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=5415 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, 2014 Danielle Kaeble, Laura M. Maruschak, and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians At yearend 2014, an estimated 4,708,100 adults were under community supervision—a decrease of about 45,300 offenders or 1% from yearend 2013 (figure 1). ***Footnote 1 The community supervision population excludes parolees who were on probation to avoid double counting offenders. See table 5 and Methodology.*** About 1 in 52 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2014. This population includes adults on probation, parole, or any other post-prison supervision, with probationers accounting for the majority (82%) of adults under community supervision. (See BJS definition of probation and parole.) The small decline (down 1%) observed in the adult community corrections population was due to the drop in the probation population. The probation population declined from an estimated 3,910,600 offenders at yearend 2013 to 3,864,100 at yearend 2014, falling by about 46,500 offenders. The decline in the adult community corrections population was slightly offset by a small increase in the parole population, which grew from about 855,200 offenders at yearend 2013 to 856,900 at yearend 2014. **************************************************** ************ HIGHLIGHTS ************ * At yearend 2014, an estimated 4,708,100 adults were under community supervision—down by about 45,300 offenders from yearend 2013. * Approximately 1 in 52 adults in the United States was under community supervision at yearend 2014. * Between yearend 2013 and 2014, the adult probation population declined by about 46,500 offenders (down 1.2%), falling to an estimated 3,864,100 offenders at yearend 2014. * Entries onto probation decreased about 1.3% during 2014, and exits declined about 1.0% to an estimated 2,130,700. * The adult parole population increased by about 1,600 offenders (up 0.2%) between yearend 2013 and 2014, to an estimated 856,900 offenders at yearend 2014. * Both entries and exits to parole decreased about 1.5% in 2014. * The reincarceration rate among parolees at risk of violating their conditions of supervision remained stable at about 9% in 2013 and 2014. ***************************************************** 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), 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 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 present additional 2014 data by jurisdiction. ************************************** Community supervision population experienced a small decline in 2014 ************************************** By yearend 2014, about 4.7 million offenders were under community supervision, a decrease of about 45,300 offenders from yearend 2013 (table 1). During the same period, the probation population decreased by about 46,500 persons. The decline in the probation population, partially offset by the slight increase of an estimated 1,600 parolees in 2014, accounted for all of the decline in the community supervision population. Although the decline in the community supervision population in 2014 was small (down 1%), it was part of a longer trend. In each year from 2008 to 2014, declines have ranged from 0.5% to 2.6%. Overall, the population under community supervision has declined 8% over the past 7 years. The probation population has declined for 7 consecutive years. The overall decrease in the probation population was 10% from 4.3 million at yearend 2007 to an estimated 3.9 million at yearend 2014. While the number of offenders on probation declined from 2007 to 2014, the parole population increased by 3.7% from an estimated 826,100 at yearend 2007 to about 856,900 at yearend 2014. ***************************************************** *************************************** 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. ***************************************************** ************************************** Rates of adults under community supervision continued to decline for both probation and parole in 2014 ************************************** The rate of adults under community supervision fell from an estimated 1,947 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2013 to 1,910 offenders per 100,000 at yearend 2014 (table 2). The probation rate declined from 1,602 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2013 to 1,568 offenders per 100,000 at yearend 2014. Due to the growth in the U.S. adult resident population, the parole rate declined from 350 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents in 2013 to 348 per 100,000 in 2014 despite the increase in the number of parolees. Overall, community supervision, probation, and parole rates were down from the peak rates observed at yearend 2007. ************************************** Probation entries and exits decreased in 2014 ************************************** While the number of entries to and exits from probation have changed over time, they have generally moved in the same direction in a given year. After peaking in 2007, entries began a steady decline, while exits continued to increase, peaking in 2009. In 2009, exits exceeded entries and continued to do so through 2014. From 2013 to 2014, probation entries declined 1.3% from an estimated 2,094,100 entries to 2,067,100 (figure 2). During the same period, exits declined by 600 from an estimated 2,131,300 exits to 2,130,700. These declines in both entries and exits led to the overall decline in movements on and off probation, from 4,225,400 during 2013 to 4,197,800 during 2014. (See Methodology for a discussion of estimating change in population counts.) ************************************** Exit rate for probationers increased slightly after 2 years of decreases, returning to the rate observed each year from 2008 to 2011 ************************************** 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. Following a decline in the exit rate between 2011 and 2012, the rate increased in 2013 to 54 exits per 100 probationers and again in 2014 to 55 per 100, the rate that was observed each year from 2008 to 2011 (table 3). In 2014, the mean length of stay on probation was 21.9 months. The completion rate—turnover due to completing the term of supervision either through a full-term completion or early discharge—was 35 exits per 100 probationers during 2014. The same rate was observed in 2008 and was slightly lower than the 36 exits per 100 probationers that held constant from 2009 to 2013. In 2014, the rate of exiting due to an incarceration was 8 exits per 100 probationers, the same rate observed in 2012 and 2013. ************************************** Incarceration rate among at-risk probationers remained stable ************************************** The incarceration rate among probationers at risk of violating their conditions of supervision—including incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, and other reasons—in 2014 (5.0%) was similar to the rate reported in 2013 (5.4%) (figure 3). Since 2000, the incarceration rate has remained relatively stable, ranging from 4.5% to 6.1%. The incarceration rate is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers who were discharged and incarcerated during the year to the number of probationers who were at risk of incarceration at any point during the year. The probation population at risk of incarceration includes the population at the beginning of the year and all probation entries during the year. ************************************** Probation population characteristics changed slightly since 2000 ************************************** At yearend 2014, a quarter (25%) of probationers were female, compared to 22% of probationers in 2000 (table 4). At yearend 2014, more than half (54%) of probationers were non-Hispanic white, 30% were non-Hispanic black, and 13% were Hispanic or Latino--a similar distribution for race and Hispanic origin observed in 2000. The percentage of probationers supervised for a felony offense increased from 52% in 2000 to 56% in 2014. The percentage of probationers on active status has decreased slightly since 2000, falling from 76% in 2000 to 73% in 2014. However, probationers on active status increased in 2014 from 69% in 2013. Active probationers are defined as those required to regularly contact a probation authority in person, by mail, by telephone, or electronically. ************************************** U.S. parole population experienced small fluctuations since yearend 2011 ************************************** The total parole population has changed little since yearend 2011, ranging from a high of 857,800 offenders on parole in 2012 to a low of 854,600 at yearend 2011. At yearend 2014, an estimated 856,900 offenders were on parole, up from 855,200 at yearend 2013. The state parole population accounted for the entire increase (up about 3,600 offenders), while the federal parole population decreased (down about 2,000 offenders). The 0.2% increase in the parole population at yearend 2014 compared to yearend 2013 marks the third consecutive yearend change that was less than 0.5%. ************************************** Parole entries and exits declined in 2014; entries continued to exceed exits ************************************** Between 2013 and 2014, parole entries declined 6,600 from an estimated 466,800 to 460,200, and exits declined 7,700 from 459,600 to 451,900 (figure 4). The 1.4% decline in entries to parole from yearend 2013 to yearend 2014 was consistent with the 1% decrease in the number of prison releases during the same period. (For more information, see Prisoners in 2014, NCJ 248955, BJS web, September 2015.) Exits from parole declined 1.7% from 2013 to 2014. Both entries and exits have declined in the past five years, resulting in a decrease in the overall movement of the parole population. In 2014, parolees entered or exited supervision 912,100 times, down from 926,400 in 2013. ************************************** Parole exit rate decreased for the fifth consecutive year ************************************** The parole exit rate fell to 53 exits per 100 parolees in 2014, continuing a downward trend first observed in 2010 (table 5). During the same period, the mean length of stay on parole increased from 17.9 months in 2010 to 22.7 months in 2014. The exit rate due to completion of term of supervision or early discharge was 33 exits per 100 parolees in 2014, unchanged since 2011 and only slightly lower than the rate observed in 2010 (35 per 100 parolees). In 2014, the rate of return to incarceration remained unchanged from 2013 at 14 exits per 100 parolees, but was down overall from 22 per 100 in 2010. The largest decline in the rate occurred between 2011 and 2012. The decline observed in the exit rate in 2012 was largely due to the decline in the number of parolees being returned to incarceration in California. ************************************** Reincarceration rate among parolees remained stable since 2012 ************************************** An estimated 9.0% of all parolees who were at risk of reincarceration during 2014 were incarcerated, similar to the rate in 2013 (9.3%) (figure 5). Overall, this rate has declined from 2000 to 2014. 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. In 2014, 2.8% of parolees who were at risk of reincarceration were incarcerated for a new sentence, which was unchanged from 2013. The rate at which parolees were reincarcerated as a result of revocation was 5.2% in 2014, compared to 5.6% in 2013. ************************************** Percent of Hispanic parolees continues to drop in 2014 ************************************** In 2014, 16% of the parole population was Hispanic or Latino, compared to 17% in 2013 and 21% in 2000 (table 6). Forty-three percent of parolees were white, up from 38% in 2000. Males continued to make up 88% of the adult parole population--the same percentage reported in 2000 and 2013. The percentage of parolees sentenced to a maximum term of incarceration of less than 1 year grew from 3% in 2000 to 6% in 2014. In 2014, about the same percentage of offenders were being supervised for either a violent offense (31%) or a drug crime (31%). ************ Methodology ************ The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, which began in 1980, 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 sentenced as adults in a criminal court are considered adults. Juveniles under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court or juvenile 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 2014, 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 BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics Program. ************ Probation ************ The 2014 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 467 respondents. Following the closure of one local probation agency in Arizona, the addition of one agency and the elimination of four in Michigan, the closure of one agency in Ohio, and the elimination of one agency in Washington, there were a total of 461 agencies on the agency frame for the 2014 Annual Probation Survey. (See Probation: Explanatory notes for more information.) Respondents included 35 central state reporters; 426 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. States with multiple reporters were Alabama (3), Colorado (8), Florida (41), Georgia (2), Idaho (2), Kentucky (3), Michigan (131), Missouri (2), Montana (4), New Mexico (2), Ohio (186), Oklahoma (3), Pennsylvania (2), Tennessee (3), and Washington (32). Of the 461 agencies on the agency frame, 1 locality in Alabama, 1 in Colorado, 6 in Florida, 14 in Michigan, 1 in Montana, 17 in Ohio, and 5 in Washington did not provide data for the 2014 collection. For these localities, the agency’s most recent December 31 population was used to estimate the populations on January 1 and December 31, 2014. ************ Parole ************ The 2014 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 53 respondents: 50 central state reporters, including the state parole agency in Pennsylvania, which also provided one separate summary record for the state’s 65 counties; the District of Columbia; and the federal system. Data for the federal system were provided directly to the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program, which obtained data from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 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. 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 2014 reported in figure 1 (and the 2014 counts in appendix table 3) 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 2014 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 2014 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, 2000–2014 ************************************** 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; 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 discrepancy between the yearend 2013 and the beginning year 2014 probation counts resulted in an increase of 19,163 probationers (table 8). The discrepancy between the yearend and beginning year parole population count resulted in a decrease of 15,681 parolees from December 31, 2013 to January 1, 2014 (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 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, 7,851 probationers were the difference between the change in the probation population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2014, populations and the difference between probation entries and exits during 2014. For parole, 5,927 parolees were the difference between the change in the parole population measured by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2014, populations and the difference between parole entries and exits during 2014. Estimates of annual change reported in appendix tables 3, 4, and 5 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, 2, and 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 years’ reports was calculated as the difference between the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year. ************************************** Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2014 ************************************** BJS used the methods described below to impute missing probation and parole data for key items, including the January 1, 2014, population, entries, exits, and the December 31, 2014, population. ************************************** Imputing the January 1, 2014, probation population ************************************** When the January 1, 2014, probation population was missing, the December 31, 2013, probation population value was carried over. This method was used to estimate the January 1, 2014, probation population in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Washington. ************************************** Imputing the December 31, 2014, probation population ************************************** When the December 31, 2014, 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, 2014, population and the January 1, 2014, population based on the ratio of the 2013 net difference between the December 31, 2013, population and the January 1, 2013, population to the January 1, 2013, population, and then adding the estimated difference to the January 1, 2014, population. This method was used to estimate the December 31, 2014, probation population in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Montana, 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 2014 but were able to report in 2013. BJS estimated probation entries in 2014 by using the ratio of entries in 2013 to the agency’s probation population on January 1, 2013, and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2014, population. This method was used to estimate probation entries in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin. The second method was used to estimate 2014 probation entries for agencies that did not report entries both in 2013 and 2014. 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 2013 imputed entries to the January 1, 2013, probation population and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2014, population. This method was used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island. ************************************** Imputing parole entries ************************************** To estimate parole entries for parole agencies that were unable to report these data in 2014 but were able to report in 2013, BJS calculated the ratio of entries in 2013 to the agency’s parole population on January 1, 2013, and applied that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2014, population. This method was used to estimate parole entries in California 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 2014 to the agency’s population on January 1, 2014, and subtracted that estimate from the population on December 31, 2014. For probation, this method was used in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington. For parole, this method was used in California and Wisconsin. ************************************** 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., and 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 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. ************************************** Change 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 (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, August 1998), and updated in Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2002: With Trends 1982-2002, Reconciled Data (NCJ 207447, January 2005). ************************************** Probation: Explanatory notes ************************************** Federal-- Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years, when data for the federal system included offenders under supervision in the U.S. states, and those under supervision in the federal territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. An estimated 281 adults were on probation supervision in the federal territories on January 1, 2014. They have been excluded from the federal probation population described in this report. Data processing procedures also changed between 2013 and 2014. Together, these changes resulted in a decrease of 1,558 probationers on January 1, 2014 (19,118) compared to December 31, 2013 (20,676). Alabama--Reporting changes from 2013 and 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting on January 1, 2014, the state agency in Alabama began reporting data only for those offenders on probation at a single point in time, as opposed to all those who were on probation at the beginning of the year plus all those who had been placed on probation during the year. This change resulted in a decrease of 11,103 probationers on January 1, 2014 (50,698) compared to December 31, 2013 (61,801). Nonreporting agencies in 2014: one local agency did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014. Colorado--Nonreporting agency in 2014: one local agency did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014. Florida--Nonreporting agencies in 2014: six local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014. Georgia--Probation counts may overstate the number of offenders under probation supervision because the agency that reports 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 one or more private probation agencies across jurisdictions. A large decrease in the number of misdemeanant probation cases during 2014 occurred as the result of a 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court of Georgia that prevented private probation agencies from “tolling,” or extending, the probation sentences of absconders—i.e., private probation agencies may not stop a probationer’s time from running while the probationer is in absconder status. Many probationers previously on warrant status have received unsuccessful exits from probation. Maryland--Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data reported by Maryland for 2014 are not comparable to those reported for previous years because of a change in the state’s computing systems and extensive data cleaning. Also Maryland was unable to report on the number of individuals under supervision for 2014, as opposed to cases. The state also expanded the scope of its probation population to include certain DWI offenders who had been excluded for 2013. These changes resulted in an increase of 40,588 probationers on January 1, 2014 (81,304), compared to December 31, 2013 (40,716). Michigan--Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years because one local probation agency that had been providing duplicate information was eliminated. This change resulted in a decrease of 225 probationers on January 1, 2014, compared to December 31, 2013. One local agency was added in 2014 following the reconfiguration of several local agencies. However, this did not change the number of probationers reported on January 1, 2014, compared to December 31, 2013. Nonreporting agencies in 2014: 14 local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014. Montana--Nonreporting agencies in 2014: one local agency did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014. Ohio--Nonreporting agencies in 2014: 17 local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, populations. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014. Closed agencies in 2014: two agencies merged. Therefore, one was removed from the roster because its cases are now part of one agency. Washington--Nonreporting agencies in 2014: five local agencies did not report data. The most recently available December 31 population count was used to estimate January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, populations. Forms continued to be sent to one agency that had closed in 2009, and this agency was removed from the population frame. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014. Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as a result of a change in methods used by the state probation agency. These changes resulted in a decrease of 1,820 probationers on January 1, 2014 (9,500), compared to December 31, 2013 (11,320). The December 31, 2014, probation population excludes 8,471 offenders on December 31, 2014, who could not be classified as either on probation or parole. Of these, 3,522 were actively detained inmates. The January 1, 2014, probation population also excludes an undetermined number of offenders who could not be classified as either on probation or parole. West Virginia--Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years because a new statewide electronic data system was implemented. This change resulted in a decrease of 1,291 probationers on January 1, 2014 (7,174), compared to December 31, 2013 (8,465). Wisconsin--The state probation agency, reporting data for the entire state’s probation population, was able to report only the number of offenders on probation on January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, and the number of Wisconsin probationers who were supervised by other states. Based on information provided by Wisconsin for 2013, BJS imputed the total number of entries and exits to and from probation supervision in Wisconsin for 2014 (see Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2014). BJS also imputed characteristics of Wisconsin’s 2014 yearend probation population for the purposes of preparing national estimates. The characteristics of Wisconsin’s yearend 2014 probation population that were imputed for inclusion in national estimates were sex, race and Hispanic origin, type of sentence (felony or misdemeanant offense), status of supervision, number of probationers who were also on parole, and number of probationers who were also in a state or federal prison. ************************************** Parole: Explanatory notes ************************************** Federal--Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years, when data for the federal system included those offenders under parole supervision in the U.S. states, and those under supervision in the federal territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. An estimated 2,149 adults were on parole in the federal territories on January 1, 2014, which have been excluded from the federal parole population in this report. Between 2013 and 2014, a change in data processing procedures also occurred. Together, these changes resulted in a decrease of 1,961 parolees on January 1, 2014 (109,265), compared to December 31, 2013 (111,226). Alabama--Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting on January 1, 2014, Alabama began reporting only those offenders on parole at a specific time, as opposed to all those who were on parole at the beginning of the year plus all those who had been placed on parole during the year. This change resulted in a decrease of 213 parolees on January 1, 2014 (7884), compared to December 31, 2013 (8,097). 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 34,285 persons on January 1, 2014, and 34,836 persons on December 31, 2014, who were under post-release community supervision. These persons account for 18,037 parolees entering and 17,486 parolees exiting supervision during 2014. In addition, California’s total parole population includes 9,679 persons on January 1, 2014, and 11,739 persons on December 31, 2014, who were under mandatory supervision. These persons account for 3,120 parolees entering and 1,060 parolees exiting supervision during the year. Detailed information on the types of entries and exits that occurred were not available for these populations. California’s post-release community supervision and mandatory supervision populations were imputed by BJS based on information obtained from the Chief Probation Officers of California website (http://www.cpoc.org/realignment). For more information on California’s public safety realignment, and the inclusion of California’s post-release community supervision and mandatory supervision populations, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2013 (NCJ 248029, BJS web, October 2014). Kentucky--Reporting change from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as a result of data cleaning to remove cases which had been closed at some time before January 1, 2014. This change resulted in a decrease of 903 parolees on January 1, 2014 (14,019), compared to December 31, 2013 (14,922). Maryland--Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data reported by Maryland for 2014 are not comparable to those reported for previous years because of a change to its computing systems and extensive data cleaning. Maryland was unable to report on the number of individuals under supervision for 2014, as opposed to cases. These changes resulted in an increase of 6,841 parolees on January 1, 2014 (12,464), compared to December 31, 2013 (5,623). Washington--Reporting changes from 2013 to 2014: data are not comparable to those reported in previous years as a result of a change in methods. These changes resulted in a decrease of 6,408 parolees on January 1, 2014 (9,500), compared to December 31, 2013 (15,908). The December 31, 2014, parole population excludes 8,471 offenders on December 31, 2014, who could not be classified as either on probation or parole. Of these, 3,522 were actively detained inmates. The January 1, 2014, parole population also excludes an undetermined number of offenders who could not be classified as either on probation or parole. Wisconsin--The state parole agency was able to report only the number of offenders on parole on January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, and the number of Wisconsin parolees who were supervised by other states. Based on information provided by Wisconsin for 2013, BJS imputed the total number of entries and exits to/from parole supervision in Wisconsin for 2014 (see Imputing probation and parole entries exits). BJS also imputed characteristics of Wisconsin’s 2014 yearend parole population for the purposes of preparing national estimates. The characteristics of Wisconsin’s yearend 2014 parole population that were imputed by BJS to include in national estimates were sex, race and Hispanic origin, sentence length, sentence type, supervision status, the number of parolees who were also on probation, and the number of parolees who were also in a state or federal prison. ***************************************************** 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 director. This report was written by Danielle Kaeble, Laura M. Maruschak, and Thomas P. Bonczar. Jennifer Bronson verified the report. Lynne McConnell and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report. November 2015, NCJ 249057 ***************************************************** ***************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ***************************************************** ****************************** 10/29/2015/JER/10:10pm ******************************