U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ----------------------------------------------------- This report 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=42 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://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4538 -------------------------------------------------------- Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011 Laura M. Maruschak, BJS Statistician and Erika Parks, BJS Intern November 2012, NCJ 239686 During 2011, for the third consecutive year, the number of adults under community supervision declined. At yearend 2011, there were about 4,814,200 adults under community supervision, down 1.5% or 71,300 offenders from the beginning of the year (figure 1). The community supervision population includes adults on probation, parole, or any other post- prison supervision (see text box on page 2 for definitions of probation and parole). The drop in the probation population drove the decline in the total number of adults under community supervision. In 2011, the probation population fell 2%,from an estimated 4,053,100 to 3,971,300. While the parole population increased 1.6% during 2011, the increase was not enough to offset the overall decrease in the community supervision population. At yearend 2011, 1 in 50 adults in the U.S. were under community supervision. Data in this report were collected through the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey. Both surveys began in 1980 and collect data from U.S. probation and parole agencies that supervise adults. (See text box at the bottom of the page.) In these data, an adult is any person subject to the jurisdiction of an adult trial court or corrections agency. Juveniles prosecuted as adults in a criminal court are considered adults. Respondents are asked to report the number of adults on probation or parole at the beginning and end of each reporting year, the number entering and exiting supervision during the reporting year, characteristics of the populations at yearend, and other information. The reporting methods for some probation and parole agencies have changed over time (see Methodology). See appendix tables for additional 2011 data by jurisdiction. ************************************************* *************** HIGHLIGHTS *************** The number of adults under community supervision declined by about 71,300 during 2011, down to 4,814,200 at yearend. * A 2% decline in the probation population along with a 1.6% increase in the parole population accounted for the overall change in the community supervision population. * At yearend 2011, for the first time since 2002, the U.S. probation population fell below 4 million. * During 2011, about 4.3 million adults moved onto or off probation; probation entries (2,109,500) declined for the fourth consecutive year while probation exits (2,189,100) declined for the second consecutive year. * Two-thirds (66%) of probationers completed their term of supervision or were discharged early during 2011, about the same percentage as in 2009 and 2010 (65% in both years). * The rate of incarceration among probationers at risk for violating their conditions of supervision in 2011 (5.5%) was consistent with the rate in 2000 (5.5%). * Nearly 853,900 adults were on parole at yearend 2011; about 1.1 million adults moved onto or off parole during the year. * Both parole entries (down 3.4%) and exits (down 5.3%) declined between 2010 and 2011. * During 2011, the state parole population grew 1.1%, from about 736,800 to 744,700, while the federal population grew 5.1%, from 103,800 to 109,100. * Slightly more than half (52%) of parolees completed their term of supervision or were discharged early in 2011, unchanged from 2010. * Among parolees at risk for violating their conditions of supervision, about 12% were reincarcerated during 2011, down from more than 15% in 2006. ************************************************** ************************************************** Community supervision population in 2011 fell below the 2003 level ************************************************** The number of U.S. adults under community supervision (4,814,200) declined during 2011(appendix table 1). This represents the third consecutive within-year decrease in this population. In 2011, the population fell below the level not observed since 2003 (4,847,500). This downward trend in the community supervision population is relatively recent. The U.S. saw increasing numbers of adults under community supervision from 1980 through 2008. During that period, growth rates fluctuated from a high of 10.9% in 1983 to a low of 0.5% in 2004. The number of adults under community supervision declined for the first time in 2009 and continued to decline through 2011. During 2011, the probation population declined by about 81,800, falling below 4 million (figure 2; appendix table 2). This level was last observed in 2002 (3,995,200) and marked the third consecutive within-year decline in the population. Since probationers accounted for about 82% of the adults under community supervision, the trend observed among the community supervision population was largely driven by the trend in the probation population. Between 1980 and 2008, the growth of the probation population fluctuated from a high of 10.7% in 1983 to a low of 0.5% in 2004 and 2005. In 2009, the probation population declined for the first time since BJS began tracking this population in 1980. During 2011, the parole population grew by about 13,300 to nearly 853,900, a 1.6% increase from the beginning of the year(figure 3; appendix table 4). This increase slightly offset the decline in the community supervision population caused by the decreased probation population. (See text box for discussion of the California Public Safety Realignment.) The change in the number of adults under community supervision observed between the beginning of the year and yearend 2011 was slightly different from the cumulative change in probationers and parolees over the same period because community supervision numbers were adjusted to account for parolees who were also serving a sentence of probation (see Methodology for discussion of adjustments). ************************************************** -------------------------------------- BJS definition of probation and parole --------------------------------------- Probation is a court-ordered period of correctional supervision in the community, generally as an alternative to incarceration. In some cases, probation can be a combined sentence of incarceration followed by a period of community supervision. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a prison term. It includes parolees released through discretionary or mandatory supervised release from prison, those released through other types of post-custody conditional supervision, and those sentenced to a term of supervised release. ************************************************** ------------------------------------ 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 (equivalent to approximately 110,000 prisoners) within two years to alleviate the overcrowding that was ruled a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 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 policy, termed Public Safety Realignment (PSR), will reduce the prison population through normal attrition of the existing population and will place new offenders who have not been convicted of a violent or sex offense or are not considered “serious” as defined by California’s Penal Code §§ 667.5(c) and 1192.7(c) under the jurisdiction of the counties for incarceration in local jail facilities. Inmates not convicted of violent, serious, or sexual offenses who are released from prison or local jails after October 1, 2011, will be placed under a county-directed post-release community supervision program (PRCS) instead of the state’s parole system. As BJS continues to collect data on incarcerated and community supervision populations, we will continue to report trends. For BJS counting purposes, we have included the reported 12,339 persons released to PRCS between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, in California’s 2011 parole numbers. ************************************************** Rate of adults under community supervision was below the 2000 level for the third consecutive year ******************************************************* The community supervision rate declined to 2,015 probationers or parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2011, down from 2,067 per 100,000 at yearend 2010. For the third consecutive year, the rate was below the 2000 level (2,162 per 100,000) (table 1). The supervision rate of probationers followed a similar trend. At yearend 2011, 1,662 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents were on probation, down from 1,715 per 100,000 at yearend 2010. The probation supervision rate in 2009 (1,796 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents) also fell below the 2000 rate (1,818 per 100,000) and remained below that level in 2010 and 2011. The trend in the supervision rate of parolees was unlike the trends in the community supervision and probation rates. While community supervision and probation rates have declined, parole supervision rates increased from 353 per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2009 to 357 per 100,000 at yearend 2010. ************************************************** Five states accounted for more than half of the decline in the probation population ************************************************** The probation population declined by nearly 81,800 probationers during 2011 to reach an estimated 3,971,300 at yearend (appendix table 2). Thirty-two states reported a cumulative 112,700 fewer probationers and 20 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia and the federal system, reported a cumulative 30,900 more probationers at yearend 2011 than at the beginning of the year. Among the states with declining probation populations, California, Texas, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia accounted for 56% of the total decrease. California (down 28,600) alone accounted for a quarter of the total decline. Maryland (up 8,200) and Alabama (up 7,600) reported the largest increases in the probation population during 2011. These two states accounted for about half (51%) of the total increase in the probation population among those states reporting increases. ************************************************** Entries to probation down for the fourth consecutive year; exits down for the second consecutive year ************************************************** During 2011, movement both onto and off probation declined (table 2). Between 2010 and 2011, entries to probation declined 3.7% (from about 2,190,200 to 2,109,500 offenders) and exits declined 3.2% (from an estimated 2,261,300 to 2,189,100 offenders). Overall, about 4.3 million adults moved onto and off probation during 2011, compared to more than 4.4 million during 2010. As entries onto and exits from probation diverge, changes in the probation population are larger. When exits and entries converge, the changes are smaller. After a period of convergence in 2008 and 2009, entries and exits once again diverged. While both entries and exits declined, entries onto probation declined at a faster rate than exits, resulting in a larger decline in the probation population in 2011. *********************************************** Exit rate for probationers unchanged since 2008 *********************************************** The rate at which probationers exit supervision—the number that exit probation divided by the average of the probation population at the beginning and end of the year—provides an indication of how quickly the population turns over and an indirect measure of the average time an offender can expect to serve on probation. The turnover in the probation population over the past four years has remained relatively stable. During 2011, 55 probationers per 100 exited supervision, unchanged since 2008 (table 3). Mean length of stay on probation has remained stable at about 22 months since 2008. Turnover due to completing the term of supervision, either through full-term completion or early discharge, has remained steady at 36 per 100 probationers since 2009. This finding was consistent with the stability observed in the percentage of probationers who were discharged after completing the terms of their supervision. Of the estimated 2,189,100 probationers who exited probation, the percentage that completed their supervision or were discharged early increased between 2008 and 2011. During 2011, 66% of probationers who exited supervision were discharged after completing the term of their supervision or receiving an early discharge, up slightly from 65% in both 2009 and 2010 (table 4). The increase observed between 2008 and 2009 occurred as overall exits increased over that same period. *************************************************** Rate of incarceration among probationers decreased slightly during 2011 *************************************************** The rate of incarceration among probationers at risk of failing during the year decreased slightly from 2010 to 2011 (figure 4). In 2011, 5.5% of probationers at risk of failing were incarcerated, the same level as 2000, but down from 5.7% in 2010. The rate at which all adults on probation during the year can be incarcerated is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers who are discharged during the year as the result of incarceration to the number of probationers who could have been incarcerated at any point during the year. The number who could have been incarcerated equals the sum of the start of the year population plus entries onto probation. This pool is defined as those at risk of incarceration. The rate of incarceration among probationers, including incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, has remained relatively stable since 2000, fluctuating between a low of 4.5% in 2001 and a high of 6.1% in 2006. *************************************************** Most characteristics of probationers in 2011 were unchanged from 2010 *************************************************** Most characteristics of adult probationers in 2011 remained stable when compared to those in 2010 (appendix table 3). Males made up three-quarters (75%) of the adult probation population. Over half (54%) of probationers were white non- Hispanic, and nearly a third (31%) were black non-Hispanic. Nearly three-quarters (72%) were on active status and about 1 in 5 (18%) were being supervised for a violent offense. Fifty-three percent of probationers were being supervised for a felony offense in 2011, compared to 50% in 2010. *************************************************** U.S. parole population increased during 2011 *************************************************** After a decline in the parole population during 2009, the population during 2011 increased for the second consecutive year. During 2011, the parole population increased by nearly 13,300 offenders, from about 840,600 at the beginning of the year to 853,900 at yearend (appendix table 4). After two consecutive years of decline, the state parole population increased by 1.1% during 2011. The federal parole population increased 5.1% over the same period. Among jurisdictions reporting an increase in their parole population during 2011, California (up about 5,900), the federal system (up 5,300), and Texas (up 1,800) accounted for more than half (56%) of the increase. Overall, 28 states and the federal system reported within-year increases totaling about 13,000 additional parolees at yearend 2011. At yearend 2011, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia reported about 9,800 fewer persons on parole than at the beginning of the year. Four states, Michigan (down 1,900), New York (down 1,300), Pennsylvania (down 1,300), and Massachusetts (down 900) reported 55% of the decline in the parole population among those states reporting declines. *************************************************** Entries and exits to parole both declined; exits declined at a faster rate *************************************************** During 2011, nearly 1.1 million persons moved onto and off parole. About 545,800 adults entered parole and about 532,500 exited parole. While both the number of adults entering parole and exiting parole declined during 2011, the number of entries exceeded the number of exits for the second consecutive year (table 5). The decline in entries to parole from 2008 to 2011 was consistent with the decrease observed in the total number of prisoners released from state jurisdiction during this period, coupled with a decline in the number of prisoners conditionally released to community supervision. (See Prisoners in 2011, BJS website, NCJ 239808, forthcoming.) However, the decline in the rate of exits (down 5.3%) exceeded that of the rate of entries (down 3.4%), resulting in the increase in the parole population. *************************************************** Mandatory releases made up a smaller portion of entries to parole *************************************************** About 46% of parolees who entered supervision during 2011 entered through mandatory release from prison, down from 51% in 2010 (figure 5). This marked the third consecutive year of declines in mandatory releases. While the proportion of all types of entries to parole fluctuated slightly, mandatory release remained the most common type of release. While mandatory releases to parole decreased, other types of releases to parole increased. Parolees entering through discretionary release by a parole board accounted for the largest increase, from 28% in 2010 to 31% in 2011. Parolees who had their parole reinstated accounted for a slightly larger share of parole entries during 2011 (10%) compared to 2010 (9%). Those who entered through a term of supervised release (10% in 2011 compared to 9% in 2010) also increased. A term of supervised release is a release type designated by the federal system and is similar to that of mandatory release in the state systems. If mandatory and term of supervised release were combined into one category, the decline in those entering parole through mandatory release would be slightly offset by the increase in those entering through a term of supervised release. *************************************************** Parole turnover rate declined for second consecutive year *************************************************** Following a period of increase, the parole turnover rate declined for the second consecutive year. The rate fell from 67 exits per 100 parolees in 2010 to 63 per 100 parolees in 2011 (table 6). This decline resulted in an increase in mean length of stay on parole, from 17.9 months in 2010 to 19.1 months in 2011. Contributing to the decline in the overall turnover of the parole population was both the decline in the rate of parolees that exited supervision and returned to incarceration between 2010 (22 per 100 parolees) and 2011 (20 per 100 parolees) and in the rate of parolees that completed the terms of their supervision or received an early discharge between 2010 (35 per 100 parolees) and 2011 (33 per 100 parolees). Of the estimated 532,500 parolees that exited parole supervision during 2011, 52% completed the terms of their supervision or received early discharge, unchanged from 2010 (table 7). The percent of parolees that returned to incarceration continued to decline from 33% in 2010 to 32% in 2011. *************************************************** Rate of reincarceration among parolees declined for the fifth straight year in 2011 *************************************************** During 2011, an estimated 12% of all parolees who were at risk of reincarceration were incarcerated (figure 6). This was down from 13% reincarcerated in 2010, and 16% during 2000. The rate at which all offenders on parole during the year could be incarcerated is defined as the ratio of the number of parolees who were discharged during the year as a result of incarceration to the number of parolees who could have been incarcerated at any point during the year. The number who could have been incarcerated equals the sum of the start of the year population plus entries onto parole during the year. This pool is defined as those at risk of incarceration. Contributing to the overall decline in the rate of reincarceration was a corresponding decrease in the rate at which parolees returned to incarceration as the result of a revocation between 2000 (12%) and 2011 (8%). In 2011, 3% of parolees returned to incarceration for a new offense, a rate that has remained relatively stable since 2000. *************************************************** Most characteristics of parolees in 2011 were unchanged from 2010 *************************************************** In 2011, most characteristics of adult parolees remained stable when compared to those in 2010 (appendix table 6). Males continued to make up about 9 in 10 (89%) of the adult parole population. About 4 in 10 parolees were white non- Hispanic (41%) or black non-Hispanic (39%), and about 2 in 10 (18%) were Hispanic. Among parolees, 81% were on active supervision and 96% had a maximum sentence of one year or more. More than a quarter (28%) were being supervised for a violent offense. *************** Methodology *************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980 and collect data from probation and parole agencies in the U.S. that supervise adults. In these data, adults are persons subject to the jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Juveniles prosecuted 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 total number of adults supervised in the community on January 1 and December 31 each year, the number of adults who enter and exit 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. In 2011, Westat Inc., served as BJS’s collection agent for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data for the federal system were provided directly to BJS from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States Courts through the Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP). ********** Probation ********** The 2011 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 469 respondents: 33 central state reporters; 436 separate state, county, or court agencies, including the state probation agency in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for 65 counties in Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the federal system. The states with multiple reporters were Alabama (3), Arizona (2), Colorado (8), Florida (41), Georgia (2), Idaho (2), Kentucky (3), Michigan (136), Missouri (2), Montana (4), New Mexico (2), Ohio (187), Oklahoma (3), Tennessee (3), Washington (32), and West Virginia (2). One locality in Colorado, two in Florida, seven in Michigan, thirteen in Ohio, two in Washington, and the central reporter in New Mexico did not provide data for the 2011 collection. For these localities, the agency’s most recent December 31 population was used to estimate the January 1 and December 31, 2011, populations. ********* Parole ********* The 2011 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 55 respondents: 50 central state reporters, the California Youth Authority; one municipal agency in Alabama; the state parole agency in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for 65 counties in Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the federal system. States with multiple reporters were Alabama (2) and California (2). Illinois did not provide data. The December 31, 2010, population count was used to estimate the January 1, 2011, population. Data on the number of parolees at midyear 2011 were used as an estimate for the December 31, 2011, population. Federal parole (as defined here) includes a term of supervised release from prison, mandatory release, parole, military parole, and special parole. A term of supervised release is ordered at the time of sentencing by a federal judge, and it is served after release from a federal prison sentence. Definitional differences exist between parole reported here and in other BJS statistical series. Additional information about the data collection instruments is available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov. *************************************************** Adjustments to account for offenders with dual community correctional status *************************************************** Some offenders on probation or parole may have had dual community correctional statuses because they were serving separate probation and parole sentences concurrently. With the 2007 data, BJS began collecting data on the number of parolees who were also on probation at yearend. The total community supervision populations from 2008 through 2011 reported in figure 1 (and the 2011 counts in appendix table 1) have been adjusted based on available information by excluding the total number of parolees who were also on probation to avoid double counting. As a result, the probation and parole counts for 2008 through 2011 will not sum to the total community supervision population within the same year. All of the estimates for parolees with dual community correctional statuses are based on data reported by parole agencies that were able to provide the information for the reporting year (table 8). Because some probation and parole agencies were not able to provide these data, the total number of parolees also on probation from 2008 to 2011 may be underestimates. *************************************************** Changes in reporting methods within certain jurisdictions, 2000-2011 *************************************************** ---------- Probation ---------- Eighteen reporting agencies in separate jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting probation data between 2000 and 2011. These changes included administrative changes, such as implementing new information systems, resulting in data review and cleanup; reconciling probationer records; reclassifying offenders, including those on probation to parole and offenders on dual community supervision statuses; and including certain probation populations not previously reported (e.g., supervised for an offense of driving while intoxicated or under the influence, some probationers who had absconded, and some on an inactive status). These changes resulted in a decline of about 61,000 probationers between 2000 and 2011. See Probation: Explanatory notes for a discussion about the 2011 reporting changes in Idaho and Iowa. See Probation: Explanatory notes in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a discussion about the reporting changes that occurred between 2000 and 2010. ---------- Parole ---------- Reporting agencies in eleven jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting parole data between 2000 and 2011. The reasons for changing their methods of reporting parole data were the same as for probation data—administrative changes, reclassification of offenders, and the addition of certain parole populations not previously reported, which can result from new, enhanced information systems that improve the tracking of all types of parolees. These changes resulted in an increase of about 23,500 parolees between 2000 and 2011. See Parole: Explanatory notes for a description of the 2011 reporting changes in Iowa. See Parole: Explanatory notes in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a description of the reporting changes that occurred between 2000 and 2010. Reporting agencies in ten jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting parole data between 2000 and 2010. In 2011, no agency reported a change in reporting parole data. See Parole: Explanatory notes in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a discussion about the reporting changes that occurred between 2000 and 2010 and the impact on the trend in the national parole population between 2000 and 2010. *************************************************** Probation coverage expanded beginning in 1998 through 1999 *************************************************** The number of probation agencies included in the survey expanded in 1998 and continued to expand through 1999 to include misdemeanor probation agencies in a few states that fell within the scope of this survey. See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a discussion of this expansion. *************************************************** Estimating annual change in population counts *************************************************** Technically, the change in the probation and parole populations from the beginning of the year to the end of the year should equal the difference between entries and exits during the year. However, those numbers may not be equal. Some probation and parole information systems track the number of cases that enter and exit community supervision, not the number of offenders. This means that entries and exits may include case counts as opposed to counts of offenders, while the beginning and yearend population counts represent individuals. Additionally, all the data on entries and exits may not have been logged into the information systems or the information systems may not have fully processed all of the data before the data were submitted to BJS. At the national level, 46 parolees were the difference between the change in the parole population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2011, populations and the difference between parole entries and exits during 2011. For probation at the national level, 2,196 probationers were the difference between the change in the probation population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2011, populations and the difference between probation entries and exits during 2011. Estimates of annual change reported in figures 1 through 3 and appendix tables 1, 2, and 4, were calculated as the difference between the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year. Estimates of annual change reported in tables 2 and 5 were calculated as the difference between entries and exits within the reporting year, with a focus on the impact of entries and exits on annual change in populations. *************************************************** Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies, 2011 *************************************************** BJS used three methods of ratio estimation, based on the availability of data, to impute probation entries for agencies not reporting these data. We used a single method to impute probation exits, a single method to impute entries to parole, and a single method to impute exits to parole. The first method was used to estimate entries and exits for probation agencies that were unable to report these data in 2011, but were able to report these data in 2010. We estimated probation entries in 2011 by using the ratio of entries in 2010 to the agency’s probation population on January 1, 2010, and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2011, population. We estimated exits from probation by adding the agency’s estimated probation entries in 2011 to the agency’s probation population on January 1, 2011, and subtracting that estimate from the probation population on December 31, 2011. These methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits in nonreporting county and district agencies in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington. A second method was used to estimate probation entries for agencies that were unable to report entries and exits in both 2009 and 2010. The ratio of 2010 entries to the January 1, 2010, population among reporting agencies in the same state was used to estimate the number of entries for nonreporting agencies with similar numbers of probationers. To estimate probation exits for these agencies, we used the same estimation method as described in the previous paragraph. These methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting county and district agencies in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. A third method was used to estimate probation entries for one state agency in West Virginia, which only reported interstate compact data. We estimated the number of entries for this agency by using the ratio of 2010 imputed entries to the January 1, 2010, probation population and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2011, population. To estimate probation exits for this agency, we used the same estimation method as described above. *********************************** Calculating mean length of stay ************************************ Mean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate. Patterson and Preston (2007) provide tests of various methods for estimating expected length of stay and report the results of simulations that show that under assumptions of a stationary population with a small growth rate, the inverse of the exit rate performs well relative to a life-table approach to estimating mean time served.1 Based on the small growth rates in the probation and parole populations in recent years, the inverse of the exit rate suffices to provide an estimate of mean stay on probation or parole in recent years. ****************************************** Community supervision outcome measures ****************************************** The percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees who completed supervision are defined as the number of probationers or parolees that completed supervision during the year and were discharged, among all probationers or parolees who were discharged from supervision during the year. The formula used to calculate this outcome measure is C(t)/D(t), where D(t) = C(t) + I(t) + O(t). In this formula, t equals the year referenced, C(t) equals the number of probationers or parolees who were discharged from supervision during the year after completing their terms or who received an early discharge, and D(t) equals the total number who were discharged from supervision during the year. D(t) includes C(t), the number of offenders who completed supervision; I(t), the number who were incarcerated during the year; and O(t), the number who were discharged during the year for other reasons. The percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees incarcerated are calculated using the formula in the previous paragraph except the numerator is the number of probationers or parolees who were discharged from supervision during the year as the result of being incarcerated. The rate of incarceration (for parolees this is also referred to as the rate of return to incarceration or the rate of reincarceration) based on the at-risk probation or parole population is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers or parolees who were discharged from supervision during the year because they were incarcerated for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, to the number of all probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated during the year. The at-risk population is defined as the number of probationers or parolees under supervision at the start of the year (on January 1) plus the number who entered supervision during the year. This pool of probationers or parolees could be incarcerated at any time during the year; hence, they were at risk of incarceration. The formula used to calculate this outcome measure is I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t)), where t equals the year referenced, P(t-1) equals the start of the year population, and E(t) equals the number of probationers or parolees who entered supervision during the year. The at-risk measure of incarceration accounts for all probationers or parolees under supervision during the year (i.e., probationers or parolees who were under supervision on January 1 plus those who entered during the year) who are the probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated. This measure is not limited to those who are discharged during the year and permits each probationer or parolee to be incarcerated at any time during the year. ********************************* Change in Annual Parole Survey ********************************* In 2008, the Annual Parole Survey included a new category for type of entry to parole that is labeled “term of supervised release” (TSR). It is defined as a fixed period of release to the community that follows a fixed period of incarceration based on a determinate sentencing statue; both are determined by a judge at the time of sentencing. As a consequence, some states began reporting term of supervised releases in 2008. The new category was added to better classify the large majority of entries to parole reported by the federal system. See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for detail on estimation methods to analyze national trends for all types of entry to parole. ****************************** Probation: Explanatory notes ****************************** Colorado—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—one local agency did not report data. This agency’s December 31, 2010, population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Florida—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—two local agencies did not report data. The most recent available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Georgia—Probation counts may overstate the number of individuals under probation supervision because the agency that reports the county data has the capacity to report probation cases and not the number of individuals under supervision. Probationers with multiple sentences could potentially have one or more cases with one or more private probation agencies in one jurisdiction and/or one or more private probation agencies within jurisdictions. Idaho—Reporting changes between 2010 and 2011—data reported by Idaho for 2011 are not comparable to those reported in prior years. Idaho changed its method of reporting starting with the January 1, 2011, population because of changes made by the agency that reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the state. Reporting methods changed in 2011 to reflect more accurately the number of felons and misdemeanants on probation. Counts in prior years over- reported the number of felons. The total change in Idaho’s probation population was a decrease of 13,721 probationers on January 1, 2011 (39,172) compared to the population reported on December 31, 2010 (52,893). Iowa—Reporting changes between 2010 and 2011—data reported by Iowa for 2011 are not comparable to those reported in prior years. Iowa changed its method of reporting starting with the January 1, 2011, population as the result of changes made by the agency that reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the state. Prior to 2011, Iowa did not include absconders in its probation population count. Beginning January 1, 2011, absconders were included in its counts, resulting in an increase of 6,625 probationers on January 1, 2011 (29,004) compared to December 31, 2010 (22,379). Michigan—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—seven local agencies did not report data. The most recent available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. New Mexico—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—the state reporting agency did not provide data. The December 31, 2010, population count was used to estimate the January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011 populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Ohio—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—13 local agencies did not report data. The most recent available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Washington—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—two local agencies did not report data. The most recent available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. ***************************** Parole: Explanatory notes ***************************** California—California’s total parole population on December 31, 2011, included 12,339 persons who were released to post community supervision as a result of California’s public safety realignment. See text box on page 3 for more detailed information. Illinois—Nonreporting agency in 2011—the state reporting agency did not provide data. The December 31, 2010, population count was used to estimate the January 1, 2011, population. Data on the number of parolees at midyear 2011 were used as an estimate for the December 31, 2011, population. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Iowa—Reporting change between 2010 and 2011—data reported by Iowa for 2011 are not comparable to those reported in prior years. Iowa changed its method of reporting starting with the January 1, 2011, population as the result of changes made by the agency that reported parolees under the jurisdiction of the state. Prior to 2011, Iowa did not include absconders in its parole population count. Beginning January 1, 2011, absconders were included in its counts, resulting in an increase of 983 parolees on January 1, 2011 (4,180) compared to December 31, 2010 (3,197). ****************** Appendix tables ****************** --------------------- Community supervision --------------------- Appendix Table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2011 ------------ Probation ------------ Appendix Table 2. Adults on probation, 2011 Appendix Table 3. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2010–2011 --------- Parole --------- Appendix Table 4. Adults on parole, 2011\ Appendix Table 5. Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2011 Appendix Table 6. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2010–2011 ****************************************************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director. This report was written by Laura M. Maruschak and Erika Parks. Thomas P. Bonczar and Sheri Simmons verified the report. Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. November 2012, NCJ 239686 ****************************************************** ****************************************************** Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov ****************************************************** ______________________ 11/26/12/JER/11:50pm ______________________ ******************************************************