Skip navigation

Bjs Probation Parole 2011

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

November 2012, NCJ 239686

Bul l etin

Probation and Parole in the
United States, 2011
Laura M. Maruschak, BJS Statistician
and Erika Parks, BJS Intern

D

uring 2011, for the third
consecutive year, the
number of adults under
community supervision declined.
At yearend 2011, there were about
4,814,200 adults under community
supervision, down 1.5% or 71,300
offenders from the beginning of
the year (figure 1). The community
supervision population includes
adults on probation, parole, or any
other post-prison supervision (see
text box on page 2 for definitions of
probation and parole).
The drop in the probation
population drove the decline in
the total number of adults under
community supervision. In 2011,
the probation population fell 2%,

Figure 1
Adults under community supervision at yearend, 1980–2011
Yearend population (in millions)
7

Annual percent change
12

Annual percent change

6

Yearend population

5

10
8

4

6

3

4

2

2

1

0

0

'80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10

-2

Note: Annual change was based on the difference between the January 1 and December 31
populations within the reporting year. See Methodology for more details. The apparent decrease
observed in the community supervison and probation rates between 2007 and 2008 was due to
a change in scope for two jurisdictions and does not reflect actual declines in the populations.
See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NJC 236019, November 2011, for
a description of changes in reporting methods.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, 1980–2011.

HIGHLIGHTS
„„ The number of adults under community

supervision declined by about 71,300 during 2011,
down to 4,814,200 at yearend.
„„ A 2% decline in the probation population along

with a 1.6% increase in the parole population
accounted for the overall change in the community
supervision population.
„„ At yearend 2011, for the first time since 2002, the

U.S. probation population fell below 4 million.
„„ During 2011, about 4.3 million adults moved onto

or off probation; probation entries (2,109,500)
declined for the fourth consecutive year while
probation exits (2,189,100) declined for the second
consecutive year.
„„ Two-thirds (66%) of probationers completed their

term of supervision or were discharged early during
2011, about the same percentage as in 2009 and
2010 (65% in both years).

„„ The rate of incarceration among probationers at risk

for violating their conditions of supervision in 2011
(5.5%) was consistent with the rate in 2000 (5.5%).
„„ Nearly 853,900 adults were on parole at yearend

2011; about 1.1 million adults moved onto or off
parole during the year.
„„ Both parole entries (down 3.4%) and exits (down

5.3%) declined between 2010 and 2011.
„„ During 2011, the state parole population grew

1.1%, from about 736,800 to 744,700, while the
federal population grew 5.1%, from 103,800 to
109,100.
„„ Slightly more than half (52%) of parolees completed

their term of supervision or were discharged early
in 2011, unchanged from 2010.
„„ Among parolees at risk for violating their conditions

of supervision, about 12% were reincarcerated
during 2011, down from more than 15% in 2006.

BJS
HJS

from an estimated 4,053,100 to 3,971,300. While the parole
population increased 1.6% during 2011, the increase was
not enough to offset the overall decrease in the community
supervision population. At yearend 2011, 1 in 50 adults in the
U.S. were under community supervision.
Data in this report were collected through the Bureau of Justice
Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole
Survey. Both surveys began in 1980 and collect data from U.S.
probation and parole agencies that supervise adults. (See text
box at the bottom of the page.) In these data, an adult is any
person subject to the jurisdiction of an adult trial court or
corrections agency. Juveniles prosecuted as adults in a criminal
court are considered adults. Respondents are asked to report
the number of adults on probation or parole at the beginning
and end of each reporting year, the number entering and
exiting supervision during the reporting year, characteristics
of the populations at yearend, and other information. The
reporting methods for some probation and parole agencies
have changed over time (see Methodology). See appendix tables
for additional 2011 data by jurisdiction.
Community supervision population in 2011 fell below the
2003 level
The number of U.S. adults under community supervision
(4,814,200) declined during 2011(appendix table 1). This
represents the third consecutive within-year decrease in this
population. In 2011, the population fell below the level not
observed since 2003 (4,847,500).

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.

This downward trend in the community supervision
population is relatively recent. The U.S. saw increasing
numbers of adults under community supervision from 1980
through 2008. During that period, growth rates fluctuated
from a high of 10.9% in 1983 to a low of 0.5% in 2004. The
number of adults under community supervision declined for
the first time in 2009 and continued to decline through 2011.
During 2011, the probation population declined by about
81,800, falling below 4 million (figure 2; appendix table 2).
This level was last observed in 2002 (3,995,200) and marked
the third consecutive within-year decline in the population.
Since probationers accounted for about 82% of the adults
under community supervision, the trend observed among the
community supervision population was largely driven by the
trend in the probation population. Between 1980 and 2008,
the growth of the probation population fluctuated from a high
of 10.7% in 1983 to a low of 0.5% in 2004 and 2005. In 2009,
the probation population declined for the first time since BJS
began tracking this population in 1980.
Figure 2
Adults on probation at yearend, 1980–2011
Yearend population (in millions)
7

Annual percent change
12

Annual percent change

10

6

8

5

Yearend population

4

6

3

4

2

2

1

0

0

'80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08 '10

-2

Note: Estimates are based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published estimates or other BJS statistical series. Counts reflect data reported by
probation agencies within the reporting year, and annual change was based on
the difference between the January 1 and December 31 population counts within
the reporting year. Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over
time and probation coverage was expanded in 1998 and 1999. See Methodology
for more details. The apparent decrease observed in the community supervison
and probation rates between 2007 and 2008 was due to a change in scope for two
jurisdictions and does not reflect actual declines in the populations. See Probation
and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NJC 236019, November 2011, for a
description of changes in reporting methods.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 1980–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

2

During 2011, the parole population grew by about 13,300 to
nearly 853,900, a 1.6% increase from the beginning of the year
(figure 3; appendix table 4). This increase slightly offset the
decline in the community supervision population caused
by the decreased probation population. (See text box for
discussion of the California Public Safety Realignment.) The
change in the number of adults under community supervision
observed between the beginning of the year and yearend
2011 was slightly different from the cumulative change in
probationers and parolees over the same period because
community supervision numbers were adjusted to account for
parolees who were also serving a sentence of probation (see
Methodology for discussion of adjustments).
Figure 3
Adults on parole at yearend, 1980–2011
Yearend population
1,000,000
900,000 Annual percent change
800,000
700,000
600,000

Annual percent change
20
Yearend population

18
16
14
12
10

500,000

8

400,000

6

300,000

4

200,000

2

100,000

0

California Public Safety Realignment
On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the
ruling by a lower three-judge court that the State of
California must reduce its prison population to 137.5%
of design capacity (equivalent to approximately 110,000
prisoners) within two years to alleviate the overcrowding
that was ruled a violation of the Eighth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution. In response, the California State
Legislature and Governor enacted two laws, AB 109 and
AB 117, to reduce the number of inmates housed in state
prisons starting October 1, 2011. The policy, termed
Public Safety Realignment (PSR), will reduce the prison
population through normal attrition of the existing
population and will place new offenders who have not
been convicted of a violent or sex offense or are not
considered “serious” as defined by California’s Penal Code
§§ 667.5(c) and 1192.7(c) under the jurisdiction of the
counties for incarceration in local jail facilities. Inmates
not convicted of violent, serious, or sexual offenses who
are released from prison or local jails after October 1,
2011, will be placed under a county-directed post-release
community supervision program (PRCS) instead of the
state’s parole system.
As BJS continues to collect data on incarcerated and
community supervision populations, we will continue
to report trends. For BJS counting purposes, we have
included the reported 12,339 persons released to PRCS
between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, in
California’s 2011 parole numbers.

0 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 94 '96 '98 '00 '03 '04 '06 '08 '10 -2
Note: Estimates are based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published estimates or other BJS statistical series. Counts reflect data reported by
parole agencies within the reporting year, and annual change was based on the
difference between the January 1 and December 31 population count within the
reporting year. Reporting methods for some parole agencies changed over time.
See Methodology for more details.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 1980–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

3

Rate of adults under community supervision was below
the 2000 level for the third consecutive year

Five states accounted for more than half of the decline in
the probation population

The community supervision rate declined to 2,015
probationers or parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at
yearend 2011, down from 2,067 per 100,000 at yearend 2010.
For the third consecutive year, the rate was below the 2000
level (2,162 per 100,000) (table 1). The supervision rate of
probationers followed a similar trend. At yearend 2011, 1,662
offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents were on probation,
down from 1,715 per 100,000 at yearend 2010. The probation
supervision rate in 2009 (1,796 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult
residents) also fell below the 2000 rate (1,818 per 100,000) and
remained below that level in 2010 and 2011.

The probation population declined by nearly 81,800
probationers during 2011 to reach an estimated 3,971,300
at yearend (appendix table 2). Thirty-two states reported a
cumulative 112,700 fewer probationers and 20 jurisdictions,
including the District of Columbia and the federal system,
reported a cumulative 30,900 more probationers at yearend 2011
than at the beginning of the year.

The trend in the supervision rate of parolees was unlike the
trends in the community supervision and probation rates.
While community supervision and probation rates have
declined, parole supervision rates increased from 353 per
100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2009 to 357 per 100,000
at yearend 2010.

Among the states with declining probation populations,
California, Texas, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia accounted
for 56% of the total decrease. California (down 28,600) alone
accounted for a quarter of the total decline.
Maryland (up 8,200) and Alabama (up 7,600) reported the
largest increases in the probation population during 2011.
These two states accounted for about half (51%) of the total
increase in the probation population among those states
reporting increases.

Table 1
U.S. adult residents under community supervision, on probation, and on parole, 2000–2011

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008c
2009
2010
2011

Number per 100,000 U.S. adult residents
Community
supervisiona
Probation
Parole
2,162
1,818
344
2,184
1,842
342
2,198
1,849
349
2,219
1,865
354
2,226
1,875
351
2,215
1,864
351
2,228
1,875
353
2,239
1,878
361
2,203
1,846
358
2,147
1,796
353
2,067
1,715
355
2,015
1,662
357

U.S. residents on —
Community
supervisionb
1 in 46
1 in 46
1 in 45
1 in 45
1 in 45
1 in 45
1 in 45
1 in 45
1 in 45
1 in 47
1 in 48
1 in 50

Probation
1 in 55
1 in 54
1 in 54
1 in 55
1 in 53
1 in 54
1 in 53
1 in 53
1 in 54
1 in 56
1 in 58
1 in 60

Parole
1 in 291
1 in 292
1 in 287
1 in 282
1 in 285
1 in 285
1 in 283
1 in 277
1 in 279
1 in 284
1 in 281
1 in 280

Note: Rates were based on the community supervision, probation, and parole population counts as of December 31 within the reporting year and the estimated U.S. adult
resident population on January 1 of each subsequent year. Rates based on most recent data available and may differ from previously published BJS reports.
aIncludes adults on probation and adults on parole. For 2008 to 2011, detail does not sum to total because the community supervision rate was adjusted to exclude parolees
who were also on probation. See Methodology for more details.
bIncludes adults on probation and adults on parole.
cThe apparent decrease observed in the community supervison and probation rates between 2007 and 2008 was due to a change in scope for two jurisdictions and does
not reflect actual declines in the populations. See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NJC 236019, November 2011, for a description of changes in
reporting methods.
Source: Community supervision population estimates are based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, 2000–2011. Estimates of the U.S.
adult resident population are based on U.S. Census Bureau National Intercensal Estimates, 2001–2010, and population estimates, January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2012.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

4

Entries to probation down for the fourth consecutive year;
exits down for the second consecutive year
During 2011, movement both onto and off probation declined
(table 2). Between 2010 and 2011, entries to probation
declined 3.7% (from about 2,190,200 to 2,109,500 offenders)
and exits declined 3.2% (from an estimated 2,261,300 to
Table 2
Estimated probation entries and exits and annual change,
2000–2011
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Probation entries
2,160,900
2,118,200
2,136,700
2,237,300
2,225,000
2,235,700
2,279,900
2,371,500
2,348,500
2,293,400
2,190,200
2,109,500

Probation exits
2,103,000
2,004,900
2,072,200
2,187,500
2,203,400
2,217,600
2,209,500
2,295,100
2,320,100
2,327,800
2,261,300
2,189,100

Annual change in
probation population
57,900
113,300
64,500
49,800
21,600
18,100
70,400
76,400
28,400
-34,400
-71,100
-79,600

Note: Estimates are based on most recent data available and may differ from
previously published BJS reports. See Methodology for details about estimation
methods and calculation of annual change.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2011.

2,189,100 offenders). Overall, about 4.3 million adults moved
onto and off probation during 2011, compared to more than
4.4 million during 2010.
As entries onto and exits from probation diverge, changes
in the probation population are larger. When exits and
entries converge, the changes are smaller. After a period of
convergence in 2008 and 2009, entries and exits once again
diverged. While both entries and exits declined, entries onto
probation declined at a faster rate than exits, resulting in a
larger decline in the probation population in 2011.
Exit rate for probationers unchanged since 2008
The rate at which probationers exit supervision—the number
that exit probation divided by the average of the probation
population at the beginning and end of the year—provides an
indication of how quickly the population turns over and an
indirect measure of the average time an offender can expect to
serve on probation. The turnover in the probation population
over the past four years has remained relatively stable. During
2011, 55 probationers per 100 exited supervision, unchanged
since 2008 (table 3). Mean length of stay on probation has
remained stable at about 22 months since 2008.
Turnover due to completing the term of supervision, either
through full-term completion or early discharge, has remained
steady at 36 per 100 probationers since 2009.

Table 3
Rate of probation exits, by type of exit, 2008–2011
Type of exit
Total exit ratea
Completion
Incarcerationb
Absconder
Discharged to custody, detainer, or warrant
Other unsatisfactoryc
Transferred to another probation agency
Death
Otherd
Estimated mean length of stay on probation (in months)e
Average daily probation population

2008
55
35
9
2
-6
--2
22.0 mo.
4,252,694

Rate per 100 average daily probation population
2009
2010
55
55
36
36
9
9
2
1
--6
6
----2
2
21.7 mo.
21.7 mo.
4,218,373
4,090,274

2011
55
36
9
1
-5
--2
22.0 mo.
4,012,217

Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding.
--Less than 0.5 per 100 probationers.
aExit rate is the ratio of the number of probationers that exited 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).
bIncludes probationers who were incarcerated for a new offense and those who had their current probation sentence revoked (e.g., violating a condition of their supervision).
cIncludes probationers discharged from supervision who did not meet all conditions of supervision, including some with only financial 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. May include some
early terminations and expirations of sentence reported as unsatisfactory exits.
dIncludes probationers discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement; had their sentence dismissed or overturned by the court through an appeal; had
their sentence closed administratively, deferred, or terminated by the court; were awaiting a hearing; were released on bond; and other types of exits.
eMean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See Methodology for more details.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

5

This finding was consistent with the stability observed in
the percentage of probationers who were discharged after
completing the terms of their supervision. Of the estimated
2,189,100 probationers who exited probation, the percentage
that completed their supervision or were discharged early
increased between 2008 and 2011. During 2011, 66% of
probationers who exited supervision were discharged after
completing the term of their supervision or receiving an early
discharge, up slightly from 65% in both 2009 and 2010
(table 4). The increase observed between 2008 and 2009
occurred as overall exits increased over that same period.
Rate of incarceration among probationers decreased
slightly during 2011
The rate of incarceration among probationers at risk of
failing during the year decreased slightly from 2010 to 2011
(figure 4). In 2011, 5.5% of probationers at risk of failing were
incarcerated, the same level as 2000, but down from 5.7% in
2010. The rate at which all adults on probation during the
year can be incarcerated is defined as the ratio of the number
of probationers who are discharged during the year as the
result of incarceration to the number of probationers who
could have been incarcerated at any point during the year. The
number who could have been incarcerated equals the sum of
the start of the year population plus entries onto probation.
This pool is defined as those at risk of incarceration. The rate
of incarceration among probationers, including incarceration
for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, has remained
relatively stable since 2000, fluctuating between a low of 4.5%
in 2001 and a high of 6.1% in 2006.

Figure 4
Estimated percent of the at-risk probation population
incarcerated, 2000–2011
Percent
8

6

4

2

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Note: Estimates are based on most recent available data and may differ from
previously published BJS reports. See Methodology for more detail about the at-risk
measure of incarceration, including the method of estimation. The at-risk population
is defined as the number of probationers under supervision at the start of the year
(on January 1) plus the number who entered supervision during the year.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2011.

Table 4
Probationers who exited supervision, by type of exit, 2008–2011
Type of exit
Total
Completion
Incarcerationa
Absconder
Discharged to custody, detainer, or warrant
Other unsatisfactoryb
Transferred to another probation agency
Death
Otherc
Estimated numberd

2008
100%
63%
17
4
1
10
1
1
4
2,320,100

2009
100%
65%
16
3
1
10
-1
4
2,327,800

2010
100%
65%
16
3
1
11
1
1
4
2,261,300

2011
100%
66%
16
2
1
9
1
1
4
2,189,100

Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding. Distributions are based on probationers for which type of exit was known.
-- Less than 0.5%.
aIncludes probationers who were incarcerated for a new offense and those who had their current probation sentence revoked (e.g., violating a condition of their supervision).
bIncludes probationers discharged from supervision who did not meet all conditions of supervision, including some with only financial 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. May include some
early terminations and expirations of sentence reported as unsatisfactory exits.
cIncludes probationers discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement; had their sentence dismissed or overturned by the court through an appeal; had
their sentence closed administratively, deferred, or terminated by the court; were awaiting a hearing; were released on bond; and other types of exits.
dEstimates rounded to the nearest hundred. Includes estimates for nonreporting agencies. Estimates are based on most recent data available and may differ from previously
published BJS reports. See Methodology for a discussion about changes in estimating probation exits from 2000 to 2011.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

6

Most characteristics of probationers in 2011 were
unchanged from 2010

Mandatory releases made up a smaller portion of entries
to parole

Most characteristics of adult probationers in 2011 remained
stable when compared to those in 2010 (appendix table 3).
Males made up three-quarters (75%) of the adult probation
population. Over half (54%) of probationers were white nonHispanic, and nearly a third (31%) were black non-Hispanic.
Nearly three-quarters (72%) were on active status and about
1 in 5 (18%) were being supervised for a violent offense.
Fifty-three percent of probationers were being supervised for a
felony offense in 2011, compared to 50% in 2010.

About 46% of parolees who entered supervision during 2011
entered through mandatory release from prison, down from
51% in 2010 (figure 5). This marked the third consecutive year
of declines in mandatory releases. While the proportion of all
types of entries to parole fluctuated slightly, mandatory release
remained the most common type of release.

U.S. parole population increased during 2011
After a decline in the parole population during 2009, the
population during 2011 increased for the second consecutive
year. During 2011, the parole population increased by nearly
13,300 offenders, from about 840,600 at the beginning of
the year to 853,900 at yearend (appendix table 4). After two
consecutive years of decline, the state parole population
increased by 1.1% during 2011. The federal parole population
increased 5.1% over the same period.
Among jurisdictions reporting an increase in their parole
population during 2011, California (up about 5,900), the
federal system (up 5,300), and Texas (up 1,800) accounted for
more than half (56%) of the increase. Overall, 28 states and the
federal system reported within-year increases totaling about
13,000 additional parolees at yearend 2011.
At yearend 2011, twenty-two states and the District of
Columbia reported about 9,800 fewer persons on parole than
at the beginning of the year. Four states, Michigan (down
1,900), New York (down 1,300), Pennsylvania (down 1,300),
and Massachusetts (down 900) reported 55% of the decline in
the parole population among those states reporting declines.
Entries and exits to parole both declined; exits declined at
a faster rate
During 2011, nearly 1.1 million persons moved onto and
off parole. About 545,800 adults entered parole and about
532,500 exited parole. While both the number of adults
entering parole and exiting parole declined during 2011, the
number of entries exceeded the number of exits for the second
consecutive year (table 5). The decline in entries to parole from
2008 to 2011 was consistent with the decrease observed in
the total number of prisoners released from state jurisdiction
during this period, coupled with a decline in the number of
prisoners conditionally released to community supervision.
(See Prisoners in 2011, BJS website, NCJ 239808, forthcoming.)
However, the decline in the rate of exits (down 5.3%) exceeded
that of the rate of entries (down 3.4%), resulting in the increase
in the parole population.

Table 5
Estimated parole entries and exits and annual change,
2000–2011
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Parole entries
478,800
482,100
476,900
501,100
515,600
524,400
543,100
562,900
575,000
570,400
565,300
545,800

Parole exits
467,900
473,200
456,500
480,100
509,700
511,900
526,200
537,700
568,000
575,600
562,500
532,500

Annual change in
parole population
10,900
8,900
20,400
21,000
5,900
12,500
16,900
25,200
7,000
-5,200
2,800
13,300

Note: Estimates are based on most recent data available and may differ from
previously published BJS reports. See Methodology for details about estimation
methods and calculation of annual change.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2011.

Figure 5
Entries to parole, by type of entry, 2000–2011
Percent
60
50
Mandatorya
40
30
Discretionary
20
Term of supervised releaseb
10

Reinstatement
Other

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

aIncludes data reported as term of supervised release by states and the District of
Columbia from 2008 to 2011.
bFederal data only. Includes estimates for 2000 to 2007.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

7

While mandatory releases to parole decreased, other types
of releases to parole increased. Parolees entering through
discretionary release by a parole board accounted for the
largest increase, from 28% in 2010 to 31% in 2011. Parolees
who had their parole reinstated accounted for a slightly larger
share of parole entries during 2011 (10%) compared to 2010
(9%). Those who entered through a term of supervised release
(10% in 2011 compared to 9% in 2010) also increased. A term
of supervised release is a release type designated by the federal
system and is similar to that of mandatory release in the state
systems. If mandatory and term of supervised release were
combined into one category, the decline in those entering
parole through mandatory release would be slightly offset by
the increase in those entering through a term of supervised
release.
Parole turnover rate declined for second consecutive year
Following a period of increase, the parole turnover rate
declined for the second consecutive year. The rate fell from 67
exits per 100 parolees in 2010 to 63 per 100 parolees in 2011
(table 6). This decline resulted in an increase in mean length
of stay on parole, from 17.9 months in 2010 to 19.1 months in
2011.
Contributing to the decline in the overall turnover of the
parole population was both the decline in the rate of parolees
that exited supervision and returned to incarceration between
2010 (22 per 100 parolees) and 2011 (20 per 100 parolees)
and in the rate of parolees that completed the terms of their
supervision or received an early discharge between 2010 (35
per 100 parolees) and 2011 (33 per 100 parolees).

Table 6
Rate of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008–2011
Type of exit
Total exit ratea
Completion
Returned to incarceration
With new sentence
With revocation
Other/unknown
Absconder
Other unsatisfactory exitsb
Transferred to another state
Death
Otherc
Estimated mean length of
stay on parole (in months)d
Average daily parole population

Rate per 100 average daily parole population
2008
2009
2010
2011
69
70
67
63
34
35
35
33
24
24
22
20
6
6
6
5
17
17
16
13
1
1
1
2
7
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
17.4 mo.
824,673

17.2 mo. 17.9 mo.
826,838 839,247

19.1 mo.
841,056

Note: Details may not sum to total due to rounding.
aExit rate is the ratio of the number of parolees that exited 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).
bIncludes parolees discharged from supervision who did not meet all conditions of
supervision, including some who 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.
cIncludes parolees discharged from supervision because they were deported or
transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had
their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, were transferred to
another state through an interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation
supervision, and other types of exits.
dMean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months.
See Methodology for more details.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

8

Of the estimated 532,500 parolees that exited parole
supervision during 2011, 52% completed the terms of their
supervision or received early discharge, unchanged from 2010
(table 7). The percent of parolees that returned to incarceration
continued to decline from 33% in 2010 to 32% in 2011.
Rate of reincarceration among parolees declined for the
fifth straight year in 2011
During 2011, an estimated 12% of all parolees who were at
risk of reincarceration were incarcerated (figure 6). This was
down from 13% reincarcerated in 2010, and 16% during
2000. The rate at which all offenders on parole during the year
could be incarcerated is defined as the ratio of the number of
parolees who were discharged during the year as a result of
incarceration to the number of parolees who could have been
incarcerated at any point during the year. The number who
could have been incarcerated equals the sum of the start of the
year population plus entries onto parole during the year. This
pool is defined as those at risk of incarceration.
Table 7
Parolees who exited supervision, by type of exit, 2008–2011
Type of exit
Total
Completion
Returned to incarceration
With new sentence
With revocation
Other/unknown
Absconder
Other unsatisfactory exitsa
Transferred to another state
Death
Otherb
Estimated numberc

2008
100%
49%
36
9
25
1
11
2
1
1
1
568,000

2009
100%
51%
34
9
24
1
9
2
1
1
3
575,600

2010
100%
52%
33
9
23
1
9
2
1
1
1
562,500

2011
100%
52%
32
9
21
2
9
2
1
1
3
532,500

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Distributions are based on
parolees for which type of exit was known.
aIncludes parolees discharged from supervision who did not meet all conditions of
supervision, including some who 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.
bIncludes parolees discharged from supervision because they were deported or
transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had
their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, were transferred to
another state through an interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation
supervision, and other types of exits.
cEstimates rounded to the nearest hundred. Includes estimates for nonreporting
agencies. Estimates are based on most recent data available and may differ from
previously published BJS reports. See Methodology for a discussion about changes in
estimating parole exits from 2000 to 2011.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2011.

Contributing to the overall decline in the rate of
reincarceration was a corresponding decrease in the rate at
which parolees returned to incarceration as the result of a
revocation between 2000 (12%) and 2011 (8%). In 2011, 3% of
parolees returned to incarceration for a new offense, a rate that
has remained relatively stable since 2000.
Most characteristics of parolees in 2011 were unchanged
from 2010
In 2011, most characteristics of adult parolees remained
stable when compared to those in 2010 (appendix table 6).
Males continued to make up about 9 in 10 (89%) of the adult
parole population. About 4 in 10 parolees were white nonHispanic (41%) or black non-Hispanic (39%), and about 2 in
10 (18%) were Hispanic. Among parolees, 81% were on active
supervision and 96% had a maximum sentence of one year or
more. More than a quarter (28%) were being supervised for a
violent offense.

Figure 6
Estimated percent of the at-risk parole population returned to
incarceration, 2000–2011
Percent
20

15
Total
10
With revocation
5
With new sentence
0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Note: Estimates are based on most recent available data and may differ from
previously published BJS reports. The at-risk population is defined as the number of
parolees under supervision at the start of the year (on January 1) plus the number
who entered supervision during the year. See Methodology for more detail about the
at-risk measure of incarceration, including the method of estimation.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

9

Methodology
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation
Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980 and collect
data from probation and parole agencies in the U.S. that
supervise adults. In these data, adults are persons subject to the
jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Juveniles
prosecuted as adults in a criminal court are considered
adults. Juveniles under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court or
correctional agency are excluded from these data. The National
Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service of the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, BJS’s predecessor
agency, began a statistical series on parole in 1976 and on
probation in 1979.
The two surveys collect data on the total number of adults
supervised in the community on January 1 and December 31
each year, the number of adults who enter and exit supervision
during the reporting year, and characteristics of the population
at yearend. See appendix tables for detailed data.
Both surveys cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
the federal system. BJS depends on the voluntary participation
of state central reporters and separate state, county, and court
agencies for these data.
In 2011, Westat Inc., served as BJS’s collection agent for the 50
states and the District of Columbia. Data for the federal system
were provided directly to BJS from the Office of Probation and
Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States
Courts through the Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP).
Probation
The 2011 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 469
respondents: 33 central state reporters; 436 separate state,
county, or court agencies, including the state probation agency
in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for 65 counties
in Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the federal
system. The states with multiple reporters were Alabama (3),
Arizona (2), Colorado (8), Florida (41), Georgia (2), Idaho
(2), Kentucky (3), Michigan (136), Missouri (2), Montana (4),
New Mexico (2), Ohio (187), Oklahoma (3), Tennessee (3),
Washington (32), and West Virginia (2).
One locality in Colorado, two in Florida, seven in Michigan,
thirteen in Ohio, two in Washington, and the central reporter
in New Mexico did not provide data for the 2011 collection.
For these localities, the agency’s most recent December 31
population was used to estimate the January 1 and December
31, 2011, populations.
Parole
The 2011 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 55 respondents:
50 central state reporters, the California Youth Authority;
one municipal agency in Alabama; the state parole agency
in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for 65 counties
in Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the federal
system. States with multiple reporters were Alabama (2) and
California (2).

Illinois did not provide data. The December 31, 2010,
population count was used to estimate the January 1, 2011,
population. Data on the number of parolees at midyear
2011 were used as an estimate for the December 31, 2011,
population.
Federal parole (as defined here) includes a term of supervised
release from prison, mandatory release, parole, military parole,
and special parole. A term of supervised release is ordered at the
time of sentencing by a federal judge, and it is served after release
from a federal prison sentence. Definitional differences exist
between parole reported here and in other BJS statistical series.
Additional information about the data collection instruments
is available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov.
Adjustments to account for offenders with dual
community correctional status
Some offenders on probation or parole may have had dual
community correctional statuses because they were serving
separate probation and parole sentences concurrently. With the
2007 data, BJS began collecting data on the number of parolees
who were also on probation at yearend. The total community
supervision populations from 2008 through 2011 reported in
figure 1 (and the 2011 counts in appendix table 1) have been
adjusted based on available information by excluding the
total number of parolees who were also on probation to avoid
double counting. As a result, the probation and parole counts
for 2008 through 2011 will not sum to the total community
supervision population within the same year.
All of the estimates for parolees with dual community
correctional statuses are based on data reported by parole
agencies that were able to provide the information for the
reporting year (table 8). Because some probation and parole
agencies were not able to provide these data, the total number
of parolees also on probation from 2008 to 2011 may be
underestimates.
Table 8
Parolees on probation who were excluded from the January
1 and December 31 community supervision populations,
2008–2011
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011

January 1*
3,562
3,905
8,259
8,259

December 31
3,905
4,959
8,259
10,958

*For 2008, 2009 and 2011, data are based on the December 31 count of the prior
reporting year. For 2010, the December 31, 2010, count was used as a proxy because
additional states reported these data in 2010.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole,
2008–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

10

Changes in reporting methods within certain jurisdictions,
2000-2011

Probation
Eighteen reporting agencies in separate jurisdictions changed
their methods of reporting probation data between 2000
and 2011. These changes included administrative changes,
such as implementing new information systems, resulting
in data review and cleanup; reconciling probationer records;
reclassifying offenders, including those on probation to
parole and offenders on dual community supervision statuses;
and including certain probation populations not previously
reported (e.g., supervised for an offense of driving while
intoxicated or under the influence, some probationers who had
absconded, and some on an inactive status). These changes
resulted in a decline of about 61,000 probationers between
2000 and 2011.
See Probation: Explanatory notes for a discussion about the
2011 reporting changes in Idaho and Iowa. See Probation:
Explanatory notes in Probation and Parole in the United
States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a
discussion about the reporting changes that occurred between
2000 and 2010.

Parole
Reporting agencies in eleven jurisdictions changed their
methods of reporting parole data between 2000 and 2011. The
reasons for changing their methods of reporting parole data
were the same as for probation data—administrative changes,
reclassification of offenders, and the addition of certain parole
populations not previously reported, which can result from
new, enhanced information systems that improve the tracking
of all types of parolees. These changes resulted in an increase of
about 23,500 parolees between 2000 and 2011.
See Parole: Explanatory notes for a description of the 2011
reporting changes in Iowa. See Parole: Explanatory notes in
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website,
NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a description of the reporting
changes that occurred between 2000 and 2010.
Reporting agencies in ten jurisdictions changed their methods
of reporting parole data between 2000 and 2010. In 2011,
no agency reported a change in reporting parole data. See
Parole: Explanatory notes in Probation and Parole in the United
States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a
discussion about the reporting changes that occurred between
2000 and 2010 and the impact on the trend in the national
parole population between 2000 and 2010.
Probation coverage expanded beginning in 1998 through
1999
The number of probation agencies included in the survey
expanded in 1998 and continued to expand through 1999 to
include misdemeanor probation agencies in a few states that

fell within the scope of this survey. See Probation and Parole in
the United States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019, November
2011, for a discussion of this expansion.
Estimating annual change in population counts
Technically, the change in the probation and parole
populations from the beginning of the year to the end of the
year should equal the difference between entries and exits
during the year. However, those numbers may not be equal.
Some probation and parole information systems track the
number of cases that enter and exit community supervision,
not the number of offenders. This means that entries and exits
may include case counts as opposed to counts of offenders,
while the beginning and yearend population counts represent
individuals. Additionally, all the data on entries and exits may
not have been logged into the information systems or the
information systems may not have fully processed all of the
data before the data were submitted to BJS.
At the national level, 46 parolees were the difference between
the change in the parole population measured by the difference
between January 1 and December 31, 2011, populations and
the difference between parole entries and exits during 2011.
For probation at the national level, 2,196 probationers were
the difference between the change in the probation population
measured by the difference between January 1 and December
31, 2011, populations and the difference between probation
entries and exits during 2011.
Estimates of annual change reported in figures 1 through 3 and
appendix tables 1, 2, and 4, were calculated as the difference
between the January 1 and December 31 populations within
the reporting year. Estimates of annual change reported in
tables 2 and 5 were calculated as the difference between entries
and exits within the reporting year, with a focus on the impact
of entries and exits on annual change in populations.
Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies,
2011
BJS used three methods of ratio estimation, based on the
availability of data, to impute probation entries for agencies
not reporting these data. We used a single method to impute
probation exits, a single method to impute entries to parole,
and a single method to impute exits to parole.
The first method was used to estimate entries and exits for
probation agencies that were unable to report these data in
2011, but were able to report these data in 2010. We estimated
probation entries in 2011 by using the ratio of entries in 2010
to the agency’s probation population on January 1, 2010, and
applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2011, population.
We estimated exits from probation by adding the agency’s
estimated probation entries in 2011 to the agency’s probation
population on January 1, 2011, and subtracting that estimate
from the probation population on December 31, 2011. These
methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

11

in nonreporting county and district agencies in Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode
Island, and Washington.
A second method was used to estimate probation entries for
agencies that were unable to report entries and exits in both
2009 and 2010. The ratio of 2010 entries to the January 1,
2010, population among reporting agencies in the same state
was used to estimate the number of entries for nonreporting
agencies with similar numbers of probationers. To estimate
probation exits for these agencies, we used the same estimation
method as described in the previous paragraph. These
methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits
for nonreporting county and district agencies in Colorado,
Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington.
A third method was used to estimate probation entries for
one state agency in West Virginia, which only reported
interstate compact data. We estimated the number of entries
for this agency by using the ratio of 2010 imputed entries to
the January 1, 2010, probation population and applying that
ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2011, population. To estimate
probation exits for this agency, we used the same estimation
method as described above.
Calculating mean length of stay
Mean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate.
Patterson and Preston (2007) provide tests of various methods
for estimating expected length of stay and report the results of
simulations that show that under assumptions of a stationary
population with a small growth rate, the inverse of the exit rate
performs well relative to a life-table approach to estimating
mean time served.1 Based on the small growth rates in the
probation and parole populations in recent years, the inverse
of the exit rate suffices to provide an estimate of mean stay on
probation or parole in recent years.
Community supervision outcome measures
The percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees
who completed supervision are defined as the number of
probationers or parolees that completed supervision during the
year and were discharged, among all probationers or parolees
who were discharged from supervision during the year. The
formula used to calculate this outcome measure is C(t)/D(t),
where D(t) = C(t) + I(t) + O(t). In this formula, t equals the
year referenced, C(t) equals the number of probationers
or parolees who were discharged from supervision during
the year after completing their terms or who received an
early discharge, and D(t) equals the total number who were
discharged from supervision during the year. D(t) includes
1See Patterson, E.J., & Preston, S.H. (2007). Estimating Mean Length of Stay
in Prison: Methods and Applications. Journal of Quantitative Criminology
24:33–49.]

C(t), the number of offenders who completed supervision; I(t),
the number who were incarcerated during the year; and O(t),
the number who were discharged during the year for other
reasons.
The percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees
incarcerated are calculated using the formula in the previous
paragraph except the numerator is the number of probationers
or parolees who were discharged from supervision during the
year as the result of being incarcerated.
The rate of incarceration (for parolees this is also referred
to as the rate of return to incarceration or the rate of
reincarceration) based on the at-risk probation or
parole population is defined as the ratio of the number
of probationers or parolees who were discharged from
supervision during the year because they were incarcerated for
a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, to the number of
all probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated during
the year. The at-risk population is defined as the number of
probationers or parolees under supervision at the start of the
year (on January 1) plus the number who entered supervision
during the year. This pool of probationers or parolees could
be incarcerated at any time during the year; hence, they were
at risk of incarceration. The formula used to calculate this
outcome measure is I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t)), where t equals the
year referenced, P(t-1) equals the start of the year population,
and E(t) equals the number of probationers or parolees who
entered supervision during the year.
The at-risk measure of incarceration accounts for all
probationers or parolees under supervision during the year
(i.e., probationers or parolees who were under supervision
on January 1 plus those who entered during the year) who
are the probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated.
This measure is not limited to those who are discharged
during the year and permits each probationer or parolee to be
incarcerated at any time during the year.
Change in Annual Parole Survey
In 2008, the Annual Parole Survey included a new category
for type of entry to parole that is labeled “term of supervised
release” (TSR). It is defined as a fixed period of release to the
community that follows a fixed period of incarceration based
on a determinate sentencing statue; both are determined by a
judge at the time of sentencing. As a consequence, some states
began reporting term of supervised releases in 2008. The new
category was added to better classify the large majority of
entries to parole reported by the federal system. See Probation
and Parole in the United States, 2010, BJS website, NCJ 236019,
November 2011, for detail on estimation methods to analyze
national trends for all types of entry to parole.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

12

Probation: Explanatory notes
Colorado—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—one local agency
did not report data. This agency’s December 31, 2010,
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and
December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on
imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Florida—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—two local agencies
did not report data. The most recent available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and
December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on
imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Georgia—Probation counts may overstate the number of
individuals under probation supervision because the agency
that reports the county data has the capacity to report
probation cases and not the number of individuals under
supervision. Probationers with multiple sentences could
potentially have one or more cases with one or more private
probation agencies in one jurisdiction and/or one or more
private probation agencies within jurisdictions.
Idaho—Reporting changes between 2010 and 2011—data
reported by Idaho for 2011 are not comparable to those
reported in prior years. Idaho changed its method of reporting
starting with the January 1, 2011, population because of
changes made by the agency that reported probationers under
the jurisdiction of the state. Reporting methods changed in
2011 to reflect more accurately the number of felons and
misdemeanants on probation. Counts in prior years overreported the number of felons. The total change in Idaho’s
probation population was a decrease of 13,721 probationers on
January 1, 2011 (39,172) compared to the population reported
on December 31, 2010 (52,893).

Iowa—Reporting changes between 2010 and 2011—data
reported by Iowa for 2011 are not comparable to those
reported in prior years. Iowa changed its method of reporting
starting with the January 1, 2011, population as the result of
changes made by the agency that reported probationers under
the jurisdiction of the state. Prior to 2011, Iowa did not include
absconders in its probation population count. Beginning
January 1, 2011, absconders were included in its counts,
resulting in an increase of 6,625 probationers on January 1,
2011 (29,004) compared to December 31, 2010 (22,379).
Michigan—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—seven local
agencies did not report data. The most recent available
December 31 population count was used to estimate January
1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing
entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional
information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting
agencies.
New Mexico—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—the state
reporting agency did not provide data. The December 31, 2010,
population count was used to estimate the January 1, 2011, and
December 31, 2011 populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on
imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Ohio—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—13 local agencies
did not report data. The most recent available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2011, and
December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional information on
imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Washington—Nonreporting agencies in 2011—two local
agencies did not report data. The most recent available
December 31 population count was used to estimate January
1, 2011, and December 31, 2011, populations. See Imputing
entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2011 for additional
information on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting
agencies.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

13

Parole: Explanatory notes

Appendix tables

California—California’s total parole population on December
31, 2011, included 12,339 persons who were released to post
community supervision as a result of California’s public
safety realignment. See text box on page 3 for more detailed
information.

Community supervision

Illinois—Nonreporting agency in 2011—the state reporting
agency did not provide data. The December 31, 2010,
population count was used to estimate the January 1, 2011,
population. Data on the number of parolees at midyear
2011 were used as an estimate for the December 31, 2011,
population. See Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting
agencies in 2011 for additional information on imputing entries
and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Iowa—Reporting change between 2010 and 2011—data
reported by Iowa for 2011 are not comparable to those
reported in prior years. Iowa changed its method of reporting
starting with the January 1, 2011, population as the result of
changes made by the agency that reported parolees under the
jurisdiction of the state. Prior to 2011, Iowa did not include
absconders in its parole population count. Beginning January
1, 2011, absconders were included in its counts, resulting in an
increase of 983 parolees on January 1, 2011 (4,180) compared
to December 31, 2010 (3,197).

Appendix Table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2011
Probation
Appendix Table 2. Adults on probation, 2011
Appendix Table 3. Characteristics of adults on probation,
2000, 2010–2011
Parole
Appendix Table 4. Adults on parole, 2011
Appendix Table 5. Adults entering parole, by type of entry,
2011
Appendix Table 6. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000,
2010–2011

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

14

Appendix Table 1
Adults under community supervision, 2011
Community
supervision
population
Jurisdiction
1/1/2011a
4,885,500
U.S. total
Federal
126,300
State
4,759,100
Alabama
62,200
Alaska
9,000
88,900
Arizonad
Arkansas
51,200
403,500
Californiae
87,100
Coloradod,e
Connecticut
55,800
Delaware
16,900
District of Columbia
14,500
256,900
Floridad,e
489,500
Georgiae,f
Hawaii
22,700
43,100
Idahoe
157,900
Illinoisd,e
Indiana
142,800
33,200
Iowae
Kansas
22,500
Kentucky
62,300
Louisiana
69,900
Maine
7,300
Maryland
101,400
Massachusetts
75,300
218,600
Michigand,e
Minnesota
117,400
Mississippi
33,200
Missouri
78,500
Montana
11,000
Nebraska
17,300
Nevada
16,800
New Hampshire
6,300
New Jersey
135,700
21,700
New Mexicod,e
New York
165,200
107,400
North Carolina
North Dakota
4,800
262,100
Ohiod,e
Oklahoma
28,300
Oregon
61,000
Pennsylvania
275,200
25,700
Rhode Islandd
South Carolina
38,700
South Dakota
9,300
Tennessee
71,700
Texas
521,200
Utah
14,500
Vermont
7,300
Virginia
57,900
98,300
Washingtond,e
10,300
West Virginiad
Wisconsin
64,000
Wyoming
5,800

Entries
Reported Imputedb
2,586,400 2,655,300
61,500
61,500
2,525,000 2,593,800
28,200
28,200
2,200
2,200
36,800
38,100
18,800
18,800
304,700
304,700
62,800
63,600
28,800
28,800
13,800
13,800
8,300
8,300
196,600
198,100
245,900
245,900
8,200
8,200
34,300
34,300
56,000
76,800
98,300
98,300
20,200
20,200
22,100
22,100
26,800
26,800
29,000
29,000
3,300
3,300
54,600
54,600
78,100
78,100
118,100
129,300
66,600
66,600
13,300
13,300
36,100
36,100
4,500
4,500
13,400
13,400
10,600
10,600
4,500
4,500
49,000
49,000
..
6,700
55,500
55,500
63,900
63,900
3,700
3,700
144,200
162,300
10,200
10,200
23,500
23,500
150,500
150,500
400
5,300
16,300
16,300
5,300
5,300
27,700
27,700
196,300
196,300
7,700
7,700
4,300
4,300
25,600
25,600
61,800
64,000
1,600
3,000
29,100
29,100
3,300
3,300

Exits
Reported Imputedb
2,653,500 2,721,600
56,000
56,000
2,597,600 2,665,600
21,000
21,000
1,800
1,800
41,900
43,200
18,000
18,000
327,900
327,900
63,400
63,800
31,600
31,600
14,000
14,000
9,400
9,400
202,700
204,200
252,700
252,700
6,800
6,800
32,900
32,900
62,500
83,900
101,500
101,500
19,100
19,100
25,900
25,900
28,000
28,000
29,400
29,400
3,400
3,400
46,400
46,400
82,400
82,400
127,800
139,700
70,400
70,400
9,900
9,900
36,700
36,700
4,600
4,600
13,600
13,600
10,500
10,500
4,500
4,500
51,500
51,500
..
6,600
61,500
61,500
67,600
67,600
3,500
3,500
137,600
154,400
11,500
11,500
23,200
23,200
153,300
153,300
400
5,900
15,500
15,500
5,100
5,100
27,000
27,000
204,500
204,500
7,400
7,400
4,500
4,500
27,000
27,000
61,600
64,100
2,600
2,700
28,900
28,900
3,000
3,000

Community
supervision
population
12/31/2011
4,814,200
131,800
4,682,400
69,500
8,800
83,800
52,100
380,800
86,900
51,800
16,700
14,600
248,900
478,700
24,100
44,500
150,900
139,600
34,100
22,400
61,200
69,500
7,200
109,600
70,900
207,800
113,600
36,600
77,900
10,800
17,100
17,000
6,300
133,300
22,800
159,200
103,800
5,000
265,800
27,000
61,300
272,400
25,100
39,500
9,600
75,100
513,000
14,800
7,100
56,700
96,200
10,600
64,300
6,100

Change, 2011
Number
Percent
-71,300
-1.5%
5,500
4.4%
-76,700
-1.6
7,300
11.7
-200
-2.2
-5,100
-5.7
900
1.8
-22,700
-5.6
-200
-0.2
-4,000
-7.2
-200
-1.2
100
0.7
-8,000
-3.1
-10,800
-2.2
1,400
6.2
1,400
3.2
-7,000
-4.4
-3,200
-2.2
900
2.7
-100
-0.4
-1,100
-1.8
-400
-0.6
-100
-1.4
8,200
8.1
-4,400
-5.8
-10,800
-4.9
-3,800
-3.2
3,400
10.2
-600
-0.8
-200
-1.8
-200
-1.2
200
1.2
/
:
-2,400
-1.8
1,100
5.1
-6,000
-3.6
-3,600
-3.4
200
4.2
3,700
1.4
-1,300
-4.6
300
0.5
-2,800
-1.0
-600
-2.3
800
2.1
300
3.2
3,400
4.7
-8,200
-1.6
300
2.1
-200
-2.7
-1,200
-2.1
-2,100
-2.1
300
2.9
300
0.5
300
5.2

Number under
community supervision
per 100,000 U.S. adult
residents, 12/31/11c
2,015
55
1,960
1,884
1,636
1,714
2,328
1,331
2,220
1,857
2,364
2,821
1,640
6,498
2,241
3,825
1,539
2,826
1,451
1,039
1,821
2,002
678
2,433
1,361
2,733
2,779
1,637
1,688
1,385
1,230
823
605
1,959
1,453
1,044
1,401
930
2,994
941
2,027
2,717
3,010
1,093
1,536
1,522
2,718
758
1,415
903
1,822
719
1,460
1,402

Note: Counts were rounded to the nearest hundred. Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the community supervision population for some jurisdictions on December
31, 2011, does not equal the population on January 1, 2011, plus entries, minus exits.
.. Not known. / Not reported. Detail rounds to less than 50. : Not calculated.
aThe January 1 population excludes 8,259 offenders and the December 31 population excludes 10,958 offenders under community supervision who were on both probation
and parole. See Methodology for more detail on dual status.
bReflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
cRates were computed using the estimated U.S. adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2012.
dData for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology for more detail.
eSee probation, parole, or both Explanatory notes for more detail.
fProbation counts include private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. See Explanatory notes for more detail.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, 2011.

Appendix Table 2
Adults on probation, 2011
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Coloradoc,d
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Floridac,d
Georgiad,e
Hawaii
Idahod
Illinois
Indiana
Iowad
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michiganc,d
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexicoc,d
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohioc,d
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islandc
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washingtonc,d
West Virginiac
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Probation
Entries
population
1/1/2011
Reported Imputeda
4,053,115
2,062,020 2,109,500
22,514
11,271
11,271
4,030,601
2,050,749 2,098,200
53,265
26,104
26,104
6,914
1,150
1,150
80,910
24,113
25,400
29,820
9,241
9,241
298,322
151,226
151,226
76,100
53,290
54,100
52,937
25,462
25,462
16,313
13,331
13,331
8,641
6,637
6,637
252,783
190,110
191,600
464,773
232,104
232,104
20,874
7,351
7,351
39,172
32,427
32,427
131,910
56,000
56,000
131,881
89,556
89,556
29,004
17,022
17,022
17,402
17,352
17,352
49,274
19,175
19,175
43,825
13,785
13,785
7,278
3,305
3,305
88,181
48,436
48,436
72,049
75,674
75,674
194,082
106,962
118,100
111,544
60,852
60,852
26,793
10,288
10,288
57,434
22,341
22,341
9,983
3,936
3,936
16,320
11,961
11,961
11,834
5,918
5,918
4,347
2,876
2,876
120,115
41,413
41,413
19,622
..
6,100
116,658
32,780
32,780
104,228
60,411
60,411
4,339
2,822
2,822
250,021
137,802
156,000
25,657
9,581
9,581
38,753
14,730
14,730
179,297
96,084
96,084
25,164
..
4,900
32,917
13,522
13,522
6,540
3,724
3,724
59,655
23,140
23,140
418,479
160,877
160,877
11,560
5,927
5,927
6,304
3,730
3,730
56,654
24,884
24,884
91,337
56,031
58,200
8,552
..
1,400
45,588
22,418
22,418
5,196
2,888
2,888

Exits
Reported
2,142,989
11,117
2,131,872
18,455
1,020
28,914
9,706
179,794
53,575
27,899
13,449
7,544
196,294
239,736
5,909
31,622
62,468
92,038
16,198
21,182
21,087
15,694
3,417
40,258
79,108
114,732
64,610
7,615
23,015
4,039
12,376
6,115
3,102
43,397
..
37,530
64,181
2,645
131,555
10,735
14,782
97,530
..
12,765
3,445
22,866
170,884
5,578
3,962
25,853
57,237
1,260
22,041
2,655

Imputeda
2,189,100
11,117
2,178,000
18,455
1,020
30,200
9,706
179,794
54,100
27,899
13,449
7,544
197,800
239,736
5,909
31,622
62,468
92,038
16,198
21,182
21,087
15,694
3,417
40,258
79,108
126,600
64,610
7,615
23,015
4,039
12,376
6,115
3,102
43,397
6,100
37,530
64,181
2,645
148,300
10,735
14,782
97,530
5,600
12,765
3,445
22,866
170,884
5,578
3,962
25,853
59,700
1,300
22,041
2,655

Probation
population
12/31/2011
3,971,319
22,668
3,948,651
60,914
7,044
76,109
29,355
269,754
76,173
49,195
16,195
9,013
244,686
457,141
22,316
39,977
125,442
129,399
29,828
17,352
47,247
41,916
7,166
96,359
68,615
185,167
107,786
29,466
56,760
9,859
15,905
11,637
4,121
118,131
19,638
111,908
100,479
4,516
253,497
24,503
38,701
177,851
24,513
33,674
6,819
62,568
408,472
11,909
6,072
55,685
87,825
8,599
45,965
5,429

Change, 2011
Number
Percent
-81,796
-2%
154 0.7%
-81,950
-2
7,649 14.4
130 1.9
-4,801 -5.9
-465 -1.6
-28,568 -9.6
73 0.1
-3,742 -7.1
-118 -0.7
372 4.3
-8,097 -3.2
-7,632 -1.6
1,442 6.9
805 2.1
-6,468 -4.9
-2,482 -1.9
824 2.8
-50 -0.3
-2,027 -4.1
-1,909 -4.4
-112 -1.5
8,178 9.3
-3,434 -4.8
-8,915 -4.6
-3,758 -3.4
2,673 10
-674 -1.2
-124 -1.2
-415 -2.5
-197 -1.7
-226 -5.2
-1,984 -1.7
16 0.1
-4,750 -4.1
-3,749 -3.6
177 4.1
3,476 1.4
-1,154 -4.5
-52 -0.1
-1,446 -0.8
-651 -2.6
757 2.3
279 4.3
2,913 4.9
-10,007 -2.4
349
3
-232 -3.7
-969 -1.7
-3,512 -3.8
47 0.5
377 0.8
233 4.5

Number on probation
per 100,000 U.S. adult
residents, 12/31/11b
1,662
9
1,653
1,651
1,310
1,557
1,312
943
1,946
1,764
2,293
1,741
1,612
6,205
2,075
3,436
1,279
2,619
1,270
805
1,406
1,207
675
2,139
1,318
2,435
2,637
1,318
1,230
1,265
1,144
563
396
1,736
1,251
734
1,356
840
2,855
854
1,280
1,774
2,939
931
1,091
1,268
2,164
610
1,210
887
1,663
583
1,044
1,248

Note: Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the probation population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2011, does not equal the population on January 1, plus
entries, minus exits. Counts may not be actual as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some or all detailed data.
.. Not known.
aReflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Details may not sum to total due to rounding.
bRates were computed using the estimated adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2012.
cData for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology for more detail.
dSee Explantory notes for more detail.
eCounts include private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. See Methodology and Explanatory notes for more detail.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2011.

Appendix Table 3
Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2010–2011
Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race and Hispanic/Latino origin
Whitea
Blacka
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian/Alaska Nativea
Asian/Native Hawaiian/
other Pacific Islandera
Two or more racesa
Status of supervision
Active
Residential/other treatment program
Financial conditions remaining
Inactive
Absconder
Supervised out of jurisdiction
Warrant status
Other
Type of offense
Felony
Misdemeanor
Other infractions
Most serious offense
Violent
Domestic violence
Sex offense
Other violent offense
Property
Drug
Public-order
DWI/DUI
Other traffic offense
Otherb

2000
100%

2010
100%

2011
100%

78%
22

76%
24

75%
25

54%
31
13
1

55%
30
13
1

54%
31
13
1

1
--

1
--

76%
…
…
9
9
3
…
3

73%
1
1
6
9
2
6
2

72%
1
1
5
9
3
6
2

52%
46
2

50%
47
2

53%
45
2

…
…
…
…
…
24
24
18
6
52

19%
3
3
12
28
26
18
15
3
10

18%
3
3
12
27
25
17
15
3
12

1
…

Note: Each characteristic is based on probationers with a known status. Details may
not sum to total due to rounding.
--Less than 0.5%.
…Not available.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
bIncludes violent and property offenses in 2000 because those data were not collected
separately.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000, 2010–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

17

Appendix Table 4
Adults on parole, 2011
Jurisdiction
U.S. totalc
Federal
Statec
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Californiac,d
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinoisd,e
Indiana
Iowad
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexicof
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Parole
population,
1/1/2011
840,598
103,804
736,794
9,006
2,089
7,998
21,363
105,134
11,014
2,894
560
6,348
4,093
24,723
1,850
3,956
26,009
10,912
4,180
5,063
13,495
26,105
32
13,195
3,212
24,486
5,812
6,434
21,085
986
941
4,964
1,973
15,613
3,146
48,542
3,621
428
12,076
2,627
22,260
95,870
505
6,299
2,799
12,083
104,763
2,925
1,032
2,624
6,956
1,796
20,294
623

Entries
Reported
524,423
50,190
474,233
2,144
1,043
12,686
9,588
153,480
9,552
3,334
516
1,628
6,511
13,810
872
1,854
..
8,696
3,174
4,753
7,642
15,206
1
6,172
2,403
11,159
5,786
2,985
13,716
527
1,411
4,714
1,588
7,619
..
22,684
3,530
828
6,354
622
8,794
54,432
411
2,819
1,598
4,552
35,393
1,816
576
735
5,815
1,608
6,686
410

Imputeda
545,800
50,190
495,600
2,144
1,043
12,686
9,588
153,480
9,552
3,334
516
1,628
6,511
13,810
872
1,854
20,800
8,696
3,174
4,753
7,642
15,206
1
6,172
2,403
11,159
5,786
2,985
13,716
527
1,411
4,714
1,588
7,619
500
22,684
3,530
828
6,354
622
8,794
54,432
411
2,819
1,598
4,552
35,393
1,816
576
735
5,815
1,608
6,686
410

Exits
Imputeda

Reported
510,550 532,500
44,870
44,870
465,680 487,600
2,549
2,549
742
742
12,976
12,976
8,247
8,247
148,068 148,068
9,791
9,791
3,667
3,667
553
553
1,878
1,878
6,401
6,401
12,985
12,985
931
931
1,298
1,298
21,400
..
9,454
9,454
2,908
2,908
4,764
4,764
6,914
6,914
13,671
13,671
0
0
6,130
6,130
3,312
3,312
13,047
13,047
5,758
5,758
2,292
2,292
13,683
13,683
555
555
1,203
1,203
4,346
4,346
1,357
1,357
8,054
8,054
500
..
23,983
23,983
3,407
3,407
820
820
6,086
6,086
790
790
8,408
8,408
55,721
55,721
373
373
2,710
2,710
1,633
1,633
4,181
4,181
33,638
33,638
1,801
1,801
539
539
1,115
1,115
4,349
4,349
1,361
1,361
6,837
6,837
394
394

Parole population,
12/31/2011
853,852
109,124
744,728
8,601
1,777
7,708
22,704
111,063
10,775
2,561
553
6,098
4,203
25,463
1,791
4,512
25,465
10,154
4,446
5,052
14,223
27,640
21
13,237
2,303
22,598
5,840
7,127
21,138
958
1,149
5,332
2,204
15,178
3,135
47,243
3,744
436
12,344
2,459
22,646
94,581
543
6,408
2,764
12,533
106,518
2,940
1,069
2,244
8,422
2,043
20,143
639

Change, 2011
Number
13,254
5,320
7,934
-405
-312
-290
1,341
5,929
-239
-333
-7
-250
110
740
-59
556
-544
-758
266
-11
728
1,535
-11
42
-909
-1,888
28
693
53
-28
208
368
231
-435
-11
-1,299
123
8
268
-168
386
-1,289
38
109
-35
450
1,755
15
37
-380
1,466
247
-151
16

Percent
1.6%
5.1%
1.1
-4.5
-14.9
-3.6
6.3
5.6
-2.2
-11.5
-1.3
-3.9
2.7
3
-3.2
14.1
-2.1
-6.9
6.4
-0.2
5.4
5.9
-34.4
0.3
-28.3
-7.7
0.5
10.8
0.3
-2.8
22.1
7.4
11.7
-2.8
-0.3
-2.7
3.4
1.9
2.2
-6.4
1.7
-1.3
7.5
1.7
-1.3
3.7
1.7
0.5
3.6
-14.5
21.1
13.8
-0.7
2.6

Number on parole
per 100,000 U.S. adult
residents, 12/31/2011b
357
46
312
233
330
158
1,015
388
275
92
78
1,178
28
346
167
388
260
206
189
234
423
796
2
294
44
297
143
319
458
123
83
258
212
223
200
310
51
81
139
86
749
944
65
177
442
254
564
151
213
36
159
139
457
147

Note: Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the parole population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2011, does not equal the population on January 1, plus
entries, minus exits. Counts may not be actual as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some or all detailed data.	
.. Not known.
aReflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
bRates were computed using the estimated adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2012.
cThe December 31 parole population includes 12,339 persons in California under post-release custody supervision.
dSee Explanatory notes for more detail.
ePopulation count reported for December 31 is based on a count provided as of June 30, 2011.
fData for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology for more detail.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2011.

Appendix Table 5
Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2011
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvaniaf
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakotaf
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermontf
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
.. Not known.

Total reported
524,423
50,190
474,233
2,144
1,043
12,686
9,588
153,480
9,552
3,334
516
1,628
6,511
13,810
872
1,854
..
8,696
3,174
4,753
7,642
15,206
1
6,172
2,403
11,159
5,786
2,985
13,716
527
1,411
4,714
1,588
7,619
..
22,684
3,530
828
6,354
622
8,794
54,432
411
2,819
1,598
4,552
35,393
1,816
576
735
5,815
1,608
6,686
410

Discretionarya
144,530
464
144,066
..
73
40
6,483
0
2,558
2,366
..
313
81
13,788
654
1,427
..
0
3,174
104
7,248
850
1
2,361
2,213
9,579
0
2,604
10,449
527
1,355
3,390
843
5,694
..
6,823
176
828
133
622
1,128
10,938
411
1,839
515
4,311
33,482
1,795
363
167
155
1,608
227
370

Mandatoryb
178,933
717
178,216
..
774
16
1,221
98,288
3,792
0
..
~
5,827
0
0
~
..
8,696
0
6
0
14,170
0
3,811
0
672
5,786
0
920
0
0
1,199
34
1,925
..
6,364
752
0
6,022
0
7,589
0
~
980
1,083
8
1,222
0
~
505
5,660
0
894
0

Reinstatementc
48,609
68
48,541
..
194
524
1,456
36,581
2,236
..
..
~
2
¨
28
427
..
0
0
146
84
173
0
~
190
908
0
381
1,202
0
56
125
708
~
..
0
~
0
199
0
14
2,237
~
0
..
219
169
21
178
43
0
0
0
40

Term of supervised
released
83,087
48,941
34,146
..
0
10,801
425
0
0
968
..
1,315
589
0
0
~
..
0
0
3,196
~
..
0
¨
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
..
0
..
8,787
2,602
0
0
0
6
0
~
0
..
0
~
0
~
0
0
0
5,457
0

Othere
12,936
0
12,936
..
0
1,305
3
6,272
966
0
..
~
12
22
190
~
..
0
0
1,301
310
13
0
~
0
0
0
0
1,145
0
0
0
3
0
..
710
0
0
0
0
¨
0
~
0
~
14
520
0
35
7
0
0
108
0

Unknown or
not reported
56,328
0
56,328
2,144
2
0
0
12,339
0
0
516
0
0
0
0
0
..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
..
0
0
0
0
0
57
41,257
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0

~ Not applicable.
aIncludes persons entering because of a parole board decision.
bIncludes persons whose release from prison was not decided by a parole board. Includes persons entering parole because of determinate sentencing, good-time
provisions, or emergency releases.
cIncludes persons returned to parole after serving time in a prison because of 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.
dIncludes persons sentenced by a judge to a fixed period of incarceration based on a determinate statute immediately followed by a period of supervised release in the
community.
eIncludes 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.
fSome or all detailed data are estimated for type of sentence.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2011.

Appendix Table 6
Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2010–2011
Characteristics
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race and Hispanic/Latino origin
Whitea
Blacka
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian/Alaska Nativea
Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islandera
Two or more racesa
Status of supervision
Active
Inactive
Absconder
Supervised out of state
Financial conditions remaining
Other
Maximum sentence to incarceration
Less than 1 year
1 year or more
Most serious offense
Violent
Sex offense
Other violent
Property
Drug
Weapon
Otherb

2000
100%

2010
100%

2011
100%

88%
12

88%
12

89%
11

38%
40
21
1
-...

42%
39
18
1
1
--

41%
39
18
1
0
--

83%
4
7
5
...
1

82%
7
6
4
-2

81%
6
6
4
-3

3%
97

5%
95

4%
96

...
...
...
...
...
...
...

27%
8
19
24
35
3
12

28%
9
19
23
33
3
13

Note: Each characteristic is based on parolees with a known status. Details may
not sum to total due to rounding.
--Less than 0.5%.
...Not available.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
bIncludes public-order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000 and 2010–2011.

P r o b at i o n a n d Pa r o l e i n t h e u n i t e d s tat e s , 2011 | N o v e m b e r 2012	

20

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department
of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.
This report was written by Laura M. Maruschak and Erika Parks. Thomas P.
Bonczar and Sheri Simmons verified the report.
Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced
the report under the supervision of Doris J. James.
November 2012, NCJ 239686

NCJ239686
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

 

 

PLN Subscribe Now Ad
Advertise Here 2nd Ad
PLN Subscribe Now Ad