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: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5135 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=42 ------------------------------------------------------- Bulletin Probation and Parole in the United States, 2013 Erinn J. Herberman, Ph.D., and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians At yearend 2013, an estimated 4,751,400 adults were under community supervision—a decline of about 29,900 offenders from yearend 2012 (figure 1).***Footnote * The community supervision population excludes parolees who were on probation to avoid double counting offenders. See table 7 and Methodology.*** About 1 in 51 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2013. The community supervision population includes adults on probation, parole, or any other post-prison supervision. (See BJS definition of probation and parole.) The small decline in the number of adults under community supervision was due to the drop in the probation population. Probationers accounted for most (82%) of the adults under community supervision. The probation population declined from an estimated 3,942,800 offenders at yearend 2012 to 3,910,600 at yearend 2013, falling about 32,100 offenders. The decline in the adult community corrections population was slightly offset by a small increase in the parole population, which grew from about 851,200 offenders at yearend 2012 to 853,200 at yearend 2013. ***************************************************** ************* HIGHLIGHTS ************* * At yearend 2013, an estimated 4,751,400 adults were under community supervision—-down about 29,900 offenders from yearend 2012. * Approximately 1 in 51 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2013. * Between yearend 2012 and 2013, the adult probation population declined by about 32,100 offenders, falling to an estimated 3,910,600 offenders at yearend 2013. * Movement both onto and off probation increased during 2013, with about 2,094,100 entries and 2,131,300 exits. * The incarceration rate among probationers at risk of violating their conditions of supervision remained stable at 5.4% in 2013, following a 4-year period of gradual decline. * The adult parole population increased by about 2,100 offenders between yearend 2012 and 2013, to about 853,200 offenders at yearend 2013. * Both parole entries (down 6.2%) and exits (down 7.8%) declined between 2012 and 2013, with approximately 922,900 movements onto and off parole during 2013. * The reincarceration rate among parolees at risk of violating their conditions of supervision iremained stable at about 9% in 2013. ***************************************************** 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. For this report, 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 year, characteristics of the populations at yearend, and other information. Reporting methods for some probation and parole agencies have changed over time (see Methodology). Appendix tables present additional 2013 data by jurisdiction. ***************************************** Community supervision population declined in 2013, due to a drop in probationers ***************************************** The number of U.S. adults under community supervision declined by about 29,900 (down 0.6%) between yearend 2012 and 2013, dropping to an estimated 4,751,400 offenders at yearend 2013 (table 1). The number of adults under community supervision at yearend declined for the first time in 2008 and continued to decrease each year through 2013. This decline follows more than two and a half decades of population growth (ranging from 0.6% to12.9%), as the number of adults under community supervision increased each year from 1980 to 2007. For trend data beginning in 1980, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011 (NCJ 239686, BJS web, November 2012). ***************************************************** ***************************************** 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. ***************************************************** The probation population declined by about 32,100 between yearend 2012 and 2013, falling to an estimated 3,910,600 offenders at yearend 2013 (figure 2; appendix table 2). During the same period, the parole population grew by about 2,100, increasing to an estimated 853,200 offenders at yearend 2013 (figure 3; appendix table 4). ******************************************** Rate of adults under community supervision continued to decline during 2013 ******************************************** Community supervision and probation rates declined each year from 2007 to 2013, while parole rates fluctuated. The rate of adults under community supervision fell from 1,980 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2012 to 1,950 at yearend 2013, which was consistent with the decline in the number of adults under community supervision (table 2). The probation rate dropped from 1,633 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2012 to 1,605 at yearend 2013. Although the number of offenders on parole increased somewhat, the rate declined slightly (from 353 parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2012 to 350 at yearend 2013), given that the U.S. adult resident population also increased. ***************************************** Probation entries increased following five consecutive years of decline; exits increased after three consecutive years of decline ***************************************** During 2013, movement both onto and off probation increased (figure 4). Probation entries increased (up 2.2%) from about 2,048,300 entries during 2012 to 2,094,100 during 2013. Probation exits also increased (up 2.0%) during the same period, from about 2,089,800 exits during 2012 to 2,131,300 during 2013. Overall, more than 4.2 million movements occurred onto and off probation during 2013, compared to nearly 4.1 million during 2012. During 2009, the number of exits from probation exceeded the number of entries for the first time since data collection began. This trend continued during 2013, with exits from probation exceeding entries by approximately 37,200. (See Methodology for a discussion of estimating change in population counts.) ***************************************** Completion rates for probationers have remained stable since 2009 ***************************************** The completion rate--turnover due to completing the term of supervision either through a full-term completion or early discharge—was 36 exits per 100 probationers during 2013. This rate is consistent with rates observed since 2009 (table 3). 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 a measure of how quickly the population turns over and an indirect measure of the average time an offender can expect to serve on probation. The exit rate increased slightly during 2013, from 53 per 100 probationers in 2012 to 54 per 100 in 2013, which resulted in a small decline in the mean length of stay on probation (from 23 months in 2012 to 22 months in 2013). During 2013, 66% of the 2,131,300 probationers who exited supervision were discharged because they either completed their term of supervision or received an early discharge—a slight decrease from 68% in 2012 (table 4).The incarceration rate (15% was unchanged from 2012. ********************************************** Incarceration rate among at-risk probationers remained stable in 2013 ********************************************** The incarceration rate among probationers at risk of violating their conditions of supervision—including incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, and other reasons--was stable in 2013 at 5.4% (figure 5). The incarceration rate is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers who were discharged during the year as the result of incarceration to the number of probationers who were at risk of incarceration at any point during the year. The probation population at risk of incarceration is comprised of the population at the beginning of the year and all probation entries during the year. ***************************************** Percentage of females on probation increased slightly since 2000 ***************************************** The percentage of females in the adult probation population increased slightly over the past decade, climbing from 22% in 2000 to 25% in 2013 (appendix table 3). At yearend 2013, over half (54%) of probationers were non-Hispanic white, 30% were non- Hispanic black, and 14% were Hispanic or Latino— a similar distribution for race and Hispanic origin observed since 2000. The percentage of probationers supervised for a felony offense increased from 52% in 2000 to 55% in 2013. The percentage of probationers on active status has decreased since 2000, falling from 76% in 2000 to 69% in 2013. ***************************************************** ***************************************** California Public Safety Realignment ***************************************** California’s Public Safety Realignment (PSR) policy responded to a U.S. Supreme Court mandate to reduce prison overcrowding. The policy took effect on October 1, 2011. The PSR is designed to reduce the prison population through normal attrition of the existing population while placing new offenders not convicted of violent, serious, or sexual offenses under county jurisdiction for incarceration in local jail facilities rather than state prisons. Under the PSR, offenders not convicted of violent, serious, or sexual offenses who are serving time in state prisons become eligible for post-release community supervision (PRCS) rather than the traditional state parole. Some new offenders receive a straight sentence to county jail, while other new offenders’ sentences include a term of mandatory supervision (MS) in the community following release from incarceration. Both the PRCS and MS populations fall within the BJS definition of parole, which includes post-custody conditional supervision. At yearend 2013, California’s combined parole population (87,500 offenders) included an estimated 45,600 offenders under state parole by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 33,100 offenders on PRCS, and 8,800 offenders on MS (figure 6). At yearend 2010, the year before PSR took effect, California’s parole population (105,100 offenders) was comprised entirely of parolees under state parole. By yearend 2013, the state’s combined parole population declined by 17,600 offenders. During this time, California’s state parole population declined by 59,500 offenders, while the PRCS and MS populations increased to 41,900 offenders. Nationally, the parole population grew by 12,500 offenders (up 1.5%) between yearend 2010 and yearend 2013. The increase of about 4.1% (up 30,100 offenders) in jurisdictions other than California since 2010 was partially offset by the decrease in California’s parole population. Combined total entries to parole in California declined 64%, from 166,300 offenders in 2010 (when all entries were to state parole) to an estimated 60,000 in 2013 (figure 7).***Footnote 1 Entries and exits to state parole supervision for 2013 were not available from the CDCR and were imputed by BJS. See Methodology.*** This was the result of a decrease in entries to state parole of nearly 80%, to an estimated 35,400 during 2013. The smaller number of entries to state parole during 2013 was partially offset by entries to the newly established PRCS and MS. In 2013, state parolees accounted for 59% (35,400) of combined total entries, PRCS accounted for 30% (17,900), and MS accounted for 11% (6,700). In 2013, combined total exits (67,600) from parole supervision exceeded entries (60,000). (figure 8). Since PSR was implemented, entries to probation increased nearly 15%, from an estimated 149,000 offenders in 2010 to 170,800 in 2013. During the same period, California’s probation population remained relatively stable, growing 0.4% (up about 1,200 offenders) (table 5). ***************************************************** ***************************************** U.S. parole population increased slightly in 2013 ***************************************** From yearend 2012 to 2013, the parole population increased slightly (up about 2,100 offenders), from an estimated 851,200 offenders at yearend 2012 to 853,200 at yearend 2013. Both the state (up about 1,600 offenders) and federal (up 500 offenders) parole populations grew slightly during this period. ***************************************** Parole entries and exits declined during 2013; exits decreased at a faster rate ***************************************** In 2013, about 922,900 movements occurred onto and off parole, with an estimated 465,400 entries and about 457,500 exits (figure 9). Both entries and exits have declined since 2009. During 2013, the decline in exits (7.8%) exceeded the decline in entries (6.2%). The decline in entries to parole was consistent with the 2.1% decline in the number of prison releases from yearend 2012 to yearend 2013. For more information, see Prisoners in 2013 (NCJ 247282, BJS web, September 2014). ***************************************** Parole turnover rate decreased for fourth consecutive year ***************************************** The parole turnover rate fell from 58 exits per 100 parolees in 2012 to 54 per 100 parolees in 2013, continuing a downward trend that started in 2009 (table 6). This decline resulted in an increase in the mean length of stay on parole, rising from 21 months in 2012 to 22 months in 2013. The rate of parolees who completed their term of supervision or received an early discharge decreased from 34 per 100 parolees in 2012 to 33 per 100 parolees in 2013, while the rate of parolees who exited supervision and returned to incarceration decreased from 15 per 100 parolees in 2012 to 14 per 100 parolees in 2013. ***************************************** Reincarceration rate among at-risk parolees remained stable during 2013 ***************************************** An estimated 9.3% of all parolees who were at risk of reincarceration were incarcerated during 2013—about the same as in 2012 (figure 10). The incarceration rate is defined as the ratio of the number of parolees who were discharged during the year as the result of incarceration to the number of parolees who were at risk of incarceration at any point during the year. The parole population at risk of incarceration is defined as the sum of the population at the beginning of the year and all parole entries during the year. During 2013, 3.0% of parolees who were at risk of reincarceration were incarcerated for a new sentence. The rate at which parolees were reincarcerated as a result of revocation was about 5.4% in 2013. ***************************************** Most characteristics of parolees were unchanged during 2013 ***************************************** Characteristics of adult parolees remained stable when compared to those in 2012. Males continued to make up about 88% of the adult parole population (appendix table 6). Approximately 43% of parolees were non-Hispanic white, 38% were non-Hispanic black, and 17% were Hispanic or Latino. The percentage of parolees on active supervision increased from 82% in 2012 to 84% in 2013. During the same period, the majority (95%) of parolees had a maximum sentence of one year or more and 29% of parolees were being supervised for a violent offense—both levels unchanged from those observed in 2012. ***************** 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 United States 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 entries and exits to supervision during the reporting year, and characteristics of the population at yearend. See appendix tables for detailed data. Both surveys cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. BJS depends on the voluntary participation of state central reporters and separate state, county, and court agencies for these data. During 2013, Westat (Rockville, MD) 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. Probation ************* The 2013 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 468 respondents: 33 central state reporters; 435 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 (134), Missouri (2), Montana (4), New Mexico (2), Ohio (187), Oklahoma (3), Pennsylvania (2), Tennessee (3), Washington (33), and West Virginia (2). Two localities in Colorado, five in Florida, 13 in Michigan, nine in Ohio, and two in Washington did not provide data for the 2013 collection. For these localities, the agency’s most recent December 31 population was used to estimate the January 1 and December 31, 2013, populations. The largest respondent in Oklahoma, composing the majority of the state’s probation population, provided limited estimates for the 2013 collection that were used in the state and national totals but not used to estimate Oklahoma state populations. Parole ********* The 2013 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 54 respondents: 50 central state reporters; 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. In this report, federal parole 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 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 information on the number of parolees who were also on probation at yearend. To avoid double counting, the total community supervision populations from 2008 through 2013 reported in figure 1 (and the 2013 counts in appendix table 1) have been adjusted based on available information by excluding the total number of parolees who were also on probation. As a result, the probation and parole counts from 2008 through 2013 do not sum to the total community supervision population in 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 7). Some probation and parole agencies were not able to provide these data. Therefore, the total number of parolees also on probation from 2008 through 2013 may be underestimated, which may result in overestimations of the total population under community supervision. Reporting changes in the number of adults on probation and parole, 2000–2013 ***************************************** In a given data collection year, respondents are asked to provide both the January 1 and December 31 population counts. At times, the January 1 count differs greatly from the December 31 count of the prior year. The difference reported may result from 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). The cumulative discrepancies between the yearend and beginning year (for the year following) between 2000 and 2012 in the probation population counts resulted in an overall decline of about 136,543 probationers (table 8). Discrepancies between the yearend and following year parole population count resulted in an increase of about 11,158 parolees between 2000 and 2012 (table 9). Probation coverage expanded, 1998–1999 ***************************************** 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. For a discussion of this expansion, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010 (NCJ 236019, BJS web, November 2011). Estimating 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 of 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, 2,014 probationers were the difference between the change in the probation population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2013, populations and the difference between probation entries and exits during 2013. For parole, 5,702 parolees were the difference between the change in the parole population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2013, populations and the difference between parole entries and exits during 2013. The percentage change reported in appendix tables 1, 2, and 4 were calculated as the difference between the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year. In figures 1, 2, and 3, the annual percentage change was based on the difference between the December 31 populations for each year. As previously discussed, jurisdiction counts reported for January 1 may be different from December 31 counts reported in the previous year. As a result, the direction of change based on yearend data could be in the opposite direction of the within- year change. Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2013 ***************************************** BJS used the methods described below to impute missing probation and parole data for key items, including the January 1, 2013, population, entries, exits, and the December 31, 2013, population. Imputing the January 1, 2013, probation population ***************************************** When the January 1, 2013, probation population was missing, the December 31, 2012, probation population value was carried over. This method was used to estimate the January 1, 2013, probation population in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. Imputing the December 31, 2013, probation population ***************************************** When the December 31, 2013, probation population was missing along with either the total entries or total exits, the missing value was imputed by estimating the net difference between the December 31, 2013, population and the January 1, 2013, population based on the ratio of the 2012 net difference between the December 31, 2012, population and the January 1, 2012, population to the January 1, 2012, population, and then adding the estimated difference to the January 1, 2013, population. This method was used to estimate the December 31, 2013, probation population in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. Imputing probation entries **************************** Based on the availability of data, BJS used three methods of ratio estimation to impute probation entries for agencies not reporting these data. The first method was used to estimate entries for probation agencies that were unable to report these data in 2013 but were able to report in 2012. BJS estimated probation entries in 2013 by using the ratio of entries in 2012 to the agency’s probation population on January 1, 2012, and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2013, population. This method was used to estimate probation entries in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. The second method was used to estimate 2013 probation entries for agencies that did not report entries in both 2012 and 2013. The ratio of 2013 entries to the January 1, 2013, population among reporting agencies of similar size within the state was used to estimate the number of entries for nonreporting agencies. This method was used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting counties and district agencies in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. The third method was used to estimate probation entries by using the ratio of 2012 imputed entries to the January 1, 2012, probation population and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2013, population. This method was used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island. Imputing parole entries ************************** To estimate parole entries for parole agencies that were unable to report these data in 2013 but were able to report in 2012, BJS calculated the ratio of entries in 2012 to the agency’s parole population on January 1, 2012, and applied that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2013, population. This method was used to estimate parole entries in California. Imputing probation and parole exits ************************************* A single method was used to estimate probation and parole exits. For both probation and parole, BJS added the agency’s estimated entries in 2013 to the agency’s population on January 1, 2013, and subtracted that estimate from the population on December 31, 2013. For probation, this method was used in Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia. For parole, this method was used in California. 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 showing 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.***Footnote 2 See Patterson, E.J. & Preston, S.H. (2007). Estimating Mean Length of Stay in Prison: Methods and Applications. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24:33–49.*** 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 who 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; therefore, 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 and parolee to be incarcerated at any time during the year. Change in the Annual Parole Survey ************************************ In 2008, the Annual Parole Survey included a new category for type of entry to parole, term of supervised release (TSR). TSR is a fixed period of release to the community that follows a fixed period of incarceration based on a determinate sentencing statute; both are determined by a judge at the time of sentencing. Accordingly, 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. For detail on estimation methods to analyze national trends for all types of entry to parole, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010 (NCJ 236019, BJS web, November 2011). Types of federal offenders under community supervision ************************************ Since the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was enacted on November 1, 1987, offenders sentenced to federal prison are no longer eligible for parole but are required to serve a term of supervised release following release from prison. Those sentenced to prison prior to November 1, 1987, continue to be eligible for parole, as do persons violating laws of the District of Columbia, military offenders, and foreign treaty transfer offenders (see http://www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch/11-05- 01/Parole_in_the_Federal_Probation_System.aspx). The Sentencing Reform Act also requires the adoption and use of sentencing guidelines, which also took effect on November 1, 1987. Many offenses for which probation had been the typical sentence prior to this date, particularly property and regulatory offenses, subsequently resulted in sentences to prison. Changes in how federal offenders are supervised in the community were first described in the BJS report, Federal Offenders under Community Supervision, 1987–96 (NCJ 168636, BJS web, August 1998), and updated in the report, Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2002: With trends 1982-2002, Reconciled Data (NCJ 207447, BJS web, January 2005). Probation: Explanatory notes ***************************************** Colorado--Nonreporting agencies in 2013—two local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Florida--Nonreporting agencies in 2013—five local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Georgia--Probation counts may overstate the number of persons under probation supervision because the agency that reports county data has the capacity to report probation cases and not the number of persons 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. Georgia reporting changes between 2012 and 2013—data are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting on January 1, 2013, Georgia began including previously unaccounted misdemeanant probationers in its population counts. This change in reporting methods resulted in an increase of 73,835 probationers on January 1, 2013 (515,896), compared to December 31, 2012 (442,061). Maryland--Reporting changes between 2012 and 2013—data for 2013 are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting on January 1, 2013, Maryland began reporting on the number of persons under supervision, as opposed to cases, resulting in a decrease of 55,517 probationers on January 1, 2013 (41,123), compared to December 31, 2012 (96,640). Michigan--Nonreporting agencies in 2013—13 local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Closed agencies in 2013—three agencies were removed from the roster because its cases were transferred to two other agencies. Ohio--Nonreporting agencies in 2013—nine local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Oklahoma--Nonreporting agencies in 2013—one local agency did not report data but provided estimates for the January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, populations, entries, and exits that were used in the state and national totals. Pennsylvania--Reporting changes between 2012 and 2013—data for 2013 are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Beginning on January 1, 2013, Pennsylvania resolved a double- counting issue, resulting in a decrease of 15,552 probationers on January 1, 2013 (162,225), compared to December 31, 2012 (177,777). Washington--Nonreporting agencies in 2013—two local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. West Virginia--Closed agency in 2013—one agency was removed from the roster because its counts were included in the data from other agencies. Parole: Explanatory notes **************************** California--Closed agency in 2013--one agency was removed from the roster because it no longer supervised parolees for the state. Nonreporting agencies in 2013—one agency was not able to report entries and exits due to a high-level data conversion project. California reporting changes between 2012 and 2013--data are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting on January 1, 2013, the number of persons under mandatory supervision were included in the total parole population and adjustments were made to the number of parolees under post- release community supervision, resulting in an increase of 5,833 parolees on January 1, 2013 (95,120), compared to December 31, 2012 (89,287). California’s total parole population includes 33,847 persons on January 1, 2013, and 33,129 persons on December 31, 2013, who were under post-release community supervision as a result of California's Public Safety Realignment. These persons account for 17,867 parolees entering and 18,585 parolees exiting supervision during 2013. California’s total parole population includes 4,934 persons on January 1, 2013, and 8,818 persons on December 31, 2013, under mandatory supervision. These persons account for 6,692 parolees entering and 2,808 parolees exiting supervision during 2013. Detailed information on the types of entries and exits were not available for these populations. Maryland--Reporting changes between 2012 and 2013-- data for 2013 are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting on January 1, 2013, Maryland began reporting on the number of persons under supervision, as opposed to cases, resulting in a decrease of 7,985 parolees on January 1, 2013 (5,648), compared to December 31, 2012 (13,633). Pennsylvania--Reporting changes between 2012 and 2013-- data for 2013 are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting on January 1, 2013, Pennsylvania resolved a double-counting issue, resulting in a decrease of 9,036 parolees on January 1, 2013 (92,315), compared to December 31, 2012 (101,351). Washington--Reporting changes between 2012 and 2013--data for 2013 are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Washington’s parole population increased by 6,196 between December 31, 2012 (8,895) and January 1, 2013 (15,091), at least in part because of the inclusion of inactive cases for the first time in 2013. Appendix tables ******************** Community supervision ************************ Appendix table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2013 Probation ********** Appendix table 2. Adults on probation, 2013 Appendix table 3. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2012, and 2013 Parole *********** Appendix table 4. Adults on parole, 2013 Appendix table 5. Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2013 Appendix table 6. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2012, and 2013 Appendix table 7. Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2013 Appendix table 8. Percent of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008– 2013 ***************************************************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Erinn J. Herberman and Thomas P. Bonczar. Danielle M. Kaeble verified the report. Morgan Young and Lockheed Martin edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced the report. October 2014, NCJ 248029 ***************************************************** ***************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ***************************************************** *********************** Revised 12/8/2014/JER/3:10pm ***********************