Federal Offenders under Community Supervision, 1987-96 Federal Justice Statistics Program NCJ 168636 August 1998 William P. Adams and Jeffrey A. Roth The Urban Institute U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics by John Scalia Statistician --------------------------------------------------- Highlights Highlights figure. Number of Federal offenders under community supervision Supervised Year Probation Parole release 1987 53457 17904 1988 54487 19784 1989 54635 22121 844 1990 53754 25770 5277 1991 46491 26788 11344 1992 46947 21852 18932 1993 45539 16351 25930 1994 41596 13551 33063 1995 36881 10470 39085 1996 34668 9002 45662 * The number of Federal offenders under community supervision increased on average 2.5% annually, from 71,361 at midyear 1987 to 89,332 at midyear 1996. * Offenders required to comply with at least one special condition of supervision increased from 67.3% of entrants during 1987 to 90.7% during 1996. * The number of entrants to probation and parole decreased 34% and 83%, respectively, between 1987 and 1996. These decreases were offset by the increase in the number of entrants to supervised release. * The number of offenders on probation decreased 35% from 53,457 at midyear 1987 to 34,668 at midyear 1996. * The decrease in probation corresponds to the increase in prison sentences: between 1987 and 1996, the rate of imprisonment increased from 53% of those convicted to 68.5%. * The number of those serving a term of post-incarceration supervision increased from 17,904 at midyear 1987 to 54,664 at midyear 1996. * Between 1987 and 1996 the number of offenders on parole decreased by 8,902 while the number on supervised release increased by 45,662. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following the implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which took effect on November 1, 1987, Federal community supervision underwent two major changes: (1) a greater proportion of defendants convicted of a Federal offense were sentenced to a term of imprisonment as opposed to probation (2) offenders sentenced to prison, while no longer eligible for parole, were required to serve a defined term of supervision following release from prison. Additionally, the Sentencing Reform Act required the adoption and use of sentencing guidelines. The Federal sentencing guidelines, which also took effect on November 1, 1987, established sentencing ranges for each offense category. Many offenses for which probation was the typical preguideline sentence, particularly property and regulatory offenses, under the guidelines routinely result in sentences to prison. As a result of these changes to Federal sentencing policy, between 1987 and 1996 the number of entrants to probation decreased 34% from 22,762 to 14,959: two-thirds of this decrease occurred since 1990. The number of entrants to parole decreased 84% from 10,664 to 1,737, while the number of entrants to supervised release increased to 21,107. Entrants are those offenders receiving supervision for the first time on a sentence and do not include persons reentering active supervision after either a period of inactive supervision or a reincarceration following a supervision revocation. Other aspects of Federal community supervision also changed as a result of the Sentencing Reform Act. Between 1987 and 1996 the proportion of offenders required to comply with at least one special supervision condition increased from 67.3% of entrants to 90.7%. More than twice as many offenders were required to serve a term of community confinement, to undergo drug treatment, or to submit to periodic drug testing. Sentences of imprisonment imposed following probation revocations decreased from 13 months, on average, to 8.9 months. Throughout the period, sentences of imprisonment following supervised release revocations were considerably shorter than those following parole revocations. ---------------------- Offenders supervised ---------------------- The number of offenders on Federal community supervision increased 2.5% annually, on average, from 71,361 at midyear 1987 to 89,332 at midyear 1996 (table 1). In addition to the overall increase in the number of offenders on Federal community supervision, the composition of the supervised population changed considerably: ---------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Number of offenders under Federal community supervision, by type of supervision, 1987-96 Post-incarceration Supervised Year Total Probation Total Parole release 1987 71361 53457 17904 17904 I 1988 74271 54487 19784 19784 I 1989 77600 54635 22965 22121 844 1990 84801 53754 31047 25770 5277 1991 84623 46491 38132 26788 11344 1992 87731 46947 40784 21852 18932 1993 87820 45539 42281 16351 25930 1994 88210 41596 46614 13551 33063 1995 86436 36881 49555 10470 39085 1996 89332 34668 54664 9002 45662 Note: Counts represent offenders under active Federal community supervision on June 30 of each year. INo offenders were serving a term of supervised release. Data source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal supervision data file, annual. ----------------------------------------------------------------- * The number of offenders serving a sentence of probation decreased 35% from 53,457 to 34,668; * With the elimination of parole for most persons sentenced after November 1, 1987, the number of offenders on parole decreased to 9,002 at midyear 1996 from the high of 26,788 at midyear 1991. * In place of parole supervision, supervised release became the primary form of community supervision for offenders released from Federal prison: at midyear 1996, over 80% (45,662) of former prisoners under community supervision were serving a sentence of supervised release. The changes in the supervised population were largely attributable to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and related legislation. The Sentencing Reform Act abolished parole in the Federal criminal justice system. In lieu of parole most offenders are required to serve a term of supervised release following release from Federal prison. During 1996, 98.2% of those sen- tenced to prison pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act were also sentenced to serve a term of supervised release (not shown in a table). Between 1987 and 1996 the proportion of defendants sentenced to prison increased from 53% of those convicted to 68.5% (figure 1). Approximately 30% of those sentenced during 1996 were subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment (not shown in a table). ---------------------------------------------------------- Figure 1: Percent of defendants sentenced to prison by U.S. district courts, by most serious of conviction, 1987-96 Most serious offense of conviction Public Year Total Violent Property Drug order 1987 53.0 82.0 43.4 75.9 36.6 1988 53.8 81.0 42.6 79.2 37.0 1989 58.5 86.8 44.1 84.2 40.6 1990 60.3 87.2 43.3 86.4 43.6 1991 62.4 89.9 45.8 86.5 45.6 1992 65.6 90.9 46.1 88.9 50.0 1993 65.2 87.1 47.3 84.8 51.8 1994 64.9 83.5 49.0 83.7 52.9 1995 66.9 84.7 50.0 84.1 59.6 1996 68.5 86.2 50.7 86.7 60.1 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, annual. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants convicted of public-order offenses -- weapons, immigration, and regulatory offenses -- had the greatest increase in the likelihood of imprisonment. Between 1987 and 1996 the proportion sentenced to prison among those convicted of public-order offenses increased from 36.6% to 60.1%. Those convicted of regulatory or weapons offenses were the most affected: the proportion of defendants convicted of regulatory offenses who were sentenced to prison rose from 32.5% to 43.9%, and the proportion of defendants convicted of a weapons offense who were sentenced to prison increased from 68.7% to 90% ***Footnote 1. BJS, Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, annual (table 4.1).*** Defendants convicted of property and drug offenses were more likely to be sentenced to prison under guideline sentencing practices than under preguideline practices. The proportion of convicted property offenders sentenced to prison increased from 43.4% to 50.7% between 1987 and 1996, and the proportion of drug offenders sentenced to prison increased from 75.9% to 86.7%. Probation Corresponding to the increase in the proportion of offenders sentenced to prison, between 1987 and 1996, the number of entrants to probation decreased by more than a third from 22,762 during 1987 to 14,959 during 1996 (table 2). As a result of the decrease in entrants, the number of offenders on probation decreased from 53,457 at midyear 1987 to 34,668 at midyear 1996 (table 1). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2. Number of offenders entering Federal community supervision, by type of supervision, 1987-96 Post-incarceration Supervised Year Total Probation* Total Parole release 1987 33426 22762 10664 10664 I 1988 34386 21935 12451 12451 I 1989 35320 20471 14849 12449 2400 1990 38454 20295 18159 11251 6908 1991 35669 15862 19807 10702 9105 1992 34108 15822 18286 6228 12058 1993 34365 15583 18782 3887 14895 1994 34837 14614 20223 3048 17175 1995 35373 14412 20961 2227 18734 1996 37803 14959 22844 1737 21107 Note: Excludes offenders reentering active supervision after a period of inactive supervision. INo offenders were serving a term of supervised release. *Includes offenders serving split or mixed sentences of probation following incarceration. Data source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal supervision data file, annual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Property offenders accounted for approximately half of the decrease in the total number of offenders serving a sentence of probation: between 1987 and 1996, the number of property offenders serving a sentence of probation decreased from 26,094 to 16,898 (figure 2). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 2: Number of Federal offenders serving a sentence of probation, by most serious offense, 1987-96 Number on probation Year Violent Property Drug Public Order 1987 1359 26094 9605 16396 1988 1458 26557 10209 16259 1989 1418 26800 10018 16396 1990 1343 26563 9330 16516 1991 1177 23423 7255 14634 1992 1174 23466 7479 14824 1993 1196 22526 7331 14483 1994 1047 20595 6939 12960 1995 956 18247 6266 11300 1996 978 16898 5974 10677 Note: Counts represents offenders on Federal community supervision on June 30 of each year. Data Source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal probation and supervision, data file, annual. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post-incarceration supervision The number of entrants to post-incarceration supervision (parole and supervised release) more than doubled between 1987 and 1996 from 10,664 to 22,844 (table 2). As a result of the increase in entrants, the total number of offenders under post-incarceration supervision increased from 17,904 at midyear 1987 to 54,664 at midyear 1996 (table 1). Parole -- With the elimination of parole in the Federal system, the number of offenders released on parole decreased considerably after peaking at 12,451 during 1988 (table 2). In 1996, 1,737 offenders were released on parole, an 86% decrease from the peak in 1988. As a result of the continued decrease in entrants, the total number of offenders on parole fell from the high of 26,788 at midyear 1991 to 9,002 at midyear 1996 (table 1). Supervised release -- The increase in the number of offenders on Federal community supervision was primarily attributable to the supervised release requirement of the Sentencing Reform Act. During 1989 the first cohort of 2,400 offenders was released from Federal prison to serve a term of supervised release (table 2). During 1996, 21,107 offenders were released on supervised release. Supervised release has become the primary form of Federal community supervision. Since the implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the number of offenders serving a term of supervised release at midyear has increased to 45,662 at midyear 1996 (table 1). During 1994 the number of entrants to supervised release surpassed the number of entrants to probation. At midyear 1995 the number of offenders on supervised release surpassed the number on probation. At midyear 1996 more than half of all offenders on Federal community supervision were serving a term of supervised release. -------------------------------------------------------- Special conditions of supervision imposed by the courts -------------------------------------------------------- As part of the supervision order, the sentencing court may require an offender to comply with certain discretionary or special conditions of supervision. These conditions include community confinement, fines, restitution, community service, and alcohol and/or drug abuse treatment. Between 1987 and 1996 the proportion of entrants to Federal community supervision required to comply with at least one special condition of supervision increased from 67.3% of all entrants during 1987 to 90.7% during 1996 (table 3). This increase was largely attributable to the increase in the proportion of offenders required to serve a sentence of community confinement as part of the supervision order, to participate in a drug treatment program, and/or to submit to periodic drug testing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 3. Selected special conditions of supervision, 1987-96 Percent of offenders entering supervision Any special Community Community Drug Drug Year condition confinement service treatment testing Fine Restitution 1987 67.3% 5.5% 13.2% 16.0% 1.6% 27.9% 18.7% 1988 68.5 6.1 12.9 17.4 1.7 28.9 18.6 1989 72.3 8.4 12.4 20.3 1.5 31 18.8 1990 75.4 9.6 12.4 23.3 2.3 31.7 18.9 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993 83.3 12.5 13.7 29.1 2.7 29.8 21.2 1994 85.6 12.9 12.9 31.7 2.8 29.4 21.5 1995 82.9 12.6 12 32 3.4 26 20.7 1996 90.7 13.2 11.6 34 4.9 27.8 21.5 Note: Statistics represent offenders entering Federal community supervision for the first time on a sentence during the 12-month period ending June 30 of each year. . . .Data were not available because of changes in the FPSIS data system. Data source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal supervision data file, annual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The proportion of offenders required to pay a fine, make restitution, or perform community service as part of their supervision remained relatively stable between 1987 and 1996. On average for the 10 years, 29% of offenders under community supervision were sentenced to pay a fine; 20%, to pay restitution; and 12%, to perform community service. Community confinement The Sentencing Reform Act and the Federal sentencing guidelines formalized and structured the use of community confinement as part of a supervision order***Footnote 2. See, 18 U.S.C. '' 3563, 3583 and U.S.S.G. '' 5B1.1, 5D1.3(e).*** Pursuant to the Federal sentencing guidelines, community confinement includes confinement in a community treatment facility or halfway house, intermittent confinement nights and weekends in a prison or jail, and home detention ***Footnote 3. U.S.S.G. '' 5F1.1, comment 1, and 5F1.2, comment 2.*** In cases where the recommended guideline sentencing range is 10 to 16 months of imprisonment or less, the sentencing court may, as part of a sentence of supervision, substitute community confinement for imprisonment on a day-for-day basis. In other cases, community confinement may be imposed as part of the supervision order. Between 1987 and 1996 the proportion of entrants to Federal community supervision required to serve a term of community confinement increased from 5.5% to 13.2%. During 1987, 7.3% of probation entrants were required to serve a term of community confinement compared to 20.6% during 1996 (table 4). Similarly, during 1987, 1.7% of parole entrants were required to serve a term of community confinement compared to 5.3% during 1996. For supervised release, the proportion was relatively constant at approximately 8% of entrants between 1987 and 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4. Percent of entrants to Federal community supervision with a special condition of supervision requiring community confinement, 1987-96 Post-incarceration Supervised Year Total Probation Total Parole release 1987 5.5% 7.3% 1.7% 1.7% I 1988 6.1 8.5 1.8 1.8 I 1989 8.4 12.1 3.3 2.5 7.5 1990 9.6 14.0 4.8 3.1 7.5 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993 12.5 16.2 9.4 5.7 10.4 1994 12.9 18.7 8.7 4.9 9.4 1995 12.6 18.6 7.7 4.9 8.8 1996 13.2 20.6 8.4 5.3 8.6 Note: Statistics represent offenders entering Federal community supervision for the first time on a sentence during the 12-month period ending June 30 of each year. INo offenders entered community supervision on supervised release. . . .Data were not available because of changes in the FPSIS data system. Data source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal supervision data file, annual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drug abuse treatment and monitoring The proportion of entrants to Federal community supervision required to participate in a drug treatment program or submit to periodic drug testing more than doubled between 1987 and 1996: * The proportion required to participate in a drug treatment program -- including drug testing -- increased from 16% during 1987 to 34% during 1996. * The proportion required to submit to periodic drug testing that was not part of a drug treatment program increased from 1.6% during 1987 to 4.9% during 1996. Between 1987 and 1996 the proportion of offenders required to be treated or tested for drugs increased more for entrants to post-incarceration supervision (19.7% to 48.6%) than for entrants to probation (16.5% to 24.3%) (table 5). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Table 5. Percent of entrants to Federal community supervision with a special condition of supervision requiring drug treatment or monitoring, 1987-96 Post-incarceration Supervised Year Total Probation Total Parole release 1987 17.6% 16.5% 19.7% 19.7% I 1988 19.1 16.9 22.8 22.8 I 1989 21.8 17.4 28.0 27.3 31.6 1990 25.6 19.6 32.3 29.5 37.0 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993 31.8 20.5 41.2 35.1 42.8 1994 34.5 21.9 43.4 36.8 44.7 1995 35.4 22.1 41.1 36.4 45.5 1996 38.9 24.3 48.6 40.7 49.2 Note: Statistics represent offenders entering Federal community supervision for the first time on a sentence during the 12-month period ending June 30 of each year. INo offenders entered community supervision on supervised release. . . .Data were not available because of changes in the FPSIS data system. Data source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal supervision data file, annual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- Termination of supervision -------------------------------------------------- Active community supervision terminates, at least temporarily, when an offender is moved to inactive supervision status. An offender may be moved to inactive supervision several times during the course of the supervision period for reasons such as the offender's being hospitalized or a fugitive. Active supervision terminates permanently when (1) the offender successfully completes the supervision or (2) the offender's supervision is revoked for cause. Active supervision may also terminate for administrative reasons such as the death of the offender, deportation, or incarceration for an unrelated offense. During 1996, approximately 3% of supervision terminations were for administrative reasons. (These administrative terminations are excluded from further analysis.) --------------------------------------------------- Figure 3. State community supervision Percent of correctional population incarcerated, 1996 Prison Jail State 19.3 9.7 Federal 50.4 0 At yearend 1996 more than twice as many State offenders were serving a sentence of community supervision (71%) as serving a sentence in prison or jail (29% -- 19.3% in prison and 9.7% in jail). By contrast, about an equal proportion of Federal offenders were serving a sentence of community supervision (49.6%) as were incarcerated in Federal prisons (50.4%). The number of offenders serving a sentence of community supervision increased at both the Federal and State levels between 1987 and 1996. By contrast to the decrease in the number of Federal probationers, the number of State probationers increased from approximately 2.2 million at yearend 1987 to 3.15 million at yearend 1996. The number of offenders supervised after release from prison increased from 343,902 at yearend 1987 to 645,576 at yearend 1996. Number of offenders under State community supervision, by type of supervision, 1987-96 Year Total Probation Parole 1987 2530678 2186776 343902 1988 2712543 2325398 387145 1989 2898400 2463019 435381 1990 3121726 2612012 509714 1991 3242123 2673236 568887 1992 3383815 2765126 618689 1993 3475093 2854703 620390 1994 3567654 2938713 628941 1995 3670364 3042404 627960 1996* 3791638 3146062 645576 *Preliminary. Source: BJS, Correctional Populations in the United States, annual. -------------------------------------------------- Successful completion of supervision Overall, approximately three-quarters of the offenders terminating Federal community supervision between 1987 and 1996 completed their supervision successfully (table 6). Offenders on probation successfully completed theirsupervision at the greatest rate: more than 8 in 10 successfully completed their supervision. By contrast, fewer than 7 in 10 on parole or supervised release successfully completed their supervision. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Table 6. Percent of offenders terminating community supervision successfully, by type of supervision, 1987-96 Percent of offenders terminating successfully -- Post-incarceration Supervised Year Total Probation Total Parole release 1987 75.2% 79.0% 67.6% 67.6% I 1988 76.1 79 70.5 70.5 I 1989 77.0 80.4 70.3 70.3 -- 1990 77.9 83.1 66.8 66.8 -- 1991 75.5 85.0 61.6 65.8 46.4 1992 73.9 85.4 58.8 63.2 51.1 1993 75.4 85.3 62.2 68.7 57.2 1994 74.9 85.4 62.9 65.9 61.4 1995 74.5 85.4 63.9 64.4 63.7 1996 74.3 84.8 65.3 63.1 65.8 INo offenders terminated a supervised release. --Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data. Data source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal supervision data file, annual. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Between 1987 and 1996 the proportion of probationers who successfully completed their supervision increased from 79.0% to 84.8%. The proportion of those on supervised release suc- cessfully completing their supervision increased from 46.4% during 1991 to 65.8% during 1996. The proportion of those on parole successfully com- pleting their supervision decreased slightly from 67.6% during 1987 to 63.1% during 1996. Reasons for unsuccessful termination of active supervision The proportion of offenders under supervision required to participate in drug treatment programs or drug testing consistently increased between 1987 and 1996 (table 3). The proportion of offenders whose supervision was terminated unsuccessfully for drug use has also increased. Terminations for drug use increased 47% between 1987 and 1996 from 16.6% of all unsuccessful terminations to 24.4% (table 7). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 7. Unsuccessful terminations of Federal community supervision, by reason for revocation, 1987-96 Percent of unsuccessful terminations Number of Technical Drug Fugitive New Year offenders* violation use status offense 1987 7933 35.8% 16.6% 10.2% 37.4% 1988 8175 38.7 17.8 10.4 33.1 1989 7863 40.7 18.9 8.7 31.7 1990 8335 41.6 19.1 7.7 31.6 1991 8541 40.6 19.9 7.9 31.6 1992 9195 38.9 23.1 8.6 29.4 1993 8200 39.0 19.7 10.3 30.9 1994 8647 34.5 21.2 11.3 33.0 1995 9177 34.8 23.2 11.5 30.5 1996 9454 30.7 24.4 12.2 32.7 Note: Statistics represent offenders terminating Federal community supervision during the 12-month period ending June 30 of each year. *Includes offenders for whom the reason for the unsuccessful termination could not be determined. Data source: Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, Federal probation and supervision data file, annual. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proportion of unsuccessful probationers terminated for drug use increased from 12.4% of all unsuccessful probation terminations during 1987 to 19.7% during 1996 (figure 4). The proportion of unsuccessful offenders on supervised release terminated for drug use increased from 20.7% during 1991 (the first year with an exiting cohort) to 25.0% during 1996. For parolees, the proportion increased from 22.2% to 30.8%. -------------------------------------------------------- Figure 4. Federal offenders whose parole, supervised release, or probation was terminated for drug use, 1987-96 Of all Federal offenders with revoked superiv percent terminated for drug use Supervised Year Probation Parole release 1987 12.4% 22.2% 1988 13.1 24.3 1989 13.7 25.6 1990 12.5 24.6 1991 13.7 24.8 20.7 1992 15.5 29.6 23.0 1993 14.6 23.5 21.7 1994 15.4 26.9 22.5 1995 17.8 28.5 24.2 1996 19.7 30.8 25.0 Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal probation and supervision data file, annual. ---------------------------------------------------------- Between 1987 and 1996 terminations for new offenses decreased from 37.4% of all unsuccessful terminations to 32.7%; and terminations for technical violations decreased from 35.8% to 30.7% (table 7). --------------------------------------------------- Length of revocation period --------------------------------------------------- An unsuccessful termination of supervision may result in the revocation of the community supervision and a term of imprisonment. For offenders on probation and supervised release, the revocation sentence is imposed by the court with jurisdiction over the offender. With the implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act, sentences of imprisonment following revocation are imposed pursuant to Federal sentencing guidelines***Footnote 4. See, U.S.S.G. ' 7B1.1 et seq., p.s.*** These revocation sentences are in addition to any sentence to prison the offender may have previously served for the original offense. For parolees, however, the U.S. Parole Commission makes the revocation decision***Footnote 5. 28 C.F.R. ' 2.50.*** In contrast to revocations of probation and supervised release, offenders with revoked parole are rein-carcerated for the remainder of the sentence originally imposed. The Parole Commission may reparole these offenders***Footnote 6. 28 C.F.R. ' 2.21.*** Revocation sentences imposed Between 1987 and 1996, sentences of imprisonment following the revocation of probation decreased from 21.9 months, on average, to 9.2 months (figure 5). Sentences for supervised release violators were stable at approximately 13 months. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 5. Average term of imprisonment imposed for supervision revocation, by type of supervision, 1987-96 Post-incarceration Supervised Year Probation Total Parole release 1987 21.9 52.8 52.8 n/a 1988 22.2 57.4 57.5 -- 1989 20.2 50.4 50.8 -- 1990 17.8 51.4 55.1 14.7 1991 16.4 42.0 50.8 12.7 1992 15.1 42.8 58.3 13.4 1993 12.3 37.6 59.6 13.6 1994 11.3 32.3 57.8 14.6 1995 10.3 31.2 63.1 13.4 1996 9.2 30.5 72.3 13.8 Note: Statistics represent offenders entering Federal prison following the revocation of Federal community supervision during the 12 months ending June 30 of each year. -- too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data. Data Source: Bureau of Prison, SENTRY data file, annual. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Because parole violators are recommitted to serve the unserved portion of the sentence originally imposed, sentences for parole violators were considerably longer than those for probation or supervised release violators. While variable between 1987 and 1994, sentences for parole violators have increased from 57.8 months, on average, during 1994 to 72.3 months during 1996. This increase may be an artifact of the elimination of Federal parole. As offenders eligible for release on parole leave the Federal criminal justice system, those remaining are more and more limited to the offenders who had originally received longer sentences. As a result, length of imprisonment for parole revocations will increase. Time served For offenders incarcerated for probation and supervised release violations time actually served by these offenders followed the same pattern as sentences imposed: * Time served by probation violators decreased from 13 months, on average, for offenders released during 1987 to 8.9 months for those released during 1996. * Time served by supervised release violators was stable at approximately 10 months (table 8). ----------------------------------------------------------------- Table 8. Average time served after supervision revocations, by type of supervision, 1987-96 Average number of months released offenders served in prison after supervision revocation Post-incarceration Supervised Year Probation Total Parole release 1987 13.0 mo 21.9 mo 21.9 mo I 1988 12.6 21.3 21.3 I 1989 12.1 19.4 19.4 -- 1990 12.7 17.8 18.0 8.1 1991 12.8 15.5 16.4 9.0 1992 12.2 15.1 17.1 9.7 1993 10.8 14.2 16.7 10.3 1994 10.3 13.8 17.2 10.3 1995 9.1 13.0 16.8 10.3 1996 8.9 13.1 18.0 10.3 Note: Statistics represent offenders completing a term of imprisonment imposed for a supervision revocation during the 12-month period ending June 30 of each year. INo offenders on supervised release were revoked. --Too few cases to obtain statistically reliable data. Data source: Federal Bureau of Prisons, SENTRY data file, annual. ------------------------------------------------------------------- For offenders incarcerated for parole violations, time served initially decreased from 21.9 months, on average, for those released during 1987 to 16.4 months for those released during 1991. Since 1991, time served has remained stable between 16.7 months and 18 months. --------------------------------------------------- Federal probation officers, 1987-96 Federal probation officers are responsible for supervising all offenders under Federal community supervision, whether under the jurisdiction of U.S. district courts, the U.S. Parole Commission, or military tribunals. As a result of the increased number of Federal offenders under supervision and the changes brought about by the Sentencing Reform Act, both the number of offenders supervised and the proportion with special supervision requirements such as drug treatment or community confinement increased between 1987 and 1996. Additionally, in 1991 the Federal Probation Service implemented a program of enhanced supervision that required intensive, individualized planning of supervision for each offender. Over the 10 years the number of Federal probation officers increased 84% from 1,903 to 3,495. Number of Federal Year probation officers 1987 1903 1988 2069 1989 2169 1990 2396 1991 2846 1992 3361 1993 3431 1994 3454 1995 3465 1996 3495 Source: John M. Hughes and Karen S. Henkel, "The Federal Probation and Pretrial Services System since 1975: An Era of Growth and Change, "Federal Probation, pp. 103-111 (March 1997). --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Methodology --------------------------------------------------- Data sources The source of data for tables presented in this report is the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) database (ICPSR 9296). The FJSP database is constructed from source files provided by the Executive Office for the United States Attorneys, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts also maintains data collected by the Federal probation offices. The Federal Probation Supervision Information System (FPSIS) describes offenders on probation, parole, and supervised release who are supervised by Federal probation officers. Data tabulations, except where otherwise indicated, were prepared from contractor analysis of the source agency datasets. Data presented in this report do not include defendants on pretrial supervision, supervision following adjudication by military tribunals, and organizational defendants. In the FPSIS data file, each record corresponds to a person-case that resulted in a period of supervision during the reporting period. An offender was considered under active supervision if the offender was regularly reporting to a probation officer during the reporting period. An offender on inactive supervision was not reporting to a probation officer for reasons such as the offender had been hospitalized for an extended time, the offender was a fugitive, or the offender was incarcerated either on the current sentence or another sentence. Counts of entries into active supervision represent offenders initially received under active supervision. The counts do not include offenders entering supervision following revocation. Counts of removals from active supervision represent the sum of offenders moved from active supervision to inactive supervision and all closures of active supervision. Counts of entries and removals represent activity during the 12-month period ending June 30 of each year. Counts of stocks are based on the last event recorded prior to the end of the reporting period. If the last action recorded was a receipt, activation, or reinstatement into active supervision, the offender was considered part of the supervised population. If the last action recorded was a removal from active status or a closure of an active case, the offender is not considered part of the supervised population. Stock counts represent the supervised population as of June 30 of each year. The offense categories used in this report are based primarily on the offense codes established by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics provides a detailed description of the United States code titles and sections included in each offense category. ------------------------------------------------------------ Comparability with statistics reported by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ------------------------------------------------------------ The statistics in this report differ in several ways from similar statistics reported by the Administrative Office: * In this report counts of actions are based on the date for which a particular event actually occurred. For 1987-95 counts of actions reported by the Administrative Office were based on the date a particular event was posted to the data system. Beginning in 1996 the Administrative Office switched to an event-based system. * Because of the inherent posting lags, extracts from several years were used to compile complete information describing the processing of a particular offender. For those cases for which a posting date was recorded without a corresponding action date, the posting date was used as a proxy for the action date. In these cases subsequent action dates were adjusted accordingly to accommodate any illogical date sequences that might have resulted from the action date proxy. * Transfers from one jurisdiction to another are not considered actions. * Offenders on supervision following adjudication in a military tribunal are not included. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director. BJS Special Reports address a specific topic in depth from one or more datasets that cover many topics. William P. Adams and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Urban Institute with John Scalia of the Bureau of Justice Statistics wrote this report. William J. Sabol of the Urban Institute provided statistical review. Tom Hester produced and edited the report. Marilyn Marbrook, assisted by Yvonne Boston and Jayne Robinson, administered final production. August 1998, NCJ 168636 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Data from the Federal Justice Statistics Program (ICPSR 9296) can be obtained from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan, 1-800-999-0960. The archive, as well as the report and supporting documentation, is also accessible through the BJS web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- END OF FILE, tld, 9/2/98