By 1980 the states had adopted a number of structural reforms in their tax and revenue agencies that were intended to enhance economy and efficiency. A variety of structures still existed, but common patterns were emerging. This was particularly true with respect to the appointment rather than election of heads of tax agencies, consolidation of the administration of major taxes into a single agency, and the organization of tax departments along functional rather than tax-type lines (Mikesell, 1981). Despite the structural reforms, concerns arose at the beginning of the 1980s that the states still lagged behind in of their tax laws. Penniman observed that income tax administration had improved since the late fifties but had not kept pace with the growing volume of taxpayers or the increasing complexities of enforcement (1980, p. 266). She recommended a number of changes, including tightening of income tax statutes, higher appropriations for tax agencies, hiring personnel on the basis of merit principles, increasing use of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax tapes, and development of interstate joint audit programs. Following their survey of the states, Henszey and Roadarmel (1981) suggested that weak criminal tax evasion statutes and the small number of auditors employed by state tax agencies impaired enforcement. Much has changed in the of state tax laws since the early 1980s. The most newsworthy events in state taxation have been the tax amnesties offered by half the states. Of greater import, however, for fortifying taxpayer compliance were the legal and administrative reforms that were often enacted in conjunction with the tax amnesty. The amnesty states adopted various innovations including stiffening civil and criminal tax evasion penalties, employing more auditors, collectors, and other personnel, purchasing new computer technology, creating special investigations units, and increasing use of IRS computer tapes of individual and business tax returns (Parle and Hirlinger, 1986; Mikesell, 1986). Changes in compliance tools and strategies likely have not been confined to the amnesty states, but how widespread are they? This paper examines and compares tax compliance tools and strategies utilized by the revenue departments or departments chiefly responsible for the collection of income taxes in the states. Data are presented from a survey administered to the states that gathered information on auditing and collections procedures, service offerings, and appeals to modify taxpayer attitudes. This article first examines a compliance policy model, then provides a discussion of the method-