A review of 51 studies on race and sentencing highlights definitional and methodological weaknesses prevalent in sentencing research and suggests that the relationship between race and sentencing outcomes is relatively weak. The next two papers focus on discrimination, first identifying shortcomings in investigations of discrimination in case disposition such as sample selection biases and using arbitrary scales to measure qualitatively different dispositions. Another discussion demonstrates that the inclusion of legally relevant variables reduces correlations between case outcomes and socioeconomic status and race variables. Other authors criticize empirically constructed sentencing guidelines, claiming that such models still require ethical decisions and exhibit serious methodological problems in regard to data collection, sample size and selection, and modeling techniques. Social, political, and organizational factors influencing the sentencing commissions' efforts to develop guidelines in Pennsylvania and Minnesota are compared. This review analyzes reasons why Minnesota implemented real changes, whereas Pennsylvania's guidelines are probably ineffective. A review of evaluation literature on the impact of sentencing reforms covers abolition of plea bargaining, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, California's determinate sentencing scheme, descriptive and prescriptive sentencing, the abolition of parole in Maine, and parole guidelines. The final study discusses the need for estimating the impact of proposed policy changes on prison populations and methodologies to produce valid impact estimates. All papers include references. For separate papers, see NCJ-91772-79.