As of November 1994, 17 States had placed guidelines into effect, and five more had appointed commissions to implementing or study this approach. State guidelines generally retain more judicial discretion than the Federal version; they also permit consideration of a wider range of sentencing purposes and offender characteristics. Most State sentencing guidelines also give greater emphasis to the goal of predicting and avoiding prison overcrowding. States have increasingly encouraged judges to use intermediate sanctions, while Federal guidelines have done little to promote the use of noncustodial penalties. Crucial characteristics of State guidelines are the makeup and role of sentencing commissions, the applicability of the guidelines, the scope of guidelines coverage, sentencing reform goals and priorities, the main factors determining sentencing, case monitoring, research, and evaluation. Tables and footnotes