Virtually all studies of presumptive guidelines reported sentencing uniformity and proportionality. In Minnesota -- the first State to implement presumptive guidelines -- racial, ethnic, and gender differences in sentencing declined, even though minority defendants were more likely to be imprisoned through departures from the guidelines, and men were more likely to receive longer sentences than similarly situated women. Some critics expected presumptive guidelines to reduce rates of plea bargaining, because they believed prosecutors would have less flexibility in offering inducements in return for guilty pleas; however, evaluation of State sentencing guidelines have found that generally the total proportion of cases concluded by guilty pleas remained fairly constant. Guidelines for prison and nonprison sentences had different effects; offenders for whom prison was recommended were somewhat less likely to plead guilty, and those for whom nonprison sentences were recommended were more likely to plead guilty. Charge bargaining increased and became more targeted. Information on guidelines' impact on court workloads were limited to analyses of Minnesota and the U.S. sentencing guidelines. Generally, increases in court workload were modest. The impact of guidelines on prison populations has tended to be predictable and relatively rapid. As expected, guidelines made sentencing more certain and helped ensure that sentencing decisions were based on objective criteria. When properly developed, presumptive sentencing guidelines can link the severity of punishment more rationally to the seriousness of crimes. They can modify the use of punishment so that available prison capacity is used for more serious and habitual offenders, and they can ensure that sanctions are applied more uniformly and more equitably. 26 notes