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=5299 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 ------------------------------------------------------- Bulletin Jail Inmates at Midyear 2014 Todd D. Minton and Zhen Zeng, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians The number of inmates confined in county and city jails was an estimated 744,600 at midyear 2014 (figure 1, table 1). The jail population remained steady at the 2012 level and was significantly lower than the peak of an estimated 785,500 at midyear 2008. Since 2000, the jail inmate population increased about 1% each year. The jail incarceration rate--the confined jail population per 100,000 U.S. residents--decreased steadily from a peak of 259 inmates per 100,000 at midyear 2007 to 234 per 100,000 at midyear 2014. The adult only jail incarceration rate has also declined from a high of 340 inmates per 100,000 at midyear 2007 to 302 per 100,000 at midyear 2014. This report summarizes data from the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) which is conducted in years between the complete census of local jails. ASJ uses a stratified probability sample of jail jurisdictions to estimate the number and characteristics of local inmates nationwide. The 2014 ASJ sample consisted of 891 jail jurisdictions, represented by 942 jail facilities (referred to as reporting units). This sample represents about 2,750 jail jurisdictions nationwide. Local jail jurisdictions include counties (parishes in Louisiana) or municipal governments that administer one or more local jails. ************************************************************** ************* HIGHLIGHTS ************* * The number of inmates confined in county and city jails was an estimated 744,600 at midyear 2014. The jail population remained steady at the 2012 level and was significantly lower than the peak of an estimated 785,500 inmates at midyear 2008. * Since 2000, the jail inmate population increased about 1% each year. * The jail incarceration rate decreased from a peak of 259 per 100,000 in 2007 to 234 per 100,000 at midyear 2014. The adult only jail incarceration rate declined from a high of 340 per 100,000 in 2007 to 302 per 100,000 at midyear 2014. * The female inmate population increased 18.1% between midyear 2010 and 2014, while the male population declined 3.2%. * White inmates accounted for 47% of the total jail population, blacks represented 35%, and Hispanics represented 15%. * About 4,200 juveniles age 17 or younger were held in local jails at midyear 2014. They accounted for 0.6% of the confined population, down from 1.2% at midyear 2000. * Nearly 90% or 3,700 juvenile inmates were tried or awaiting trial in adult court. The number of juveniles not charged as an adult declined by 74% between midyear 2010 and 2014 (from 1,900 to 500 inmates). * Since 2000, 95% of the growth in the overall jail inmate population (123,500) was due to the increase in the unconvicted population (117,700 inmates) and 5% was due to the increase in the convicted population (5,800 inmates). * Local jails admitted about 11.4 million persons during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2014, remaining stable since 2011 (11.8 million) and down from a peak of 13.6 million in 2008. ************************************************************* Males have made up at least 85% of the jail population since 2000. The female inmate population increased 18.1% (up 16,700 inmates) between midyear 2010 and 2014, while the male population declined 3.2% (down 20,900 inmates) (table 2, table 3). The female jail population grew by an average of about 1.6% every year between 2005 and 2014. In comparison, the male jail population declined by 0.3% every year since 2005 (not shown). White inmates accounted for 47% of the total jail population, blacks represented 35%, and Hispanics represented 15% at midyear 2014. From midyear 2010 to 2014, white inmates increased by 21,200, while black (19,400) and Hispanic (7,500) inmates declined. About 4,200 juveniles age 17 or younger were held in local jails at midyear 2014. They accounted for 0.6% of the confined population, down from 1.2% at midyear 2000. Nearly 90% or 3,700 juvenile inmates were tried or awaiting trial in adult court. The number of juveniles not charged as an adult declined by 74% between midyear 2010 and 2014 (from 1,900 to 500 inmates). At midyear 2014, 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 midyear 2013 to 2014, the number of unconvicted inmates and the number of convicted inmates remained statistically the same. Since 2000, 95% of the growth in the overall jail inmate population (up 123,500) was due to the increase in the unconvicted population (up 117,700 inmates) and 5% was due to the increase in the convicted population (up 5,800 inmates). ***************************************** Nearly half of jail inmates were held in less than 10% of jails ***************************************** The largest jails (those with an average daily population (ADP) of 1,000 or more inmates) held 47% of the jail inmate population at midyear 2014, but accounted for 6% of all jail jurisdictions nationwide (table 4). In comparison, the smallest jail jurisdictions (those with an ADP of less than 50 inmates) held 3% of the inmate population, but accounted for 38% of all jail jurisdictions. Jail jurisdictions with an ADP of 50 to 99 inmates and 100 to 249 inmates accounted for about 20% each of jail jurisdictions. Combined, these jail jurisdictions held 19% 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 2014. Similar patterns were observed in 2013 for all categories. ***************************************** Increase in new bed space between 2013 and 2014 was similar to the average annual increase between 2000 and 2013 ***************************************** Rated capacity in jails reached an estimated 890,500 beds at midyear 2014, an increase of nearly 4% from 857,900 beds at midyear 2010 (figure 2, table 5). Rated capacity is the maximum number of beds or inmates allocated to each jail facility by a state or local rating official. Since peaking in 2007 (96%), the percentage of rated capacity occupied at midyear 2014 (84%) was the lowest since 2000. At midyear 2014, jail jurisdictions holding 250 or more inmates reported a higher percentage of occupied bed space (85% to 87%) than smaller jail jurisdictions holding fewer than 250 inmates (67% to 79%) (table 6). In addition to the ratio of midyear jail population to rated capacity, two additional measures can be used to measure jail crowding—the ratio of ADP in a year to rated capacity, and the ratio of the number of inmates on the most crowded day in June to rated capacity. Using these measures, the nation’s jails operated at about 83% of rated capacity on an average day and about 89% of rated capacity on their most crowded day in June 2014. 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 0.9% on average per year, while rated capacity increased by 1.2% 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 84% at midyear 2014. From midyear 2008 to 2014, jail jurisdictions holding 100 to 249 inmates experienced the largest percentage increase in rated capacity relative to population change (figure 3). These jurisdictions reported an 18% increase in their rated capacity and a small increase (less than 1%) in their inmate population. The smallest jail jurisdictions, which held fewer than 50 inmates, reported the smallest percentage increase in rated capacity (up 4.9%) relative to population change (down 1.2%). Jails holding more than 250 inmates experienced a decline in their midyear jail population and an increase in their rated capacity. ***************************************** Local jails admitted 11.4 million persons during the 12-month period ending midyear 2014 ***************************************** Local jails admitted an estimated 11.4 million persons during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2014, a stable estimate since 2011 (11.8 million), but down from a peak of 13.6 million admissions in 2008. The number of persons admitted in 2014 was 15 times the size of the ADP (an estimated 739,000) during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2014. (See Methodology for methods used to estimate admissions.) Nearly 4 in 10 admissions to jail during the last week of June 2014 were to the largest jail jurisdictions (table 7). In comparison, jail jurisdictions holding fewer than 50 inmates accounted for 6% of all jail admissions. For these jurisdictions, the number of inmates admitted was 28 times the size of the ADP between midyear 2013 and 2014. These small jail jurisdictions also experienced the highest turnover rate (104%), measured as the change in admissions and releases by the ADP. (See Methodology for detail.) The turnover rate was the smallest in large jail jurisdictions (49%). Higher turnover rates mean larger numbers of admissions and releases relative to the size of the ADP. *************** 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. The 2014 ASJ sample consisted of 891 jail jurisdictions, represented by 942 jail facilities (referred to as reporting units). This sample represents about 2,750 jail jurisdictions nationwide. Local jail jurisdictions include counties (parishes in Louisiana) or municipal governments that administer one or more local jails. In the sampling design, the jail jurisdictions nationwide were grouped into 10 strata. The 10 strata were defined by the interaction of two variables: the jail jurisdiction average daily population (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 to 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 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 sampling design used for the 2014 ASJ is the same as the design used for the 2013 ASJ. The 2013 ASJ differed from the 2006–2012 ASJs in that it 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 item response rate for jails that responded to the survey was nearly 100% for critical items, such as the number of inmates confined, ADP, and rated capacity. (See appendix tables 1 to 7 for standard errors associated with reported estimates from the 2014 ASJ.) Response rate, nonresponse adjustment, and out-of-scope jail facilities ***************************************** The 2014 ASJ sample initially comprised 942 reporting units. However, 12 units were out-of-scope for the 2014 data collection because they had closed either permanently or temporarily, which resulted in a sample of 930 active respondents. Ninety-three percent (or 878) of the 930 active individual reporting units responded to the 2014 data collection, and 52 active individual reporting units did not respond to the survey. BJS implemented nonresponse weight adjustment procedures to account for unit nonresponse, as it did in 2011 to 2013. 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 2014 ASJ data file is calculated as where whi = sample weight for 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 2014, California jails experienced a significant increase in the number of inmates (about 13,900 inmates) that was not experienced by jails nationwide. To capture this jail population growth in California more accurately, all California jurisdictions were added to the ASJ sample in 2013. Accordingly, BJS computed new weights to ensure that the sampled California jail jurisdictions represent California jurisdictions only. 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 active California jurisdictions in stratum h, nCAh = number of sampled California jurisdictions in stratum h In 2014, all 63 California jail jurisdictions responded, so their final weights post-stratification were 1. The post-stratification adjustment for non-California jail jurisdictions is computed as where NCAh = number of active non-California jail jurisdictions in stratum h, computed as nCAh = number of sampled non-California jail jurisdictions in stratum h. ***************************** Item nonresponse imputation **************************** Critical items: Midyear inmate population, ADP, and rated capacity ***************************************** Based on the 2014 ASJ, about 99% of the 878 individual reporting units provided valid data on their midyear inmate population (872), ADP (864), and rated capacity (869). 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 1 individual reporting unit included midyear inmate population data based on the 2014 ASJ. * Data for 5 individual reporting units included midyear inmate population data based on estimates from the 2013 ASJ. * Data for 9 individual reporting units included ADP data based on their confined population at midyear 2014. * Data for 5 individual reporting units included ADP data based on estimates from the 2013 ASJ. * Data for 9 individual reporting units included rated capacity data based on estimates from the 2013 ASJ. Inmate characteristics ************************ Based on the 2014 ASJ, 90% to 95% of the 878 individual reporting units provided valid data on sex, age, race/Hispanic origin, and 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 2014 ASJ, 841 of the 878 individual reporting units (96%) 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 37 reporting units that did not report specific data on admissions and releases. Release data were estimated for 5 reporting units that reported data on admissions, but not on releases. Nonresponse weight adjustments account for the survey nonrespondents. Estimates were calculated based on the following criteria: * Data for 3 individual reporting units included admission and release data based on estimates from the 2012 ASJ. * Data for 29 individual reporting units included admission and release data based on estimates from the 2013 ASJ. * Release data for 5 individual reporting units were based on admission data reported in 2014. 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 365 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 2014 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. Standard errors and tests of significance ****************************************** As with any survey, the ASJ estimates are subject to error arising from sampling rather than using a complete enumeration of the jail population. A common way to express this sampling variability is to construct a 95% confidence interval around each survey estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses the range of values that could result among 95% of the different samples that could be drawn. 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 *********************** 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, 2013, and June 30, 2014). 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 of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principalfederal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminaloffenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminaland 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 nd local criminaljustice information systems, and participates with national and internationalorganizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is director. This report was written by Todd D. Minton and Zhen Zeng, Ph.D. Tracy L. Snell provided statistical review and verified the report. Leslie Miller carried out the data collection and processing under the supervision of Nicole Adolph and Crecilla Scott, Economic Reimbursable Surveys Division,Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Suzanne Dorinski and Rekha Kudlur provided statistical and technical assistance. Irene Cooperman and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report. June 2015, NCJ 248629 ************************************************************* ************************************************* Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************ ******************************** 5/26/2015/JER/3:30pm Revised ********************************