in D.C., Georgia, and Texas may be explained by the weak nature of enacted reforms. Differential impact in the three jurisdictions with stronger reforms may be attributable to differences in the reform packages adopted in these States. Supplemental research data on the jurisdictions is appended. Tables, figures, and approximately 125 references.