October 2014, NCJ 248029Probation and Parole in the United States, 201 - PDF document

October 2014, NCJ 248029Probation and Parole in the United States, 2013Erinn J. Herberman, Ph.D., and Thomas P. Bonczar, t yearend 2013, an estimated 4,751,400 adults were under community supervision—a decline of about 29,900 oenders from yearend 2012 (gure 1) About 1 in 51 adults in the FIGURE 1Adults under community supervision at yearend, Yearend population (in millions) 01 ‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00 HIGHLIGHTSAt yearend 2013, an estimated 4,751,400 adults were under community supervision—down about 29,900 oenders from yearend 2012. e community supervision population excludes parolees who were on probation to avoid double counting oenders. See table 7 and MethodologyRevised January 21, 2015 Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014Data 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 MethodologyAppendix tables present additional 2013 data by jurisdiction.Community supervision population experienced a small decline in 2013, due to a drop in probationers e 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 oenders at yearend 2013 (table 1). e number of adults under community supervision at yearend declined for the rst time in 2008 and continued to decrease each year through 2013. is 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 denition of probation and paroleProbation 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. TABLU.S. adult residents on community supervision, probation, and parole, 2000–2013YearCommunity supervision populationProbationParoleAverage annual percent change, 2000–2012Percent change, Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over time. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014e probation population declined by about 32,100 between yearend 2012 and 2013, falling to an estimated 3,910,600 oenders at yearend 2013 (gure 2; appendix table 2. During the same period, the parole population grew by about 2,100, increasing to an estimated 853,200 oenders at yearend 2013 (gure 3; appendix table 4Rate of adults under community supervision continued to Community supervision and probation rates declined each year from 2007 to 2013, while parole rates uctuated. e rate of adults under community supervision fell from 1,980 oenders 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)e probation rate dropped from 1,633 oenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2012 to 1,605 at yearend 2013. Adults on parole at yearend, 2000–2013Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013. Yearend population 0200,000400,0001,000,000 ‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00 TABLU.S. adult residents on community supervision, probation, and parole, 2000, 2005–2013Number per 100,000 U.S. adult residentsU.S. adult residents on—YearCommunity supervisionProbationParoleCommunity supervisionProbationParoleNote: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Rates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. Rates based on the community supervision, probation, and parole population counts as of December 31 of the reporting year and the estimated U.S. adult resident population on January 1 of each subsequent year. Includes adults on probation and adults on parole. For 2008 to 2013, detail may not sum to total because the community supervision rate was adjusted to exclude parolees who were also on probation. See MethodologyIncludesadults on probation and paroleSee Methodology for estimating change in population counts.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, 2000, 2005–2013; and U.S. Census Bureau, National Intercensal Estimates, 2001, 2005–2010, and Population Estimates, January 1, 2011–2014. Adults on probation at yearend, 2000–2013Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over time, and probation coverage was expanded in 1998 and 1999. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2013. Yearend population (in millions) 01 ‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00 e rate of adults under community supervision in 2013 (1 in 51 U.S. adult residents) was the lowest since 1996. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014Although the number of oenders 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 ve consecutive years of decline; exits increased after three consecutive years of declineDuring 2013, movement both onto and o probation increased (gure 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 o 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 rst time since data collection began. is trend continued during 2013, with exits from probation exceeding entries by approximately 37,200. (See Methodologyfor a discussion of estimating change in population counts.)Completion rates for probationers have remained stable since 2009e 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. is rate is consistent with rates observed since 2009 (table 3)e 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 TABLRate of probation exits, by type of exit, 2008–2013Type of exit Total exit rateCompletionIncarcerationAbsconderDischarged to custody, detainer, or warrantOther unsatisfactoryTransferred to another probation agencyDeathOtherEstimated mean time served on probation (in months)22 mo. 22 mo. 22 mo. 22 mo. 23 mo.22 mo. Note: Rate per 100 probationers. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Rates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology--Less than 0.5 per 100 probationers.The ratio of the number of probationers exiting supervision during the year to the average daily probation population (i.e., average of the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year).Includes probationers who were incarcerated for a new oense and those who had their current probation sentence revoked (e.g., violating a condition of supervision).Includes probationers discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, including some with only nancial conditions remaining, some who had their probation sentence revoked but were not incarcerated because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits. Includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.Includes, but not limited to, probationers who were discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement; had their sentence dismissed or overturned by the court through an appeal; had their sentence administratively closed, deferred, or terminated by the court; were awaiting a hearing; and were released on bond.Calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2013. Estimated probation entries and exits, 2000–2013Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2013. Number 2,000,0002,100,0002,500,000 ‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00 Probation entries Probation exits PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014indirect measure of the average time an oender can expect to serve on probation. e 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 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 (table 4). e incarceration rate (15%) was unchanged from Incarceration rate among at-risk probationers remained e incarceration rate among probationers at risk of violating their conditions of supervision—including incarceration for a new oense, a revocation, and other reasons—was stable in 2013 at 5.4% (gure 5). e incarceration rate is dened 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. e 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 2000e 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. e percentage of probationers supervised for a felony oense increased from 52% in 2000 to 55% in 2013. e percentage of probationers on active status has decreased since 2000, falling from 76% in 2000 to 69% in 2013. TABLProbationers who exited supervision, by type of exit, 2008–2013Type of exitTotalCompletionIncarcerationAbsconderDischarged to custody, detainer, or warrantOther unsatisfactoryTransferred to another probation agencyDeathOtherEstimated numberNote: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percents based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. Percents based on probationers with known type of exit. Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over time. See Methodology-- Less than 0.5%.Includes probationers who were incarcerated for a new oense and those who had their current probation sentence revoked (e.g. violating a condition of supervision).Includes probationers discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, including some with only nancial conditions remaining, some who had their probation sentence revoked but were not incarcerated because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits. Includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.Includes, but not limited to, probationers who were discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement; had their sentence dismissed or overturned by the court through an appeal; had their sentence administratively closed, deferred, or terminated by the court; were awaiting a hearing; and were released on bond. Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. Includes estimates for nonreporting agencies. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2013. 5 Estimated percent of the at-risk probation population incarcerated, 2000–2013Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. The at-risk population is dened as the number of probationers under supervision at the start of the year (January 1) plus the number who entered supervision during the year. See Methodology.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2013. Percent 024 ‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00 PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014California Public Safety RealignmentCalifornia’s Public Safety Realignment (PSR) policy responded to a U.S. Supreme Court mandate to reduce prison overcrowding. The policy took eect on October 1, 2011. The PSR is designed to reduce the prison population through normal attrition of the existing population while placing new oenders not convicted of violent, serious, or sexual oenses under county jurisdiction for incarceration in local jail facilities rather than state prisons. Under the PSR, oenders not convicted of violent, serious, or sexual oenses who are serving time in state prisons become eligible for post-release community supervision (PRCS) rather than the traditional state parole. Some new oenders receive a straight sentence to county jail, while other new oenders’ 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 denition of parole, which includes post-custody conditional supervision.At yearend 2013, California’s combined parole population (87,500 oenders) included an estimated 45,600 oenders under state parole by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 33,100 oenders on PRCS, and 8,800 oenders on MS (gure 6). At yearend 2010, the year before PSR took eect, California’s parole population (105,100 oenders) was comprised entirely of parolees under state parole. By yearend 2013, the state’s combined parole population declined by 17,600 oenders. During this time, California’s state parole population declined by 59,500 oenders, while the PRCS and MS populations increased to 41,900 oenders. Nationally, the parole population grew by 12,500 oenders (up 1.5%) between yearend 2010 and yearend 2013. The increase of about 4.1% (up 30,100 oenders) in jurisdictions other than California since 2010 was partially oset by the decrease in California’s parole population.Combined total entries to parole in California declined 64%, from 166,300 oenders in 2010 (when all entries were to state parole) to an estimated 60,000 in 2013 (gure 7) This was the result of a decrease in entries to state parole of nearly 80%, to an estimated 35,400 during 2013. California adult parole population, 2010 and 2013 Population 020,00040,000100,000 20132010 Mandatory supervisionPost-release custody supervisionState paroleCombined state parole, post-release custody supervision, and mandatory supervision Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology/ Value equals zero.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2010 and 2013.continued on next page California parole entries, 2010 and 2013 Entries 030,00060,000 120,000 Mandatory supervisionPost-releasecustodysupervisionState paroleCombined state parole, post-release custody supervision, and mandatory supervision Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology*Data were imputed./ Value equals zero.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2010 and 2013. Entries and exits to state parole supervision for 2013 were not available from the CDCR and were imputed by BJS. See Methodology. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014California Public Safety Realignment (continued)The smaller number of entries to state parole during 2013 was partially oset 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). (gure 8)Since PSR was implemented, entries to probation increased nearly 15%, from an estimated 149,000 oenders 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 oenders) California parole exits, 2010 and 2013 Exits 030,00060,000120,000150,000180,000 Mandatory supervisionPost-release custody supervisionState paroleCombined state parole, post-release custody supervision, and mandatory supervision 2010 Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology*Data were imputed./ Value equals zeroSource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2010 and 2013. TABLCalifornia adult probation population, 2010 and 2013YearProbation entriesProbation exitsDecember 31 probation populationPercent change of populationProbation entriesProbation exitsYearend probation populationSource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2010 and 2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014U.S. parole population increased slightly in 2013From yearend 2012 to 2013, the parole population increased slightly (up about 2,100 oenders), from an estimated 851,200 oenders at yearend 2012 to 853,200 at yearend 2013. Both the state (up about 1,600 oenders) and federal (up 500 oenders) parole populations grew slightly during this period.Parole entries and exits declined during 2013; exits decreased at a faster rateIn 2013, about 922,900 movements occurred onto and o parole, with an estimated 465,400 entries and about 457,500 exits (gure 9). Both entries and exits have declined since 2009. During 2013, the decline in exits (7.8%) exceeded the decline in entries (6.2%). e 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 e 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). is decline resulted in an increase in the mean length of stay on parole, rising from 21 months in 2012 to 22 months in 2013. e 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. Estimated parole entries and exits, 2000–2013Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013. 400,000450,000 Parole exitsParole entries ‘13‘12‘11‘10‘09‘08‘07‘06‘05‘04‘03‘02‘01‘00Number TABLRate of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008–2013Type of exit Total exit rateCompletionReturned to incarcerationWith new sentenceWith revocationOther/unknownAbsconderOther unsatisfactoryTransferred to another stateDeathOtherEstimated mean time served on parole (in months) mo. mo. mo. mo. mo. mo.Note: Rate per 100 parolees. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Rates based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology. Rates based on parolees with known type of exit. Type of exit for 2013 includes imputed data for California, based on information provided for 2012. See appendix table 7 for reported type of exit by jurisdiction.The ratio of the number of parolees exiting supervision during the year to the average daily parole population (i.e., average of the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year).Includes parolees discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, including some who had their parole sentence revoked but were not incarcerated because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits. Includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence reported as unsatisfactory exits.Includes, but not limited to, parolees who were discharged from supervision because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, or were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement and discharged to probation supervision.Calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014Reincarceration rate among at-risk parolees remained An estimated 9.3% of all parolees who were at risk of reincarceration were incarcerated during 2013—about the same as in 2012 (gure 10). e incarceration rate is dened 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. e parole population at risk of incarceration is dened 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. e rate at which parolees were reincarcerated as a result of revocation was about 5.4% in 2013. Most characteristics of parolees were unchanged 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. e 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 oense—both levels unchanged from those observed Percent 05 10 RevocationNew sentenceIncarceration 20132012201120102009200820072006200520042003200220012000 10Estimated percent of the at-risk parole population returned to incarceration, 2000–2013Note: Percents based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology. Estimates based on parolees with known type of exit. Type of exit for 2013 includes imputed data for California, based on information provided for 2012. See appendix table 7 for reported type of exit by jurisdiction. The at-risk population is dened as the number of parolees under supervision at the start of the year (January 1) plus the number who entered supervision during the year. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014Methodology e 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. e 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.e 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 Oce of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Oce of the United States Courts through the Federal Justice Statistics Program.Probation e 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. e 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, ve 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. e 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.Parolee 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 aer release from a federal prison sentence. Denitional dierences 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 oenders with dual community correctional statusSome oenders 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 gure 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 TABL 7 Parolees on probation excluded from the January 1 and December 31 community supervision populations, 2008–2013YearJanuary 1*December 31 Note: Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. *For 2008–2009 and 2011–2013, data were based on the count as of December 31 of the prior reporting year. For 2010, the count as of December 31, 2010, was used as a proxy because additional states reported these data in 2010.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014were not able to provide these data. erefore, 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, 2000–2013In 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 diers greatly from the December 31 count of the prior year. e dierence reported may result from administrative changes, such as implementing new information systems, resulting in data review and cleanup; reconciling probationer records; reclassifying oenders, including those on probation to parole and oenders on dual community supervision statuses; and including certain probation populations not previously reported (e.g., supervised for an oense of driving while intoxicated or under the inuence, some probationers who had absconded, and some on an inactive status). e 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 e 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 countsTechnically, the change in the probation and parole populations from the beginning of the year to the end of the year should equal the dierence 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 oenders. is means that entries and exits may include case counts as opposed to counts of oenders, 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. TABLChange in the number of adults on probation based on reporting changes, 2000–2012YearDecember 31probation population Change*Total change, yearend 2000–2012Note: Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics.*Calculated as the dierence between the December 31 probation population in the reporting year and the January 1 probation population in the following year.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012. TABLChange in the number of adults on parole based on reporting changes, 2000–2012Year December 31 parole populationChange*Total change, yearend 2000–2012Note: Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics.*Calculated as the dierence between the December 31 probation population in the reporting year and the January 1 parole population in the following year.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014At the national level, 2,014 probationers were the dierence between the change in the probation population measured by the dierence between January 1 and December 31, 2013, populations and the dierence between probation entries and exits during 2013. For parole, 5,702 parolees were the dierence between the change in the parole population measured by the dierence between January 1 and December 31, 2013, populations and the dierence between parole entries and exits during 2013.e percentage change reported in appendix tables 1, 2, and 4 were calculated as the dierence between the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year.In gures 1, 2, and 3, the annual percentage change was based on the dierence between the December 31 populations for each year. As previously discussed, jurisdiction counts reported for January 1 may be dierent 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 2013BJS 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 populationWhen the January 1, 2013, probation population was missing, the December 31, 2012, probation population value was carried over. is 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 populationWhen 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 dierence between the December 31, 2013, population and the January 1, 2013, population based on the ratio of the 2012 net dierence between the December 31, 2012, population and the January 1, 2012, population to the January 1, 2012, population, and then adding the estimated dierence to the January 1, 2013, population. is 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 entriesBased on the availability of data, BJS used three methods of ratio estimation to impute probation entries for agencies not reporting these data. e rst 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. is method was used to estimate probation entries in nonreporting counties and district agencies in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. e second method was used to estimate 2013 probation entries for agencies that did not report entries in both 2012 and 2013. e 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. is method was used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting counties and district agencies in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington.e 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. is method was used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island.Imputing parole entriesTo 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. is method was used to estimate parole entries in California. Imputing probation and parole exitsA 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 stayMean 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. Based on the small growth rates in the probation and parole populations in recent years, the inverse of the exit rate suces to provide an estimate of mean stay on probation or parole in recent years. See Patterson, E.J. & Preston, S.H. (2007). Estimating Mean Length of Stay in Prison: Methods and Applications. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014Community supervision outcome measurese percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees who completed supervision are dened 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. e 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 aer 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 oenders 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.e 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.e 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 dened 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 oense, a revocation, or other reasons, to the number of all probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated during the year. e at-risk population is dened 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. is pool of probationers or parolees could be incarcerated at any time during the year; therefore, they were at risk of incarceration. e 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.e 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. is 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 xed period of release to the community that follows a xed 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. e 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 oenders under community supervisionSince the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was enacted on November 1, 1987, oenders sentenced to federal prison are no longer eligible for parole but are required to serve a term of supervised release following release from prison. ose 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 oenders, and foreign treaty transfer oenders (see http://www.uscourts.gov/news/eirdBranch/11-05-01/Parole_in_the_Federal_Probation_System.aspxe Sentencing Reform Act also requires the adoption and use of sentencing guidelines, which also took eect on November 1, 1987. Many oenses for which probation had been the typical sentence prior to this date, particularly property and regulatory oenses, subsequently resulted in sentences to prison. Changes in how federal oenders are supervised in the community were rst described in the BJS report, Federal Oenders 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 notesColorado—Nonreporting agencies in 2013—two local agencies did not report data. e 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—ve local agencies did not report data. e 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. is 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. e 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. e 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 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. e 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 notesCalifornia—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. ese 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. ese 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 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), in part because of the inclusion of inactive cases for the rst time in 2013.Appendix tables Community supervisionAppendix table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2013ProbationAppendix table 2. Adults on probation, 2013Appendix table 3. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2012, and 2013ParoleAppendix table 4. Adults on parole, 2013Appendix table 5. Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2013Appendix table 6. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2012, and 2013 Appendix table 7. Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2013Appendix table 8. Percent of parole exits, by type of exit, APPENDIX TE 1Adults under community supervision, 2013JurisdictionCommunity supervision population, 1/1/2013EntriesCommunity supervision population, 12/31/2013Change, 2013Number under community supervision per 100,000 adult residents, 12/31/2013ReportedImputedReportedImputedPercentU.S. totalFederalStateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradod,eConnecticut DelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridad,eGeorgiaHawaii Illinois IndianaIowa Kansas KentuckyLouisianaMaineMaryland MassachusettsMichigand,eMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontana NebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkNorth Carolina North Dakotad,eOklahomaOregonPennsylvania Rhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginia Washingtond,eWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See MethodologyRevised January 21, 2015 APPENDIX TE 2Adults on probation, 2013JurisdictionProbation population, EntriesProbation population, Change, 2013Number on probation residents, 12/31/2013ReportedImputedReportedImputedPercentU.S. totalFederalStateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoc,dConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridac,dGeorgiad,eHawaiiIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganc,dMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkNorth Carolina North Dakotac,dOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonc,dWest Virginia .. WisconsinWyomingNote: Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. Counts may not be actual, as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some or all detailed data. Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the probation population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2013, does not equal the population on January 1, 2013, plus entries, minus exits. Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over time, and probation coverage was expanded in 1998 and 1999. See Methodology..Not known.Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Reects reported data, excluding jurisdictions for which data were unavailable.Computed using the estimated U.S. adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2014.Data for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See MethodologySee Explanatory notes for more detail.Includes private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. See MethodologyExplanatory notesSource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2013.Revised January 21, 2015 PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014 TABL 3 Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2012, and 2013CharacteristicTotal SexMaleFemaleRace/Hispanic originWhiteBlack/African AmericanHispanic/LatinoAmerican Indian/Alaska NativeAsian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacic IslanderTwo or more racesStatus of supervisionActive Residential/other treatment programFinancial conditions remainingInactive AbsconderSupervised out of jurisdictionWarrant statusOtherType of oenseFelonyMisdemeanorOther infractionsMost serious oenseViolentDomestic violenceSex oenseOther violent oensePropertyPublic orderOther trac oenseOtherNote: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See MethodologyCharacteristics based on probationers with known type of status.--Less than 0.5%....Not available.Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specied.Includes violent and property oenses in 2000 because those data were not collected separately.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000, 2012, and 2013. TABL 4Adults on parole, 2013JurisdictionParole population, EntriesParole population, Change, 2013Number on parole per 100,000 adult residents, ReportedImputedReportedImputedPercentU.S. totalFederalStateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniac,d,eColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth Dakota OklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingNote: Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology. Counts may not be actual, as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some or all detailed data. Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the parole population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2013, does not equal the population on January 1, 2013, plus entries, minus exits.: Not calculated./ Not reported.Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Reects reported data, excluding jurisdictions for which data were unavailable. Computed using the estimated U.S. adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2014.Data for entries and exits were estimated when data were incomplete. See MethodologySee Explanatory notes for more detail.Includes post-release community supervision and mandatory supervision parolees: 38,781 on January 1, 2013; and 24,559 entries, 21,393 exits, and 41,947 on December 31, 2013.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014 TABL 5Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2013JurisdictionTotal reportedDiscretionaryMandatoryReinstatementTerm of supervised releaseOtherUnknown or not reportedU.S. totalFederalStateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtah VermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingNote: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology~Not applicable...Not known.Includes oenders entering due to a parole board decision.Includes oenders whose release from prison was not decided by a parole board, oenders entering due to determinate sentencing, good-time provisions, and emergency releases.Includes oenders returned to parole after serving time in a prison due to a parole violation. Depending on the reporting jurisdiction, reinstatement entries may include only parolees who were originally released from prison through a discretionary release, only those originally released through a mandatory release, or a combination of both types. May also include those originally released through a term of supervised release. Includes oenders sentenced by a judge to a xed period of incarceration based on a determinate statute immediately followed by a period of supervised release in the community.Includes parolees who were transferred from another state, placed on supervised release from jail, released to a drug transition program, released from a boot camp operated by the Department of Corrections, and released from prison through a conditional medical or mental health release to parole. Also includes absconders who were returned to parole supervision, on pretrial supervision, under supervision due to a suspended sentence, and others.Some or all detailed data were estimated for type of sentence. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014 TABL 6Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2012, and 2013CharacteristicTotalSexMaleFemaleRace/Hispanic originWhiteBlack/African AmericanHispanic/LatinoAmerican Indian/Alaska NativeAsian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacic IslanderTwo or more racesStatus of supervisionActive Inactive AbsconderSupervised out of stateFinancial conditions remainingOtherMaximum sentence to incarcerationLess than 1 year1 year or moreMost serious oenseViolentSex oenseOther violentPropertyWeaponOtherNote: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See MethodologyCharacteristics based on parolees with known type of status. --Less than 0.5%. ...Not available.Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specied.Includes public order oenses.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000, 2012, and 2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014 TABL 7Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2013 Returned to incarcerationJurisdictionTotal reportedCompletionWith new sentenceWith revocationTo receive treatmentOther/unknownAbsconderOtherunsatisfactoryDeathOtherUnknown or not reportedU.S. totalFederalStateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraska NevadaNew HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingNote: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology~Not applicable...Not known.Includes parolees discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, had their parole sentence rescinded, had their parole sentence revoked but were not returned to incarceration because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits. Includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.Includes 3,543 parolees who were transferred to another state and 10,217 parolees who exited for other reasons. Other reasons include, but not limited to, parolees who were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, and were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation supervision.Some or all data were estimated for type of exit. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2013. PROBATION AND PAROLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 OCTOBER 2014 TABL 8Percent of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008–2013Type of exitTotalCompletionReturned to incarcerationWith new sentenceWith revocationOther/unknownAbsconderOther unsatisfactoryTransferred to another stateDeathOtherEstimated numberNote: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may dier from previously published statistics. See Methodology. Percents based on parolees with known type of exit. See appendix table 7 for type of exit by jurisdiction.Includes parolees discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, including some who had their parole sentence revoked but were not incarcerated because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits. Includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence reported as unsatisfactory exits.Includes, but not limited to, parolees who were discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, and were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation supervision.Estimates rounded to the nearest 100. Includes estimates for nonreporting agencies. See MethodologySource: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2013. Oce of Justice ProgramsInnovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoodswww.ojp.usdoj.gov e Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal oenders, 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.is report was written by Erinn J. Herberman and omas P. Bonczar. Danielle M. Kaeble veried the report.Morgan Young and Lockheed Martin edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced the report.October 2014, NCJ 248029