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=5784 This reports is one in series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all reports in the series go to http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=42 ------------------------------------------------------ Bulletin Probation and Parole in the United States, 2015 Danielle Kaeble and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians At yearend 2015, an estimated 4,650,900 adults were under community supervision--a decrease of 62,300 offenders from yearend 2014 (figure 1). ***Footnote 1 The community supervision population excludes parolees on probation to avoid double counting offenders. See table 7 and Methodology***. About 1 in 53 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2015. This population includes adults on probation, parole, or any other post-prison supervision, with probationers accounting for the majority (81%) of adults under community supervision. (See BJS definition of probation and parole textbox.) The 1.3% decline observed in the adult community corrections population was due to the drop in the probation population. The probation population declined from an estimated 3,868,400 offenders at yearend 2014 to 3,789,800 at yearend 2015 (figure 2). The parole population continued to rise with a 1.5% increase, from 857,700 offenders at yearend 2014 to 870,500 at yearend 2015 (figure 3). ************************************************************** ****************** HIGHLIGHTS ****************** * At yearend 2015, an estimated 4,650,900 adults were under community supervision, down by 62,300 offenders from yearend 2014. * Approximately 1 in 53 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2015. * The adult probation population declined by 78,700 offenders from yearend 2014 to yearend 2015, falling to 3,789,800. * Movement onto probation decreased from an estimated 2,065,800 entries in 2014 to 1,966,100 in 2015. * Probation exits declined from 2,129,100 in 2014 to 2,043,200 in 2015. * The adult parole population increased by 12,800 offenders from yearend 2014 to yearend 2015, to an estimated 870,500 offenders. * Parole entries increased for the first time in seven years. Parole exits increased for the first time in six years. * Entries to parole increased from an estimated 461,100 in 2014 to 475,200 in 2015. * Exits from parole increased from 450,800 in 2014 to 463,700 in 2015. ************************************************************** Data in this report were collected through the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey. Both surveys collect data from U.S. probation and parole agencies on yearend counts, movements (i.e., entries and exits), offender characteristics, and outcomes of supervision. For this report, an adult is any person subject to the jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Reporting methods for some probation and parole agencies have changed over time (see Methodology). Appendix tables 1 through 6 present additional 2015 data by jurisdiction. ***************************************************************** **************************************** 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, it 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 decline in community supervision was primarily due to a decline in the probation population ************************************** The community supervision population in 2015 was at its lowest level since 2005 (table 1). In each year between 2008 and 2015, declines ranged from 0.5% to 2.6%. Since 2005, the population under community supervision declined by 6% due to a decline in the probation population. The probation population increased from 2005 to 2007, followed by a decline through 2015. During the same period, the parole population increased by 11%. With the exception of 2009 and 2013, each year from 2005 to 2015 saw an increase in the number of individuals supervised on parole. This increase had little effect on the total community supervision population. The probation population continued to be over four times the size of the population of individuals on parole. ************************************** The rate of adults under community supervision fell to 1,886 per 100,000 U.S. adult residents ************************************** The rate of adults under community supervision declined from 1,911 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2014 to 1,886 per 100,000 at yearend 2015. This was consistent with the decline in the number of adults under community supervision (table 2). The rate of adults on probation declined from 1,568 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2014 to 1,522 at yearend 2015. The parole rate increased for the first time since 2012, from 348 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents in 2014 to 350 in 2015. This was similar to the rate of parolees observed in 2005 (351 per 100,000). ************************************** Probation entries and exits each decreased by more than 4% in 2015 ************************************** Movements onto (entries) and off (exits) probation declined by 4% between 2014 and 2015. Prior to this decline, a slight increase was observed in 2013 in both entries and exits. Probation entries started to decrease and exits remained stable in 2014. Exits from probation continued to exceed entries to probation for the seventh consecutive year. Between 2014 and 2015, probation entries declined 5%, from an estimated 2,065,800 entries to 1,966,100 (figure 4). During the same period, exits declined by 4% from an estimated 2,129,100 exits to 2,043,200. The declines in both entries and exits led to an overall decline in movements onto and off probation, from 4,194,900 in 2014 to 4,009,300 in 2015. (See Methodology for a discussion of estimating change in population counts.) ************************************** The exit rate for probationers was consistent with rates observed in 2005 ************************************** 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. Since 2005, the rate of exits from probation has remained consistent, ranging from 52 to 55 per 100 probationers. In 2015, the exit rate mirrored 2005 at 53 per 100 probationers (table 3). The completion rate (turnover due to completing the term of supervision either through a full-term completion or early discharge) was 33 exits per 100 probationers during 2015, which was similar to the rate observed in 2005 (32 per 100). This was down from rates that had been consistent since 2009 (35 to 36 per 100). ************************************** Probation population characteristics remained relatively unchanged during the last decade ************************************** At yearend 2015, 25% of probationers were female, compared to 23% in 2005 (table 4). Similarly, the racial composition of probationers at yearend 2015 was unchanged from 2005. In both 2015 and 2005, more than half (55%) of probationers were non- Hispanic white, 30% were non-Hispanic black, and 13% were Hispanic or Latino. More than half of probationers were supervised for a felony offense over the entire 2005 to 2015 period, exceeding those supervised for a misdemeanor (49% or lower). At least 7 in 10 probationers were on active status, or those regularly required to contact a probation authority, since at least 2005. ************************************** U.S. parole population increased 1.5% in 2015 ************************************** The parole population increased in 2015 for the second consecutive year and for the seventh time in 10 years. At yearend 2015, an estimated 870,500 offenders were on parole, up from 857,700 at yearend 2014. Both the state (up 7,600 parolees) and the federal system (up 5,200 parolees) contributed to this increase. Between 2014 and 2015, entries to parole increased from an estimated 461,100 to 475,200 (up 14,100), and exits from parole rose from 452,800 to 463,700 (up 10,900) (figure 5). Parole entries increased for the first year since 2008, and exits increased for the first year since 2009. Entries continued to exceed exits for the sixth consecutive year. Overall movements onto and off parole increased from 913,900 in 2014 to 938,900 in 2015. Even after the increase, combined movements onto and off parole were still about 9% lower than the 1,036,300 observed in 2005. ************************************** The parole exit rate increased after five consecutive annual decreases ************************************** The parole exit rate increased to 54 exits per 100 parolees in 2015, halting a downward trend first observed in 2011 (table 5). The exit rate, due to completion of a supervised term or early discharge, was 33 exits per 100 parolees in 2014 and has remained between 35 and 32 exits per 100 parolees since 2008. In 2015, the rate of return to incarceration remained unchanged from 2013 and 2014 (14 exits per 100 parolees), but declined overall from 25 per 100 in 2005. ************************************** Parolees being supervised for drug offenses decreased 6 percentage points since 2005 ************************************** Parolees being supervised for drug offenses decreased from 37% in 2005 to 31% in 2015, while the percentage of individuals being supervised for violent crimes increased from 26% to 32% during the same period (table 6). In 2015, 4% of parolees were supervised for weapons crimes, which was the same as in 2014. Approximately 44% of parolees were white, compared to black (38%) and Hispanic (16%) parolees. Males made up 87% of the adult parole population, which was similar to the rates in 2014 and 2005 (88% each). More than 8 in 10 parolees were on active supervision over the entire 2005 to 2015 period. *************** Methodology *************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, which began in 1980, collects data from U.S. probation and parole agencies that supervise adults. This data collection defines adults as persons subject to the jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Juveniles sentenced as adults in a criminal court are considered adults. Juveniles under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court or correctional agency are excluded from these data. The National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics; Service of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, BJS’s predecessor agency, began a statistical series on parole in 1976 and on probation in 1979. The two surveys collect data on the number of adults supervised in the community on January 1 and December 31 each year, the number of entries and exits to supervision during the reporting year, and characteristics of the population at yearend. See appendix tables for detailed data. Both surveys cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. BJS depends on the voluntary participation of state central reporters and separate state, county, and court agencies for these data. During 2015, RTI International 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 2015 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 460 agencies, one less agency than the 2014 population frame as the result of a Michigan local probation agency closure in 2014. Following the opening of one probation agency in Florida and the closure of another in Ohio during 2015, there were a total of 460 agencies on the population frame for the 2015 Annual Probation Survey. The 460 respondents included 35 central state agencies; 425 separate state, county, or court agencies, including the state probation agency in Georgia (which also provided data received from local public and private probation agencies in Georgia), Pennsylvania (which also provided data for its 65 counties), the District of Columbia; and the federal system. States with multiple agencies included Alabama (3), Colorado (8), Florida (42), Georgia (2), Idaho (2), Kentucky (3), Michigan (130), Missouri (2), Montana (4), New Mexico (2), Ohio (185), Oklahoma (3), Pennsylvania (2), Tennessee (3), and Washington (32). Of the 460 agencies in the population frame, 1 locality in Colorado, 6 in Florida, 17 in Michigan, 15 in Ohio, and 5 in Washington did not provide data for the 2015 collection. The state agency in Alaska provided information on the total number on community supervision, but was unable to report separately for those on probation. Oregon was unable to provide data for 2015 because of computer system issues. At the request of the Oregon respondent, the December 31, 2014, population count was used as an estimate for January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015. Estimates for December 31, 2015, have been included in national and “all state” totals. (See Explanatory Notes for more information.) ********** Parole ********** The 2015 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 53 agencies: 50 central state reporters, which included the state parole agency in Pennsylvania (which also provided data for its 65 counties), 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 federal judge orders a term of supervised release at the time of sentencing, and it is served after release from a federal prison sentence. Definitional differences exist between parole reported here and in other BJS statistical series. The state agency in Alaska provided information on the total number on community supervision, but was unable to report separately for those on parole. The state agency in Oregon was unable to report data in 2015. (See Parole: Explanatory Notes for more information.) Additional information about the data collection instruments is available on the BJS website (http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=271). ************************************** 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 2015 reported in figure 1 (and the 2015 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 2015 do not sum to the total community supervision population within the same year. All of the estimates for parolees with dual community correctional statuses were 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 2015 may be underestimated, which may result in overestimations in the total population under community supervision. ************************************** Reporting changes in the number of adults on probation and parole, 2000–2015 ************************************** In each collection year, respondents are asked to provide both the January 1 and December 31 population counts. At times, the January 1 count may differ from the December 31 count of the prior year. The difference reported may have resulted from administrative changes, such as-- * implementing new information systems, leading to data review and cleanup * reconciling probationer records * reclassifying offenders, including those on probation to parole and offenders on dual community supervision statuses * 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 discrepancy between the yearend 2014 and the beginning year 2015 probation counts resulted in an increase of 9,749 probationers (table 8). The discrepancy between the yearend and beginning year parole population count resulted in an increase of 172 parolees from December 31, 2014, to January 1, 2015 (table 9). ************************************** 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 individuals, while the beginning and yearend population counts represent individuals. Some individuals are being supervised for more than one charge or case simultaneously. 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, 11,312 probationers were the difference between the change in the probation population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2015, populations and the difference between probation Entries and exits during 2015. For parole, 1,168 parolees were the difference between the change in the parole population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2015, populations and the difference between parole entries and exits during 2015. Estimates of annual 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. As previously discussed, jurisdiction counts reported for January 1 may differ from the 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. In figures 1-3, change was calculated as the difference between the December 31 populations for each year. The method of reporting annual change used in this report was based on between- year differences in the December 31 populations and differs from how change was reported in prior years’ reports. Annual change in prior reports was calculated as the difference between the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year. ************************************** Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2015 ************************************** BJS used the methods described below to impute missing probation and parole data for key items, including the January 1, 2015, population, entries, exits, and the December 31, 2015, population. Imputing the probation January 1, 2015, population *************************************************** When the January 1, 2015, probation population was missing, the December 31, 2014, probation population value was carried over. This method was used to estimate the January 1, 2015, probation population in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. Imputing the December 31, 2015, probation population ***************************************************** When the December 31, 2015, 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, 2015, population and the January 1, 2015, population based on the ratio of the 2014 net difference between the December 31, 2014, population and the January 1, 2014, population to the January 1, 2014, population, and then adding the estimated difference to the January 1, 2015, population. This method was used to estimate the December 31, 2015, probation population in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alabama, 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 2015 but did report in 2014. BJS estimated probation entries in 2015 by using the ratio of entries in 2014 to the agency’s probation population on January 1, 2014, and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2015, population. This method was used to estimate probation entries in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. The second method was used to estimate 2015 probation entries for agencies that did not report entries both in 2014 and 2015. The ratio of 2014 entries to the January 1, 2014, 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 Alabama, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. The third method was used to estimate probation entries by using the ratio of 2014 imputed entries to the January 1, 2014, probation population and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2015, population. This method was used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in Colorado, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. Imputing parole entries ************************* To estimate parole entries for parole agencies that were unable to report these data in 2015 but were able to report in 2014, BJS calculated the ratio of entries in 2014 to the agency’s parole population on January 1, 2014, and applied that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2015, population. This method was used to estimate parole entries in Alaska, California, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin. 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 2015 to the agency’s population on January 1, 2015, and subtracted that estimate from the population on December 31, 2015. For probation, this method was used in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. For parole, this method was used in Alaska, California, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin. ************************************** 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 were calculated using the same formula, 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 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 group 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 or parolee to be incarcerated at any time during the year. ************************************** Changes in the Annual Parole Survey ************************************** In 2008, the Annual Parole Survey included a new type of entry- to-parole category—term of supervised release--to better classify the large majority of entries to parole reported by the federal system. It 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. For details about the estimating methods used 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. ***Footnote 2 See http://www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch/11- 05-01/Parole_in_the_Federal_Probation_System.aspx***. The Sentencing Reform Act also required 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 Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2002: With Trends 1982-2002, Reconciled Data (NCJ 207447, BJS web, January 2005). ************************************** Probation: Explanatory notes ************************************** Alaska--Nonreporting agency in 2015--the state agency in Alaska provided information on the total number on community supervision, but was unable to separately report for those on probation. BJS imputed December 31, 2015, and January 1, 2015, data based on the distribution of probation as a part of the community corrections population reported on the Alaska Department of Corrections website and the number reported to BJS in prior years. California--Reporting changes between 2014 and 2015—data are not comparable to those reported in previous years, which were likely the result of difficulties some counties encountered in reporting felons who were resentenced as misdemeanants, and changing from reporting of cases to individuals. These changes resulted in a decrease of 9,794 probationers on January 1, 2015 (285,681), compared to December 31, 2014 (295,475). Colorado--Nonreporting agency in 2015--one local agency did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, populations. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015*** Florida--Nonreporting agencies in 2015--six local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, populations. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015*** Georgia--Reporting changes between 2014 and 2015--the two state agencies that previously provided data were consolidated under a single new state agency, the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (DCS). One reporter provides counts based on individual level probationer information from Georgia state employees (probation officers) and represents 49.8% of Georgia’s total probation population. The other reporter provides counts based on summary counts submitted by independent local probation agencies to the DCS and represents 50.2% of Georgia’s total probation population. Data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as the result of the new agency’s use of slightly different methods to count probationers under direct supervision by the state, resulting in an increase of 10,272 probationers on January 1, 2015 (481,339), compared to December 31, 2014 (471,067). Probation counts may overstate the number of persons under probation supervision because the county data collection 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 probation agencies in one jurisdiction or one or more probation agencies in different jurisdictions. Illinois--Nonreporting agency in 2015—the state respondent in Illinois was only able to report the number on probation on January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015***. Michigan--Reporting changes between 2014 and 2015-- data are not comparable to those reported in previous years, as a result of a data clean-up by local agencies. These changes resulted in an decrease of 6,344 probationers on January 1, 2015 (174,239), compared to December 31, 2014 (180,583). Nonreporting agencies in 2015--Seventeen local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, populations. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015***. New Jersey--Reporting changes between 2014 and 2015-- data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as a result of a change in methodology. This change resulted in an increase of 21,226 probationers on January 1, 2015 (137,124), compared to December 31, 2014 (115,898). Ohio--Reporting changes between 2014 and 2015-- data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as a result of data clean-up by local agencies. This change resulted in an increase of 2,165 probationers on January 1, 2015 (241,080), compared to December 31, 2014 (238,915). Nonreporting agencies in 2015--fifteen local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, populations. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015***. Oregon--Nonreporting agency in 2015--the state agency in Oregon was unable to provide data for 2015 because of computer system issues. At the request of the respondent, the December 31, 2014 population count was used as an estimate for January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015 have been included in national and “all state” totals. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015***. Washington--Reporting changes between 2014 and 2015-- data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as the result of a change in methodology by the state probation agency for 2014 and 2015, and by five local agencies for 2015 (includes two local agencies that now include cases that were previously erroneously excluded). Compared to the count previously reported for December 31, 2014 (94,112), these changes resulted in a decrease of 43 probationers on January 1, 2015 (94,069). Compared to a revised count for December 31, 2014 (98,446), which includes the reconciled state data, these changes resulted in a decrease of 4,377 probationers for January 1, 2015, all of which can be attributed to changes in reporting by local agencies. Nonreporting agencies in 2015--five local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, populations. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015***. Wisconsin--The state probation agency, overseeing the entirety of the state’s probation population, was able to report the number of probationers who died, but was not able to report the total number of exits or the number of entries to probation during 2015. Based on information provided by Wisconsin for 2014, BJS imputed the total number of entries to and exits from probation supervision in Wisconsin for 2015. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015***. ************************************** Parole: Explanatory notes ************************************** Alaska--Nonreporting agency in 2015—the state agency in Alaska provided information on the total number on community supervision, but was unable to separately report for those on parole. December 31, 2015, and January 1, 2015, data—based on the distribution of parole as a part of the community corrections population--was reported on the Alaska Department of Corrections website, and the number was reported to BJS in prior years. California--The state agency was not able to report entries and exits due to a high-level data conversion project. California’s total parole population as reported by BJS includes 34,836 persons on January 1, 2015, and 33,260 persons on December 31, 2015, who were under post-release community supervision. These persons account for 20,921 parolees entering and 22,497 parolees exiting supervision during 2015. In addition, California’s total parole population includes 11,739 persons on January 1, 2015, and 11,427 persons on December 31, 2015, who were under mandatory supervision. These persons account for 8,693 parolees entering and 9,005 parolees exiting supervision during 2015. Detailed information on the types of entries and exits were not available for these populations. Illinois--Reporting changes in 2015--there was a major technology transition in December 2015. During the transition, some traditional population counts and other measures were not collected. Therefore, the data provided reflect November 30, 2015 counts as an estimate for December 31, 2015. The entries and discharges only include 11 months of data (January 2015 through November 2015). Oregon--Nonreporting agency in 2015--the state agency in Oregon was unable to provide data for 2015 because of computer system issues. At the request of the respondent, the December 31, 2014 population count was used as an estimate for January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015. Estimates for December 31, 2015 have been included in national and “all state” totals. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015***. Washington--Reporting changes between 2014 and 2015-- data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as a result of a change in methodology. These changes resulted in an increase of 1,046 parolees on January 1, 2015 (10,926), compared to December 31, 2014 (9,880). Wisconsin--The state parole agency was able to report the number of parolees probationers who died, but not the total number of exit or the number of entries to parole during 2015. Based on information provided by Wisconsin for 2014, BJS imputed the total number of entries to and exits from parole supervision in Wisconsin for 2015. *** Footnote *See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2015*** *************************************************************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. Jeri M. Mulrow is acting director. This report was written by Danielle Kaeble and Thomas P. Bonczar. E. Ann Carson and Thomas P. Bonczar verified the report. Caitlin Scoville and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Tina Dorsey produced the report. December 2016, NCJ 250230 *************************************************************** *************************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice www.ojp.usdoj.gov ***************************************************************** ************************* 12/1/2016/ JER/ 9:35AM *************************