U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5870 This reports is one in series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all reports in the series go to http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=5 ------------------------------------------------- Bulletin Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015 Danielle Kaeble and Lauren Glaze, BJS Statisticians At yearend 2015, an estimated 6,741,400 persons were under the supervision of U.S. adult correctional systems, about 115,600 fewer persons than yearend 2014 (figure 1). This was the first time since 2002 (6,730,900) that the correctional population fell below 6.8 million. The population declined by 1.7% during 2015, which was the largest decline since 2010 (down 2.1%). Additionally, the decrease was a change from a 3-year trend of stable annual rate declines of about 0.6% between 2012 and 2014. About 1 in 37 adults in the United States was under some form of correctional supervision at the end of 2015. This was the lowest rate observed since 1994, when about 1 in 38 adults (1.6 million fewer persons) were under correctional supervision in the nation (not shown).***Footnote 1 See the Key Statistics page on the BJS website for correctional population statistics prior to 2000 or other years not included in the tables and figures of this report.*** This report summarizes data from several Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) correctional data collections to provide statistics on the total population supervised by adult correctional systems in the United States. (See Methodology.) These systems include persons living in the community while supervised by probation or parole agencies and those under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or in the custody of local jails. (See Terms and definitions.) ****************************************************** ************ HIGHLIGHTS ************ * At yearend 2015, an estimated 6,741,400 persons were supervised by U.S. adult correctional systems, a decrease of about 115,600 persons from yearend 2014. * About 1 in 37 adults (or 2.7% of adults in the United States) was under some form of correctional supervision at yearend 2015, the lowest rate since 1994. * The U.S. correctional population declined 1.7% during 2015 due to decreases in both the community supervision (down 1.3%) and incarcerated (down 2.3%) populations. * By yearend 2015, the community supervision population (4,650,900) fell to the lowest level since 2000 (4,564,900). * The incarcerated population in 2015 (2,173,800) fell to the lowest levels since 2004 (2,136,600). * All of the decrease in the community supervision population during 2015 was due to a drop in the probation population (down 2.0%). * The decline in the incarcerated population in 2015 (down 51,300) represented the largest annual decrease since 2009. * In 2015, the majority (69%) of the decline in the incarcerated population resulted from the drop in the prison population (down 35,500). ****************************************************** ****************************************** Community supervision and incarcerated populations declined to lowest levels in more than a decade ******************************************* From 2014 (6,856,900) to 2015 (6,741,400), the U.S. correctional population declined by 1.7%, continuing a downward trend that began in 2008 (table 1). Persons supervised in the community on either probation (3,789,800) or parole (870,500) continued to account for most of the U.S. correctional population in 2015.***Footnote 2 The total correctional, community supervision, and incarcerated populations exclude offenders with multiple correctional statuses to avoid double counting. See table 5 and Methodology.*** About 7 in 10 persons under correctional supervision were supervised in the community at yearend 2015, compared to 3 in 10 incarcerated in state or federal prisons (1,526,800) or local jails (728,200). The decrease in the number of persons under correctional supervision in 2015 was due to a reduction in both the community supervision (down 1.3%) and incarcerated (down 2.3%) populations. Because persons under community supervision accounted for most of the U.S. correctional population, the decrease in the community supervision population during 2015 accounted for more than half (54%) of the decline in the correctional population. The number of persons under supervision in the community fell by 62,300 to 4,650,900 at yearend 2015. All of the decrease in the community supervision population resulted from a decline in the probation population (down 2.0%), as the parole population (up 1.5%) increased. Since 2007, the community supervision population decreased by an annual average of 1.2%. By yearend 2015, the number of offenders under community supervision declined to the lowest level observed since 2000 (4,564,900). At yearend 2015, an estimated 2,173,800 persons were either under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or in the custody of local jails in the United States, down about 51,300 persons compared to yearend 2014. This was the largest decline in the incarcerated population since it first decreased in 2009. By yearend 2015, the number of persons incarcerated in state or federal prisons or local jails fell to the lowest level observed since 2004 (2,136,600) (not shown). Declines in both the U.S. prison (down 2.3%) and local jail (down 2.2%) populations contributed to the decrease in the incarcerated population during 2015. However, 69% of the decline in the incarcerated population was due to the drop in the number of persons incarcerated in state or federal prisons (down 35,500). One jurisdiction, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, accounted for 40% of the decrease in the U.S. prison population during the year. By the end of 2015 (1,526,800), the U.S. prison population fell to a level similar to 2005 (1,525,900). ****************************************** Drop in the number of probationers accounted for most of the decrease in the correctional population during 2015 ****************************************** After a peak in 2007, the U.S. correctional population declined annually through 2015. However, the composition of the population remained stable despite the decreasing size of the population during that time. Between 2007 (58%) and 2015 (56%), probationers accounted for the majority of offenders under correctional supervision (table 2). Prisoners represented slightly less than a quarter of the U.S. correctional population in 2007 (22%) and 2015 (23%). Parolees (11% in 2007 and 13% in 2015) and jail inmates (11% in both 2007 and 2015) remained the smallest shares of the correctional population during the 8-year period. During 2015, decreases in the probation (down 78,700), prison (down 35,500), and local jail (down 16,300) populations led to the overall decline in the U.S. correctional population (table 3). The decrease in the probation population accounted for 68% of the total decline in the correctional population, as probationers represented the largest share of offenders under correctional supervision. The parole population (up 12,800) was the only correctional population to increase during the year, slightly offsetting the overall decline in the correctional population. Between 2007 and 2015, the U.S. correctional population declined by 598,300 persons. The number of persons on probation in the United States fell by 503,200, representing 84% of the total decrease in the correctional population between 2007 and 2015. While the prison (12%) and local jail (9%) populations also declined during the last 8 years, their contribution to the overall decrease in the correctional population was less than a quarter (20%) combined. In comparison, the parole population (up 44,400) was the only correctional system to increase between 2007 and 2015. ****************************************** By yearend 2015, the correctional supervision rate dropped to the lowest rate since 1994 ****************************************** After peaking at 3,210 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents in 2007, the correctional supervision rate trended downward, falling to a low of 2,710 per 100,000 by yearend 2015 (table 4). The drop in the correctional supervision rate was attributed equally to the decline in the U.S. correctional population and the increase in the U.S. adult resident population. By yearend 2015, the correctional supervision rate fell to the lowest rate since 1994 (2,650 per 100,000), when about 1.6 million fewer persons were supervised by U.S. adult correctional systems (not shown). There were 1,870 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents on either probation or parole at yearend 2015. This represented the lowest rate of offenders under community supervision since 1993 (1,830 per 100,000), when the population was smaller by about 1.1 million offenders (not shown). The community supervision rate reached a high in 2007 (2,240 per 100,000) before declining each year through 2015. At yearend 2015, 870 persons per 100,000 U.S. adult residents were under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or in the custody of local jails. The incarceration rate has been declining since 2009 (980 per 100,000). By yearend 2015, the incarceration rate dropped to the same rate as 1997 (870 per 100,000) (not shown). ************************* Terms and definitions ************************* Adult--persons subject to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or correctional agency. Adults are age 18 or older in most jurisdictions. Persons age 17 or younger who were prosecuted in criminal court as if they were adults are considered adults, but persons age 17 or younger who were under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court or agency are excluded. (See Methodology for more information on prison and local jail inmates age 17 or younger.) Annual change--change in a population between two consecutive years. Average annual change--average (mean) annual change in a population across a specific period. Community supervision population--estimated number of persons living in the community while supervised on probation or parole. Community supervision rate--estimated number of persons supervised in the community on probation or parole per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages (i.e., total community supervision rate) or U.S. residents age 18 or older (i.e., adult community supervision rate). Correctional population--estimated number of persons living in the community while supervised on probation or parole and persons under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or held in local jails. Correctional supervision rate--estimated number of persons supervised in the community on probation or parole and persons under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or held in local jails per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages (i.e., total correctional supervision rate) or U.S. residents age 18 or older (i.e., adult correctional supervision rate). Imprisonment rate--estimated number of prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction sentenced to more than 1 year per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages (i.e., total imprisonment rate) or U.S. residents age 18 or older (i.e., adult imprisonment rate). This statistic does not appear in this report; see Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229, BJS web, December 2016). Incarcerated population--estimated number of persons under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or held in local jails. Incarceration rate--estimated number of persons under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or held in local jails per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages (i.e., total incarceration rate) or U.S. residents age 18 or older (i.e., adult incarceration rate). Indian country jail population--estimated number of inmates held in correctional facilities operated by tribal authorities or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Department of the Interior. These facilities include confinement facilities, detention centers, jails, and other facilities operated by tribal authorities or the BIA. (This estimate is presented in appendix table 5.) Local jail population--estimated number of inmates held in a confinement facility usually administered by a local law enforcement agency that is intended for adults, but sometimes holds juveniles, for confinement before and after adjudication. These facilities include jails and city or county correctional centers; special jail facilities, such as medical treatment or release centers; halfway houses; work farms; and temporary holding or lockup facilities that are part of the jail’s combined function. Inmates sentenced to jail facilities usually have a sentence of 1 year or less. Military prison population--estimated number of service personnel incarcerated under the jurisdiction of U.S. military correctional authorities. (This estimate is presented in appendix table 5.) Parole population--estimated number of persons who are on conditional release in the community following a prison term while under the control, supervision, or care of a correctional agency. Violations of the conditions of supervision during this period may result in a new sentence to confinement or a return to confinement for a technical violation. This population includes parolees released through discretionary (i.e., parole board decision) or mandatory (i.e., provisions of a statute) supervised release from prison, those released through other types of post- custody conditional supervision, and those sentenced to a term of supervised release. Prison population--estimated number of prisoners incarcerated in a long-term confinement facility, run by a state or the federal government, which typically holds felons and offenders with sentences of more than 1 year, although sentence length may vary by jurisdiction. Prison jurisdiction population--estimated number of prisoners under the jurisdiction or legal authority of state or federal correctional officials, regardless of where the prisoner is held. This population represents BJS’s official measure of the prison population and includes prisoners held in prisons, penitentiaries, correctional facilities, halfway houses, boot camps, farms, training or treatment centers, and hospitals. Counts also include prisoners who were temporarily absent (fewer than 30 days), in court or on work release, housed in privately operated facilities, local jails, or other state or federal facilities, and serving concurrent sentences for more than one correctional authority. Prison custody population--estimated number of prisoners held in the physical custody of state or federal prisons regardless of sentence length or the authority having jurisdiction. This population includes prisoners housed for other correctional facilities but excludes those in the custody of local jails, those held in other jurisdictions, those out to court, and those in transit from one jurisdiction of legal authority to the custody of a confinement facility outside that jurisdiction. (This estimate is presented in appendix table 6.) Probation population--estimated number of persons who are on a court-ordered period of supervision in the community while under the control, supervision, or care of a correctional agency. The probation conditions form a contract with the court by which the person must abide in order to remain in the community, generally in lieu of incarceration. In some cases, probation can be a combined sentence of incarceration followed by a period of community supervision. Often, probation entails monitoring or surveillance by a correctional agency. In some instances, probation may not involve any reporting requirements. Territorial prison population--estimated number of prisoners in the custody of correctional facilities operated by departments of corrections in U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and U.S. commonwealths (Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico). (This estimate is presented in appendix table 5.) ************* Methodology ************* Sources of data **************** The statistics presented in this report include data from various Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) data collections. Each collection relies on the voluntary participation of federal, state, and local respondents. For more information about any of the following data collections, go to the Data Collections page on the BJS website. Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, which began in 1980, collects data from U.S. probation and parole agencies that supervise adults. These data collections define adults as persons subject to the jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Juveniles sentenced as adults in a criminal court are considered adults. Juveniles under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court or correctional agency are excluded from these data. The National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, BJS’s predecessor agency, began a statistical series on parole in 1976 and on probation in 1979. The two surveys collect data on the number of adults supervised in the community on January 1 and December 31 each year, the number of entries and exits to supervision during the reporting year, and characteristics of the population at yearend. See appendix tables for detailed data. Both surveys cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. BJS depends on the voluntary participation of state central reporters and separate state, county, and court agencies for these data. Annual Survey of Jails. The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) has collected data from a nationally representative sample of local jails each year since 1982, except 1983, 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2005, when a complete census of U.S. local jails was conducted. Jails are confinement facilities, usually administered by a local law enforcement agency, that are intended to hold adults, but may also hold youth age 17 or younger before or after they are adjudicated. The ASJ data used in this report include inmates age 17 or younger who were held either before or after they were adjudicated (about 3,500 persons at yearend 2015). To maintain the jail series in this report, all tables and figures that include national estimates of the local jail population as of the last weekday in June were provided through the ASJ, except in 2005 when a jail census was completed (see Census of Jails). Because the ASJ is designed to produce only national estimates, tables and figures in this report that include jurisdiction-level counts of the incarcerated population and the total correctional population were based on jail data collected through another BJS source, specifically the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program. (See Deaths in Custody Reporting Program on the BJS website.) Census of Jails. The Census of Jails began in 1970 and was conducted in 1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1999, 2005, and 2006. In 2013, BJS expanded the 2013 Deaths in Custody Reporting Program—Annual Summary on Inmates under Jail Jurisdiction to act as the 2013 Census of Jails. (See Deaths in Custody Reporting Program.) The census is designed to produce a complete enumeration of jail facilities in the United States. It is part of a series of data collection efforts, including the Census of Jail Inmates and the Census of Jail Facilities, aimed at studying the nation’s jails and their inmate populations. The reference date of the 2013 census was December 31, while the reference date for prior iterations was the last weekday in June within the reference year. Deaths in Custody Reporting Program. The Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP) is an annual collection that provides national, state, and incident-level data on persons who died while in the physical custody of the 50 state departments of corrections or the approximately 2,900 local adult jail jurisdictions nationwide. To reduce respondent burden for the 2013 iteration, BJS combined the 2013 DCRP collection with the 2013 Census of Jails. For more information, see Census of Jails and Census of Jails: Population Changes, 1999–2013 (NCJ 248627, BJS web, December 2015). The DCRP began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297), and it is the only national statistical collection to obtain comprehensive information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. In addition to the death count, BJS requests that jails provide summary statistics about their population and admissions. All jails, including those with no deaths to report (which includes about 80% of jails in any given year), are asked to complete the annual summary survey form. BJS relied on the local jail counts provided through the DCRP in 2014 and 2015 to generate jurisdiction-level estimates of the total incarcerated population and total correctional population that appear in appendix tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. Because they include the 2015 local jail estimates as of December 31, the national totals of the correctional and incarcerated populations reported in them are not consistent with the national totals of the populations reported in the other tables and figures of this report, which include BJS’s official estimates of the total correctional and incarcerated populations. National Prisoner Statistics Program. The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) program began in 1926 under a mandate from Congress and has been conducted annually. It collects data from the nation’s state departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The NPS distinguishes between prisoners in custody and prisoners under the jurisdiction of correctional authorities. To have custody of a prisoner, a state or the BOP must hold that prisoner in one of its facilities. To have jurisdiction over a prisoner, the state or BOP must have legal authority over that prisoner, regardless of where the prisoner is incarcerated or supervised. Some states were unable to provide counts that distinguish between custody and jurisdiction*** Footnote 3 See Jurisdiction notes in Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229, BJS web, December 2016) to determine which states did not distinguish between custody and jurisdiction counts.*** With the exception of appendix table 6, the NPS prisoner counts in all tables and figures of this report are consistent with the jurisdiction counts and findings reported in Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229, BJS web, December 2016). The jurisdiction counts represent BJS’s official measure of the prison population and include persons held in prisons, penitentiaries, correctional facilities, halfway houses, boot camps, farms, training or treatment centers, and hospitals. They also include prisoners who were temporarily absent (fewer than 30 days), in court, or on work release; housed in privately operated facilities, local jails, or other state or federal facilities; and serving concurrent sentences for more than one correctional authority. The NPS prisoner custody counts are only reported in appendix table 6 and include all prisoners held within state and federal facilities, including those housed for other correctional facilities, prisoners held in privately operated facilities, prisoners age 17 or younger who were serving time in a state or federal correctional facility after being sentenced in criminal court as if they were adults (about 1,000 persons in 2015), and those in the six states in which prisons and jails form one integrated system, including persons age 17 or younger who may have been held before or after adjudication. Through the annual NPS collection, since 1994 BJS has obtained yearend counts of prisoners in the custody of U.S. military authorities from the Department of Defense Corrections Council. In 1994, the council, comprising representatives from each branch of military service, adopted a standardized report (DD Form 2720) that obtains data on prisoners held in U.S. military confinement facilities inside and outside of the continental United States. These data are only included in appendix table 5 of this report. See Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229, BJS web, December 2016) for more statistics and information. Since 1995, through the annual NPS collection, BJS has collected yearend counts of prisoners from the departments of corrections in the U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and U.S. commonwealths (Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico). These data are only included in appendix table 5 of this report and represent all prisoners in the custody of prison facilities in the U.S. territories or commonwealths. See Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229, BJS web, December 2016) for more statistics and information, including nonresponse. Survey of Jails in Indian Country. The Annual Survey of Jails in Indian Country (SJIC) has been conducted annually since 1998, except in 2005 and 2006. The SJIC collects detailed information on all adult and juvenile confinement facilities, detention centers, jails, and other facilities operated by tribal authorities or the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. These data are only included in appendix table 5 of this report. See Jails in Indian Country, 2015 (NCJ 250117, BJS web, November 2016) for more statistics and information. ************************************* Counts adjusted for offenders with multiple correctional statuses ************************************* Offenders under correctional supervision may have multiple correctional statuses for several reasons: * probation and parole agencies may not always be notified immediately of new arrests, jail admissions, or prison admissions * absconders included in a probation or parole agency’s population in one jurisdiction may actually be incarcerated in another jurisdiction * persons may be admitted to jail or prison before formal revocation hearings and potential discharge by a probation or parole agency * persons may be serving separate probation and parole sentences concurrently * state and federal prisons may hold prisoners in county facilities or local jails to reduce crowding in their prisons. In 1998, through the Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, BJS began collecting data on the number of probationers and parolees with multiple correctional statuses and has since expanded on the information collected. In 1999, through the NPS, BJS began collecting data on the number of prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons who were held in county facilities or local jails (table 5). This table includes adjustments that were made to the total correctional population, total community supervision population, and total incarcerated population estimates presented in this report to exclude offenders with multiple correctional statuses to avoid double counting offenders. The estimates from the ASPP are based on data reported by the probation and parole agencies that were able to provide the information within the specific reporting year. Because some probation and parole agencies did not provide these data each year, the numbers may underestimate the total number of offenders who had multiple correctional statuses between 2005 and 2015. Due to these adjustments, the sum of correctional statuses in figure 1, tables 1 through 4, and appendix tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 will not equal the total correctional population. In addition, the sum of the probation and parole populations for 2008 through 2015 will not yield the total community supervision population because the total was adjusted for parolees who were also on probation. Also, the sum of the prison and local jail populations for 2005 through 2015 will not equal the total incarcerated population because prisoners held in local jails were excluded from the total. ************************************* Decomposing the decline in the correctional supervision rate ************************************* To decompose the decline in the correctional supervision rate discussed in this report, the following formula was used: ΔR = [P1 * (1/GP1)] – [P0 * (1/GP0)] = [P1 * ((1/GP1) - (1/GP0))] + [(1/GP0) * (P1 – P0)] = [(1/GP1) * (P1 – P0)] + [P0 * ((1/GP1) – (1/GP0)] In this formula, ΔR is the change in the correctional supervision rate, P1 is the total correctional population for the most recent year, P0 is the total correctional population for the earlier year, GP1 is the U.S. adult resident population for the most recent year, and GP0 is the U.S. adult resident population for the earlier year. The components [(1/GP0) * (P1 – P0)] and [(1/GP1) * (P1 – P0)] provide the change in the correctional supervision rate due to the change in the total correctional population. These two components were summed, and the average was used to estimate the amount of change in the correctional supervision rate attributed to the change in the total correctional population during that period. The components [P1 * ((1/GP1) – (1/GP0))] and [P0 * ((1/GP1) – (1/GP0)] provide the change due to the U.S. adult resident population. These two components were summed, and the average was used to estimate the amount of change in the correctional supervision rate attributed to the change in the U.S. adult resident population during the period. ************************************* Nonresponse adjustments to estimate population counts ************************************* Probation, parole, jail, and prison populations ************************************************* Probation, parole, jail, and prison population counts were adjusted to account for nonresponse across the data collections. The methods varied and depended on the type of collection, type of respondent, and availability of information. For more information on the nonresponse adjustments implemented to generate national and jurisdiction-level estimates of the probation, parole, and prison populations, see the following reports: Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229, BJS web, December 2016) and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2015 (NCJ 250230, BJS web, December 2016). For more information on the nonresponse adjustments implemented to generate national counts of the jail population that are included in the tables and figures of this report that include only national estimates, see Jail Inmates in 2015 (NCJ 250394, BJS web, December 2016). Jail population--jurisdiction-level estimates ********************************************** Nonresponse in the 2014 and 2015 DCRP was minimal. The unit response rate to the 2014 DCRP was 96.6% and 96.9% for the 2015 collection at the time of this report. The item response rate for the December 31 confined jail population was 98.9% in the 2014 DCRP and 99.6% in the 2015 DCRP. For jails that were unable to provide the 2014 and 2015 yearend count by sex, a carry-forward imputation procedure was used to impute values. This procedure used the specific nonrespondent’s data from a prior collection as a substitute for missing values in the 2014 or 2015 collection. These prior data were adjusted by the state-level rate of change between the year that the data were reported and the year the data were missing (e.g., data carried forward from 2012 were adjusted to account for the growth/decline in the confined population between 2012 and 2015 within the state where the jail was located). In the event that no prior years of reported data were available to carry forward, the imputed value from the 2013 Census of Jails that was used for weighting was carried forward as a proxy, subject to the same state-level adjustment for change in the confined population. For more information on the imputation method implemented in the 2013 Census of Jails, see Census of Jails: Population Changes, 1999–2013 (NDJ 248627, BJS web, November 2015). Because the DCRP data collection used a census design (no sampling), each jail was initially self-representing and had a design weight of 1. To reduce nonresponse bias, responding jails had their weight adjusted via post-stratification to allow their responses to represent jails that did not respond. The description of the weighting used in the 2014 and 2015 DCRP is described using 2015 as the example. Control totals for the 2015 confined jail population from the DCRP were estimated at the state level as follows: * The year-to-year change in confined jail population among respondents to both the 2014 and 2015 DCRP was computed within the state. * Estimated 2015 values were calculated by multiplying the yearly change rate and the 2014 DCRP estimate of confined population for jails that did not respond to the 2015 DCRP. * The sum of reported, item-imputed, and DCRP-estimated values for the 2015 confined jail population for each state served as the control totals for the post-stratification procedure. The post-stratification weight adjustment factor was identical for all jails within a state and was computed as the ratio of the control total for state i to the sum of the reported and item- imputed 2015 DCRP confined jail population values for state i: The final analysis weight is the product of the design weight and the post-stratification adjustment factor. Because the design weight was 1 for all jails, the analysis weight is equal to the adjustment factor. ********************************************** Nonresponse adjustments to estimate males and females under correctional supervision ********************************************** The number of males and females on probation or parole in 2014 and 2015 were adjusted to account for nonresponse using a ratio adjustment method. For jurisdictions that did not provide data on sex for a single year, the sex distribution reported the prior year was used. For jurisdictions that did not provide data on sex for a portion of their population, the sex distribution of the known portion of the population was used to impute for the unknown portion because it was assumed that the distributions were the same. For jurisdictions that were unable to provide any data on sex for more than 1 year, the state national average was used to impute the number of males and females supervised in those states. Adjusted jurisdiction totals were then aggregated to produce national estimates of the number of males and females on probation and parole. The counts of prisoners by sex in 2014 and 2015 were adjusted to account for nonresponse using either external sources or a ratio adjustment method. When possible, BJS used information available on state department of corrections’ websites to impute the number of males and females under the jurisdiction of that state’s prison system within the reference year. Otherwise, the sex distribution reported by the state in a recent, prior year was used to impute the number of males and females in the reference year. For more information, see Prisoners in 2015 (NCJ 250229, BJS web, December 2016). For jails that were unable to report the number of males and females confined at yearend 2014 or 2015, a carry-forward imputation procedure was used to impute values. This procedure used the nonrespondent’s data from a prior collection as a substitute for missing values in the 2014 or 2015 collection. These prior data were adjusted by the state-level rate of change between the year that the data were reported and the year that the data were missing. For example, data carried forward from 2014 were adjusted to account for the growth/decline in the confined population from 2014 to 2015 (i.e., the year the data were missing) within the state where the jail was located. In the event that no prior years of reported data were available to carry forward, the imputed value from the 2013 Census of Jails that was used for weighting was carried forward as a proxy, subject to the same state-level adjustment for change in the confined population. For more information on the imputation method implemented in the 2013 Census of Jails, see Census of Jails: Population Changes, 1999–2013 (NCJ 248627, BJS web, November 2015). To generate estimates of the total correctional population in 2014 and 2015 by sex and jurisdiction, ratio estimation was used to account for male and female offenders with multiple correctional statuses in each jurisdiction. These adjustments were made by correctional status and were based on reported counts, by jurisdiction, of the number of offenders by sex and the number of offenders with multiple correctional statuses: * To estimate the number of male and female prisoners held in local jails, the distribution of the prison population by sex within the reference year was applied to the number of prisoners in local jails by jurisdiction. The estimated number of female prisoners held in local jails was then subtracted from the total number of females under correctional supervision by jurisdiction. This same method was used to adjust the number of males under correctional supervision by jurisdiction. * The correctional population estimates in each jurisdiction were also adjusted to account for the number of males and females on probation who were held in prisons or local jails. The distribution of the local jail population by sex was applied to the number of probationers in local jails by jurisdiction within the reference year to estimate the number of males and females with both correctional statuses. In addition, the distribution of the prison population by sex was applied to the total number of probationers in prison within the reference year to estimate the number of males and females with both correctional statuses. The estimated number of male probationers in prisons and local jails was then subtracted from the number of males under correctional supervision within the reference year by jurisdiction, and this same method was used to adjust the number of females under correctional supervision by jurisdiction. This method was also employed to account for parolees held in prisons or local jails and the totals, by sex, were excluded from the number of males and females under correctional supervision in each jurisdiction. * To estimate the number of males and females on parole who were also on probation in 2014 and 2015, the distribution of the parole population by sex within the reference year was applied to the number of parolees on probation in each jurisdiction. The estimated number of males and females with dual community supervision statuses was then subtracted from the number of males under correctional supervision by jurisdiction. This same method was used to adjust the number of females under correctional supervision. ********************************************** Comparability of jurisdiction-level estimates over time ********************************************** All jurisdiction-level estimates included in this report are based on data reported within the reference year. Some jurisdictions update their population counts for different reasons after submitting their data to BJS. Updated population counts usually include data that were not entered into the information system before the survey was submitted or data that were not fully processed by yearend. Also, some jurisdictions have experienced reporting changes for one or more correctional population collections over time. These changes may result due to administrative changes (such as consolidating databases or implementing new information systems that result in data review and cleanup), reconciling offender records, reclassifying offenders (including those on probation to parole and offenders on dual community supervision statuses), and including certain subpopulations that were not previously reported. For these reasons, comparisons between jurisdictions and comparisons between years for the same jurisdiction over time may not be valid. More detailed information about updates and reporting changes that impact the ability to make jurisdiction- level comparisons over time can be found in the source reports for each of the four correctional populations, such as the Probation and Parole in the United States series or Prisoners series, within the particular reference year. ******************************************************* The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. Jeri M. Mulrow is acting director. This report was written by Danielle Kaeble and Lauren Glaze. Laura Maruschak and Todd Minton verified the report. Monika Potemra and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced the report. December 2016, NCJ 250374 ******************************************************* ************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Building Solutions * Supporting Communities * Advancing Justice www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************** ************************** 12/14/2016 JER 10:25am *************************