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=4988 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=38 ------------------------------------------------------- Jail Inmates at Midyear 2013 - Statistical Tables Todd D. Minton and Daniela Golinelli, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians After a peak in the number of inmates confined in county and city jails at midyear 2008 (785,533), the jail population was significantly lower by midyear 2013 (731,208) (figure 1, table 1). However, the estimated decline between midyear 2012 and 2013 was not statistically significant. California’s jails experienced an increase of about 12,000 inmates since midyear 2011. (For more information on California, see the text box on page 2.) The jail incarceration rate—the confined population per 100,000 U.S. residents—declined slightly between midyear 2012 (237 per 100,000) and 2013 (231 per 100,000). This decline continues a downward trend from a high of 259 jail inmates per 100,000 residents in 2007. Males represented at least 86% of the jail population since 2000. The female inmate population increased 10.9% (up 10,000 inmates) between midyear 2010 and 2013, while the male population declined 4.2% (down 27,500 inmates) (table 2, table 3). The female jail population grew by an average of about 1% each year between 2005 and 2013. In comparison, the male jail population declined an annual average of less than 1% every year since 2005 (not shown). White inmates accounted for 47% of the total jail population, blacks represented 36%, and Hispanics represented 15% at midyear 2013. About 4,600 juveniles were held in local jails (less than 1% of the confined population), down from 5,400 during the same period in 2012. At midyear 2013, about 6 in 10 inmates were not convicted, but were in jail awaiting court action on a current charge—a rate unchanged since 2005. About 4 in 10 inmates were sentenced offenders or convicted offenders awaiting sentencing. From the first significant decline in the overall jail population since midyear 2009, the unconvicted population (down 24,000 inmates) outpaced the decline in the convicted inmate population (down 12,000 inmates). **************************************************** ************************************* California Public Safety Realignment ************************************* On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling by a lower three- judge court that the State of California must reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity (approximately 110,000 prisoners) within 2 years to alleviate overcrowding. In response, the California State Legislature and governor enacted two laws—AB 109 and AB 117—to reduce the number of inmates housed in state prisons starting October 1, 2011. The Public Safety Realignment (PSR) policy is designed to reduce the prison population through normal attrition of the existing population while placing new nonviolent, nonserious, nonsex offenders under county jurisdiction for incarceration in local jail facilities. Inmates released from local jails will be placed under a county-directed postrelease community supervision program instead of the state’s parole system. The state is giving additional funding to the 58 counties in California to deal with the increased correctional population and responsibility; however, each county must develop a plan for custody and post-custody that best serves its needs. After record low jail populations between yearend 2010 and yearend 2011, the California jail population increased by an estimated 7,600 inmates between yearend 2011 and midyear 2012 and by an estimated 3,500 inmates between midyear 2012 and midyear 2013 (figure 2). At midyear 2013, characteristics of inmates held in California jails differed from the national jail population (when excluding California), including inmates’ race and conviction status. In California jails, Hispanics accounted for 45% of the total inmate population, whites represented 32%, and blacks represented 20% of inmates (not shown). In comparison, Hispanics accounted for 11% of the national inmate population (excluding California), whites represented 49%, and blacks represented 38% of the jail inmate population. There was also a slight difference in the inmate conviction status. At midyear 2013, 43% of inmates held in California jails were convicted, compared to 37% confined in non-California jails. No differences were found among male and female and adult and juvenile inmate populations. **************************************************** ************************************* The majority of the jail inmates are held in less than 10% of jails ************************************* The largest jails held 48% of the inmate population at midyear 2013, but accounted for 6% of all jail jurisdictions nationwide (table 4). In comparison, the smallest jail jurisdictions held 3% of the inmate population, but accounted for 38% of all jail jurisdictions. Jail jurisdictions with an average daily population (ADP) of 50 to 99 inmates and 100 to 249 inmates accounted for equal shares (about 20% each) of jail jurisdictions. Combined, these jail jurisdictions accounted for 18% of all inmates. Jail jurisdictions with an ADP of 250 to 999 inmates accounted for 17% of all jail jurisdictions, but held 31% of all inmates at midyear 2013. Similar patterns were observed in 2012 for all categories. **************************************** Increase in new bed space between 2012 and 2013 was smaller than the average annual increase between 2000 and 2012 **************************************** Rated capacity in jails reached 891,271 beds at midyear 2013, an increase of 1.6% (up 13,875 beds) from 877,396 beds at midyear 2012; however, the change was not statistically significant (figure 3, table 5). The increase between midyear 2012 and 2013 was smaller than the average annual increase each year between 2000 and 2012 (up 2.2% or 19,003 beds). Rated capacity is the maximum number of beds or inmates allocated to each jail facility by a state or local rating official. The percentage of rated capacity at midyear 2013 (82%) was the lowest since 1984 (86%). At midyear 2013, jail jurisdictions holding 250 to 499 inmates reported the highest percentage of occupied bed space (87%), compared to jails holding fewer than 50 inmates (64%) (table 6). In addition to measuring the rated capacity occupied based on the inmate count at midyear, the measurement can be based on the ADP in jail jurisdictions during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2013, and by the number of inmates on the most crowded day during June 2013. Using these two measures, the nation’s jails operated at about 82% of rated capacity on an average day and about 88% of rated capacity on their most crowded day in June 2013. While the confined population and rated jail capacity both increased at roughly comparable rates from 2000 through 2008, the growth rates have diverged since 2008. The confined population declined by 1.4% on average per year, while rated capacity increased by 1.5% on average per year. The increase in capacity and decrease in confined population almost equally contributed to the decline in the percentage of capacity occupied, from 95% at midyear 2008 to 82% at midyear 2013. Jail jurisdictions holding between 100 and 249 inmates experienced the largest difference in change rates between rated capacity and the jail inmate population (figure 4). From midyear 2008 to 2013, these jail jurisdictions reported a decrease of 1% in their inmate custody population and a 17% increase in their rated capacity. The smallest jail jurisdictions, which held fewer than 50 inmates, reported the smallest difference between change in their inmate population (down 7.2%) and change in rated capacity (up 2.6%). All other jail jurisdiction categories experienced a decline in their midyear jail population and an increase in their rated capacity. **************************************** Local jails admitted 11.7 million persons during the 12-month period ending midyear 2013. **************************************** Local jails admitted an estimated 11.7 million persons during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2013, remaining stable since 2011 (11.8 million) and down from a peak of 13.6 million admissions in 2008. The number of persons admitted in 2013 was 16 times the size of the ADP (731,352) during the 12- month period ending June 30, 2013. (See Methodology for methods used to estimate admissions.) More than a third of admissions during the last week of June 2013 were to the largest jail jurisdictions (table 7). In comparison, jail jurisdictions holding fewer than 50 inmates accounted for 7% of all jail admissions. For these jails, the number of inmates admitted was 34 times the size of the ADP between 2012 and 2013. These small jail jurisdictions also experienced the highest turnover rate (121%). The turnover rate was the smallest in large jail jurisdictions (44%). Higher turnover rates mean larger numbers of admissions and releases relative to the size of the ADP. ************************************************** *************** List of tables *************** Table 1. Inmates confined in local jails at midyear, average daily population, and incarceration rates, 2000–2013 Table 2. Number of inmates in local jails, by characteristics, midyear 2000 and 2005–2013 Table 3. Percent of inmates in local jails, by characteristics, midyear 2000 and 2005–2013 Table 4. Inmates confined in local jails at midyear, by size of jurisdiction, 2012–2013 Table 5. Rated capacity of local jails and percent of capacity occupied, 2000–2013 Table 6. Percent of jail capacity occupied at midyear, by size of jurisdiction, 2012–2013 Table 7. Average daily jail population, admissions, and turnover rate, by size of jurisdiction, week ending June 30, 2012 and 2013 Table 8. Inmate population in jail jurisdictions reporting on confined persons being held for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), midyear 2002–2013 Table 9. Persons under jail supervision, by confinement status and type of program, midyear 2000 and 2006–2013 Appendix Table 1. Standard errors for selected jail populations, 2012–2013 Appendix Table 2. Standard errors for table 2: Number of inmates in local jails, by characteristics, midyear 2000 and 2005–2013 Appendix Table 3. Standard error ratio estimates for table 3: Percent of inmates in local jails, by characteristics, midyear 2000 and 2005–2013 Appendix Table4. Standard errors for table 4: Inmates confined in local jails at midyear, by size of jurisdiction, 2012–2013 Appendix Table 5. Standard errors for table 6: Percent of jail capacity occupied at midyear, by size of jurisdiction, 2012–2013 Appendix Table 6. Standard errors for table 7: Average daily jail population, admissions, and turnover rate, by size of jurisdiction, week ending June 30, 2012 and 2013 Appendix Table 7. Standard errors for table 9: Persons under jail supervision, by confinement status and type of program, midyear 2000 and 2006–2013 ************************************************** ************* Methodology ************* Annual Survey of Jails *********************** In years between the complete census of local jails, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducts the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). ASJ uses a stratified probability sample of jail jurisdictions to estimate the number and characteristics of local inmates nationwide. For the 2013 ASJ, the U.S. Census Bureau, as the collection agent, drew a sample of 891 jail jurisdictions (including 21 newly added existing California jail jurisdictions) represented by 946 jail facilities (referred to as reporting units). This sample represents over 2,800 jail jurisdictions nationwide. Local jail jurisdictions include counties (parishes in Louisiana) or municipal governments that administer one or more local jails. In the adopted design, the over 2,800 jail jurisdictions nationwide were grouped into 10 strata. The 10 strata were defined by the crossing of two variables: the jail jurisdiction ADP in 2005, and whether in 2005 the jurisdiction held at least one juvenile. For 8 of the 10 strata, a random sample of jail jurisdictions was selected. For the remaining two strata, all jurisdictions were included in the sample. One stratum consisted of all jails (70) that were operated jointly by two or more jurisdictions (referred to as multi-jurisdictional jails). The other stratum (referred as certainty stratum) consisted of all jail jurisdictions (267) that-- * held juvenile inmates at the time of the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates and had an average daily population (ADP) of 500 or more inmates during the 12 months ending June 30, 2005. * held only adult inmates and had an ADP of 750 or more. The 2013 ASJ differed from the 2006–2012 ASJs, as the 2013 ASJ included in the sample with a probability of one all California jail jurisdictions in response to the two enacted laws—AB 109 and AB 117 by the California State Legislature and governor—to reduce the number of inmates housed in state prisons starting October 1, 2011. The inclusion of all California jail jurisdictions resulted in an additional 21 jail jurisdictions (for a total sample size of 891 jurisdictions). Since the enactment of the two laws in recent years, the California jail population has experienced changes in size that cannot be compared to the changes of any other state in the U.S. For this reason, the California jail jurisdictions were put in separate strata so that they could represent only California jurisdictions. The same sampling design was adopted for the California jurisdictions. BJS obtained data from sampled jail jurisdictions by mailed and web-based survey questionnaires. After follow-up phone calls and facsimiles, the response rate for data reporters was nearly 100% for critical items, such as the number of inmates confined, ADP, and rated capacity. (See tables 10, 11, and 12 for standard errors associated with reported estimates from the 2013 ASJ.) **************************************** Response rate, nonresponse adjustment, and out-of-scope jail facilities **************************************** The 2013 ASJ sample comprised 946 reporting units. Ninety-one percent (or 859) of the 941 individual reporting units responded to the 2013 data collection, and 82 individual reporting units did not respond to the survey.***Footnote * *The sample initially comprised 946 units. However, 5 units were out-of-scope for the 2013 data collection because they had closed, either permanently or temporarily, which resulted in the sample of 941 active respondents.*** BJS implemented nonresponse weight adjustment procedures to account for unit nonresponse, as it did in 2011 and 2012. Respondent indicators ********************** The respondent reporting unit indicator JAILRhij is set for each individual reporting unit j in jurisdiction i in stratum h on the file, based on the status of the individual reporting unit. The respondent jurisdiction indicator JURISRhi is set for each jurisdiction i in stratum h on the file, based on the value of JAILRhij for the reporting units within the jurisdiction. Active Indicators ******************* The active reporting unit indicator JAILAhij is set for each individual reporting unit j in jurisdiction i in stratum h on the file, based on the status of the individual reporting unit. The active jurisdiction indicator JURISAhi is set for each jurisdiction i in stratum h on the file, based on the value of JAILAhij for the reporting units within the jurisdiction. Nonresponse weighting adjustment factor ****************************************** The nonresponse weighting adjustment factor is calculated within each stratum. BJS uses the sample weights in the nonresponse adjustment factor. The nonresponse weighting adjustment factor F2h is calculated as Where nh = number of jurisdictions sampled in stratum h, whi = sample weight for jurisdiction i in stratum h. Final weight ************** The final weight FWhi for each jail jurisdiction on the 2013 ASJ data file is calculated as where Whi = sample weight in jurisdiction i in stratum h. JAILRhi is used to set the final weight to 0 for units that are closed, out- of-scope, or nonrespondents. Final weight post-stratification: California jail jurisdictions and the Public Safety Realignment ********************************************* Because of the California Public Safety Realignment, between midyear 2011 and midyear 2013, California jails experienced a significant increase in the number of inmates (about 12,000 inmates) that was not experienced by jails nationwide. Consequently, California jails do not represent other jail jurisdictions nationwide. To ensure that the sampled California jail jurisdictions represent California jurisdictions only, BJS computed new weights. Without computing these new weights, the estimated nationwide jail population would be erroneously inflated. The post-stratification final weight adjustment is calculated for each stratum from which California jurisdictions were sampled. More specifically for each stratum, two new strata and set of weights were created: one for the California jurisdictions (PSCAh) and one for the non-California jurisdictions (PSCAh). In 2013, all California jail jurisdictions were included in the sample; however, not all of them responded. The weight adjustment for California jail jurisdictions is computed as where NCAh = number of California jurisdictions in stratum h, nCAh = number of sampled California jurisdictions in stratum h The post-stratification adjustment for non-California jurisdictions is computed as where NCAh = number of non-California jurisdictions in stratum h, computed as nCAh = number of sampled non-California jurisdictions in stratum h. Item nonresponse imputation ****************************** Critical items: Midyear inmate population, average daily population (ADP), and rated capacity ------------------------------------------- Based on the 2013 ASJ, about 99% of the 859 individual reporting units provided valid data on their midyear inmate population (853), average daily population (847), and rated capacity (849). To calculate a national midyear inmate population, ADP, and rated capacity estimate, data were estimated for the reporting units that did not report specific data. Estimates were calculated based on the following criteria: * Data for 5 individual reporting units included midyear inmate population data based on estimates from the 2012 ASJ. * Data for 1 individual reporting unit included the midyear inmate population data based on estimates from the 2011 ASJ. * Data for 11 individual reporting units included ADP data based on estimates from the 2012 ASJ. * Data for 1 individual reporting unit included the ADP data based on their confined population at midyear 2013. * Data for 7 individual reporting units included rated capacity data based on estimates from the 2012 ASJ. * Data for 3 individual reporting unit included rated capacity data based on estimates from the 2011 ASJ. Inmate characteristics ************************ Based on the 2013 ASJ, more than 90% of the 859 individual reporting units provided valid data on sex, age, and race/Hispanic origin. Nearly 91% of respondents provided data on inmate conviction status. To calculate a national rate for inmate characteristics, data were estimated based on the ratio of the reported characteristic population to the total midyear confined population. Weekly admission and release estimation procedures ***************************** Based on the 2013 ASJ, 847 of the 859 individual reporting units (98%) provided valid data on weekly admissions or releases. To calculate an overall weekly estimate, data on offender flows through local jails were estimated for the 12 reporting units that did not report specific data on admissions and releases. Release data were estimated for 3 reporting units that reported data on admissions, but not on releases. Nonresponse weight adjustments account for the 82 survey nonrespondents. Estimates were calculated based on the following criteria: * Data for 1 individual reporting unit included admission and release data based on estimates from the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates. * Data for 1 individual reporting unit included admission and release data based on estimates from the 2007 ASJ. * Data for 4 individual reporting units included admission and release data based on estimates from the 2011 ASJ. * Data for 6 individual reporting units included admission and release data based on estimates from the 2012 ASJ. * Release data for 3 individual reporting units were based on admission data reported in 2013. Calculating annual admissions ****************************** The ASJ collects data on weekly admissions. BJS determined that the June admission data from the 2004 Survey of Large Jails (SLJ) were a reliable source to calculate a nationwide annual admission estimate. Although the number of admissions to jails fluctuated throughout the year, the SLJ tracked monthly movements from January 2003 to January 2004 and showed that the June 2003 count (339,500) closely matched the annual average number of admissions (342,956). The number of annual admissions was calculated by multiplying the weekly admissions by 366 days and dividing by 7 days. Calculating weekly turnover rates ********************************** Weekly jail turnover rates were modeled after the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. Additional information on turnover rates is available at http://www.bls.gov/jlt/. Jail turnover rates were calculated by adding admissions and releases, and then dividing by the ADP. The turnover rate takes into account jail admissions and releases and gives an indication of the fluctuation of the jail population. Jurisdiction size categories ****************************** For the 2011 through 2013 reports, BJS categorized jurisdiction sizes based on the ADP during the 12 months ending midyear 2006 (the first year in the current ASJ series). For the 2010 report, comparisons of size categories from midyear 2009 to midyear 2010 were based on the ADP during the 12 months ending midyear 2009. In previous reports (2007 through 2009), the size category comparisons were based on the 12 months ending midyear of the specific collection year. As a result, not all data in previous reports are comparable with data in this report. Estimating California’s 2012 midyear jail population ***************************************************** The ASJ is a sample survey, and data are not representative of individual states (except for California starting with the 2013 ASJ). In 2012, data from about 70% of California’s jail jurisdictions were included in the 2006–2012 ASJs. Based on yearend data of California’s jail population collected through BJS’s Deaths in Custody Reporting Program, 70% of California’s jail jurisdictions included in the ASJ accounted for about 97.5% of all California’s jail population in any given year from 2005 to 2011. In 2012, to calculate a midyear jail population, BJS applied the proportion of the latest yearend non-ASJ sample of California’s jail population to the midyear inmate population in the ASJ sample for that year. For example: ASJ sample of California’s jail population at midyear 2012 = 76,667 Proportion of the latest non-ASJ sample of California jail population at yearend 2011 = 2.5868%. (76,667 * .025868) + (76,667)= 78,650 estimated midyear jail population. Jail functions ***************** Jails in the ASJ include confinement facilities—usually administered by a local law enforcement agency—that are intended for adults but may hold juveniles before or after they are adjudicated. Facilities include jails and city or county correctional centers; special jail facilities, such as medical or treatment release centers, halfway houses, and 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. Within the ASJ, jails-- * receive individuals pending arraignment and hold them awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing * re-admit probation, parole, and bail bond violators and absconders temporarily detain juveniles pending their transfer to juvenile authorities * hold mentally ill persons pending their movement to appropriate mental health facilities * hold individuals for the military, for protective custody, for contempt, and for the courts as witnesses * release convicted inmates to the community upon completion of sentence transfer inmates to federal, state, or other authorities * house inmates for federal, state, or other authorities because of crowding of their facilities * sometimes operate community-based programs as alternatives to incarceration. Terms and definitions used in the report ****************************************** Admissions--Persons who are officially booked and housed in jails by formal legal document and the authority of the courts or some other official agency. Jail admissions include persons sentenced to weekend programs and those who are booked into the facility for the first time. Excluded from jail admissions are inmates re-entering the facility after an escape, work release, medical appointment or treatment facility appointment, and bail and court appearances. BJS collects jail admissions for the last 7 days in June. Average daily population (ADP)--The average is derived by the sum of inmates in jail each day for a year, divided by the number of days in the year (i.e., between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013). Average annual change--The mean average change across a 12-month time period. Calculating annual admissions--BJS collects the number of jail admissions during the last 7 days in June. Annual jail admissions are calculated by multiplying weekly admissions by the sum of 365 days divided by 7 days. Calculating weekly jail turnover rate--This rate is calculated by adding admissions and releases and dividing by the average daily population. See Calculating weekly turnover rates for additional information. Inmates confined at midyear--The number of inmates held in custody on the last weekday in June. Jail incarceration rate--The number of inmates held in the custody of local jails, per 100,000 U.S. residents. Percent of capacity occupied--This percentage is calculated by taking the number of inmates (midyear or average daily population), dividing by the rated capacity, and multiplying by 100. Rated capacity--The number of beds or inmates assigned by a rating official to a facility, excluding separate temporary holding areas. Releases--Persons released after a period of confinement (e.g., sentence completion, bail or bond releases, other pretrial releases, transfers to other jurisdictions, and deaths). Releases include those persons who have completed their weekend program and who are leaving the facility for the last time. Excluded from jail releases are temporary discharges including work release, medical appointment or treatment center, court appearance, furlough, day reporting, and transfers to other facilities within the jail’s jurisdiction. Under jail supervision but not confined--This classification includes all persons in community-based programs operated by a jail facility. These programs include electronic monitoring, house arrest, community service, day reporting, and work programs. The classification excludes persons on pretrial release and who are not in a community-based program run by the jail, as well as persons under supervision of probation, parole or other agencies, inmates on weekend programs, and inmates who participate in work release programs and return to the jail at night. Weekend programs--Offenders in these programs are allowed to serve their sentences of confinement only on weekends (i.e., Friday to Sunday). ************************************************************ The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyzes, and disseminates statistical information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Todd D. Minton and Daniela Golinelli. E. Ann Carson and Tracy L. Snell verified the report. Leslie Miller carried out the data collection and processing with assistance provided by Beth Davis and Lorelle Dennis under the supervision of Stephen Simoncini and Heather C. West, Ph.D., Governments Division, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Suzanne Dorinski and Rekha Kudlur provided statistical and technical assistance. Lockheed Martin and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey and Barbara Quinn produced the report. May 2014, NCJ 245350 ************************************************************ ************************************************ Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************ ********************** 4/23/2014/JER/10:00am **********************