Skip navigation

BJS Report on Prison and Probation, 2012

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

December 2013, NCJ 243826

Bul l etin

Probation and Parole in the
United States, 2012
Laura M. Maruschak and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians

D

uring 2012, the number of adults under
community supervision declined for the
fourth consecutive year. At yearend 2012, an
estimated 4,781,300 adults were under community
supervision, down 40,500 offenders from the
beginning of the year (figure 1). About 1 in 50
adults in the United States was under community
supervision at yearend 2012. The community
supervision population includes adults on probation,
parole, or any other post-prison supervision. (See BJS
definition of probation and parole.)
The decline in the total number of adults under
community supervision is attributed to the drop in
the probation population as probationers accounted
for the majority (82%) of adults under community
supervision. The decline of 38,300 offenders in the
probation population (from an estimated 3,981,000 to
3,942,800) accounted for about 95% of the decline in
the overall community supervision population. The

parole population declined by about 500 offenders
during 2012, falling from an estimated 851,700
to 851,200.
Figure 1
Adults under community supervision at yearend,
2000–2012
Yearend population (in millions)
6
Annual percent change
5

Annual percent change
3.00
Yearend population
2.25

4

1.50

3

0.75

2

0.00

1

-0.75

0

'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12

-1.50

Note: See Methodology for estimating change in population counts.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual
Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

HIGHLIGHTS
„„ The number of adults under community

supervision declined by about 40,500 during 2012,
down to 4,781,300 offenders at yearend 2012.
„„ Both the probation (down 38,300) and parole

(down 500) populations declined during 2012.
„„ During 2012, an estimated 4.1 million adults moved

onto or off probation.
„„ Probation entries (2,048,300) declined for the fifth

consecutive year, while probation exits (2,089,800)
declined for the third consecutive year.
„„ Sixty-eight percent of probationers completed their

term of supervision or were discharged early during
2012, up from 66% in 2011.
„„ The rate of incarceration among probationers at risk

for violating their conditions of supervision during
2012 (5.1%) dropped below the rate observed in
2008 (6.0%).

„„ The adult parole population at yearend 2012 fell to

about 851,200, with nearly 1 million adults moving
onto or off parole during the year.
„„ Both parole entries (down 9.1%) and exits (down

6.8%) declined between 2011 and 2012.
„„ During 2012, the state parole population fell about

0.6%, from an estimated 744,700 to 740,400, while
the federal parole population grew 3.5%, from
106,955 to 110,739.
„„ Fifty-eight percent of parolees completed their

term of supervision or were discharged early in
2012, up from 52% in 2011.
„„ The reincarceration rate among parolees at risk for

violating their conditions of supervision continued
to decline, dropping to 9% during 2012 from about
12% in 2011.

BJS

Data in this report were collected through the Bureau of Justice
Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole
Survey. Both surveys began in 1980 and collect data from U.S.
probation and parole agencies that supervise adults. For this
report, an adult is any person subject to the jurisdiction of an
adult trial court or corrections agency. Juveniles prosecuted as
adults in a criminal court are considered adults. Respondents
are asked to report the number of adults on probation or
parole at the beginning and end of each reporting year, the
number entering and exiting supervision during the 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).
Appendix tables present additional 2012 data by jurisdiction.

Figure 2
Adults on probation at yearend, 2000–2012
Yearend population (in millions)
5

Annual percent change
3

Annual percent change

Yearend population

4

2

3

1

2

0

Community supervision population declined for the
fourth consecutive year in 2012, driven by the decline in
probationers

1

-1

The number of U.S. adults under community supervision
declined by about 40,500 in 2012, falling below 4.8 million
(appendix table 1). This represents the fourth consecutive
within-year decline in the community supervision population.
Since probationers accounted for 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.

0

The number of adults under community supervision increased
every year from 1980 to 2008, during which time the withinyear growth rates ranged from 0.5% to 10.9%. The number of
adults under community supervision declined for the first time
in 2009 and continued to decline each year through 2012. (See
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011, NCJ 239686,
BJS web, November 2012, for trend data beginning in 1980.)
The change in the number of adults under community
supervision observed between beginning of the year and
yearend 2012 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 probation sentence. (See
Methodology for discussion of adjustments.)

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

'11

'12

-2

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published estimates or other BJS statistical series. Reporting methods for some
probation agencies changed over time, and probation coverage was expanded in
1998 and 1999. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2012.

BJS definition of probation and parole
Probation is a court-ordered period of correctional
supervision in the community, generally as an alternative
to incarceration. In some cases, probation can be a
combined sentence of incarceration followed by a period of
community supervision.
Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the
community following a prison term. It includes parolees
released through discretionary or mandatory supervised
release from prison, those released through other types of
post-custody conditional supervision, and those sentenced
to a term of supervised release.

During 2012, the probation population declined by about
38,300, falling to an estimated 3,942,800 (figure 2; appendix
table 2). This marked the fourth consecutive within-year
decline in the probation population.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

2

The parole population declined by about 500 offenders during
2012, dropping to about 851,200 (figure 3; appendix table
4). This slight decline in the parole population was largely
the result of the decline in the California parole population.
Without California’s decline in the parole population, the U.S.
parole population would have increased.
Rate of adults under community supervision continued to
decline during 2012
Consistent with the decline in the number of adults under
community supervision, the community supervision rate also
declined at yearend 2012, down to 1,981 persons per 100,000
U.S. adult residents from 2,015 at yearend 2011 (table 1). The
supervision rate of probationers was similar at yearend 2012,
dropping to 1,633 persons per 100,000 U.S. adult residents
from 1,662 per 100,000 at yearend 2011.
Community supervision and probation rates declined each
year from 2007 to 2012, while parole rates fluctuated. From
2011 to 2012, the parole supervision rate declined from 357 to
353 persons on parole per 100,000 U.S. adult residents.
Four states accounted for half of the decline in the
probation population
During 2012, the probation population declined by about
38,300 probationers, reaching an estimated 3,942,800 at
yearend (appendix table 2). Thirty-three jurisdictions,
including the District of Columbia and the federal system,
reported an estimated 63,700 fewer probationers, and
19 states reported an estimated 25,400 increase in probationers
at yearend 2012 than at the beginning of the year.
Among jurisdictions with declining probation populations,
Georgia, Michigan, New York, and North Carolina accounted
for 51% of the total decrease. Georgia (down 15,156)
accounted for nearly a quarter of the total decline.
Four states—Washington, Ohio, Tennessee, and Idaho—
reported the largest increases in probation population during
2012. These four states accounted for about half (51%) of
the total increase in the probation population among states
reporting increases.

Figure 3
Adults on parole at yearend, 2000–2012
Yearend population
1,000,000
Annual percent change

Annual percent change
4
Yearend population

800,000

3

600,000

2

400,000

1

200,000

0

0

'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12

-1

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published estimates or other BJS statistical series. See Methodology for estimating
change in population counts.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

Table 1
Number of U.S. adult residents on community supervision,
probation, and parole, 2000, 2005–2012

Year
2000
2005
2006
2007
2008c
2009
2010
2011
2012

Number per 100,000
U.S. adult residents
Community
supervisiona Probation Parole
2,162
1,818
344
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
1,981
1,633
353

U.S. adult
residents on—
Community
supervisionb Probation Parole
1 in 46
1 in 55 1 in 291
1 in 45
1 in 54 1 in 285
1 in 45
1 in 53 1 in 283
1 in 45
1 in 53 1 in 277
1 in 45
1 in 54 1 in 279
1 in 47
1 in 56 1 in 284
1 in 48
1 in 58 1 in 281
1 in 50
1 in 60 1 in 280
1 in 50
1 in 61 1 in 284

Note: Rates based on most recent data available and may differ from previously
published BJS estimates or other BJS statistical series. Rates 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.
aIncludes adults on probation and adults on parole. For 2008 to 2012, detail may
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.
cSee Methodology for estimating change in population counts.
Source: Community supervision population estimates based on the Bureau of
Justice Statistics’ Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey; estimates
of the U.S. adult resident population based on U.S. Census Bureau’s National
Intercensal Estimates, 2001, 2005–2010, and population estimates, January 1, 2011,
2012, and 2013.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

3

California Public Safety Realignment
As mandated by laws enacted on October 1, 2011, to alleviate
overcrowding in prisons, California continued placing new
nonviolent, nonserious, nonsex offenders under county
jurisdiction for incarceration in local jail facilities during 2012.
In addition, inmates serving time in prison not convicted of
violent, serious, or sexual offenses continued to be released to
a county-directed post-release community supervision (PRCS)
program instead of to the state’s parole system. For counting
purposes, BJS has included data on counts and movements
of offenders under PRCS to data reported for offenders on
state parole.
Since enactment of the law, the number of inmates released and
placed under PRCS has increased. During 2012, the number of
offenders on PRCS increased from 12,979 at the beginning of
the year to 32,948 at yearend (figure 4). The increase observed
in the PRCS population is consistent with the decline observed
in California’s prison population. (See Prisoners in 2012 - Advance
Counts, NCJ 242467, BJS web, July 2012.) During 2012, the
number of offenders under state parole declined from 98,724
to 56,339 offenders. The large decline (42,385 offenders) in the
state parole population offset the increase (19,969 offenders) in
the population on PRCS, resulting in an overall decline of 22,416
in the combined parole population. During the same time, the
national parole population declined by about 500 offenders.
Excluding the overall observed decline of parolees in California,
the national parole population would have increased by about
21,900 offenders.
While California’s probation population has been declining, the
decline during 2012 was smaller than declines in the previous
4 years (table 2). From 2008 to 2011, California’s probation
population declined between about 3% and 10%. During 2012,
the population declined by less than 0.1% or 189 offenders.
Over the past 2 years, the number of persons entering probation
in California increased. Following a period of decline from 2008
to 2010, probation entries increased more than 1% from 2010 to
2011 and increased about 7% from 2011 to 2012.

Figure 4
California adult parole population, 2012
Yearend population
125,000
January 1, 2012

100,000
75,000

December 31, 2012

50,000
25,000
0

Combined state
parole and post
release custody
supervison

State parole

Post release
custody
supervision

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2012.

Table 2
California probation entries and exits and percent change
within year, 2008–2012
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Probation entries
189,926
168,610
149,029
151,226
161,335

Probation exits
199,528
181,633
167,883
179,794
161,524

Annual percent
change in probation
population
-2.9%
-4.0
-6.0
-9.6
-0.1

Annual percent change in entries
2008–2009
-11.2%
2009–2010
-11.6
2010–2011
1.5
2011–2012
6.7
*Calculated as the difference between the January 1 and December 31
populations within the reporting year.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2012.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

4

Entries to probation declined for the fifth consecutive
year; exits declined for the third consecutive year
During 2012, movement both onto and off probation declined
(figure 5). Between 2011 and 2012, entries to probation
declined 2.9%, from about 2,109,500 to 2,048,300 offenders,
and exits declined 4.5%, from about 2,189,100 to 2,089,800
offenders. Overall, about 4.1 million adults moved onto and off
probation during 2012, compared to nearly 4.3 million during
2011.
During 2009, the number of exits from probation exceeded the
number of entries for the first time since data collection began.
While both probation entries and exits continued to decline
from 2009 to 2011, the difference between the two grew larger,
resulting in larger declines in the population. Probation exits
still exceeded entries during 2012; however, the difference was
smaller, resulting in a smaller decline in the population.

Exit rate for probationers declined during 2012
The rate at which probationers exit supervision—the number
that exit probation divided by the average of the probation
population at the beginning and end of the year—provides
a measure of how quickly the population turns over and an
indirect measure of the average time an offender can expect
to serve on probation. During 2012, 53 probationers per 100
exited supervision, down for the first time since remaining
stable at the 2008 rate of 55 per 100 (table 3). Turnover due to
completing the term of supervision, either through full-term
completion or early discharge, remained stable at 36 per 100
probationers. Due to the decline in the exit rate, the mean
length of stay on probation increased to nearly 23 months after
remaining stable at about 22 months from 2008 to 2011.

Figure 5
Estimated probation entries and exits, 2000–2012

Table 3
Rate of probation exits, by type of exit, 2008–2012

Number

Type of exit
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total exit ratea
55
55
55
55
53
Completion
35
36
36
36
36
Incarcerationb
9
9
9
9
8
Absconder
2
2
1
1
1
Discharged to custody, detainer,
or warrant
-----Other unsatisfactoryc
6
6
6
5
5
Transferred to another
probation agency
-----Death
-----Otherd
2
2
2
2
2
Estimated mean time served
on probation (in months)e
22 mo. 22 mo. 22 mo. 22 mo. 23 mo.

2,500,000

2,400,000
Probation entries
2,300,000

2,200,000

Probation exits

2,100,000

2,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published estimates or other BJS statistical series. See Methodology for details about
estimation methods.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2012.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
--Less than 0.5 per 100 probationers.
aThe 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).
bIncludes probationers who were incarcerated for a new offense and those who had
their current probation sentence revoked (e.g., violating a condition of supervision).
cIncludes probationers discharged from supervision who failed to 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.
Includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.
dIncludes, but not limited to, probationers discharged from supervision through a
legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 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; or were released on bond.
eCalculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2012.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

5

During 2012, 68% of the 2,089,800 probationers who exited
supervision were discharged after completing their term of
supervision or receiving an early discharge, up slightly from
66% in 2011 (table 4).

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.

Rate of incarceration among probationers decreased
during 2012

Most characteristics of probationers have remained stable
since 2000

The rate of incarceration among probationers—including
incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, or other
reasons—has been gradually declining over the past 4 years
from the rate of 6.0% in 2008 (figure 6). During 2012, 5.1% of
probationers at risk of failing were incarcerated, compared to
5.5% in 2011. 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

The characteristics of adult probationers during 2012 have
remained relatively unchanged since 2000 (appendix table 3).
In 2000 and 2012, more than half (54%) of probationers were
non-Hispanic white and about a third (30% in 2012 and 31%
in 2000) were non-Hispanic black. Fifty-three percent of
probationers were being supervised for a felony offense in 2012
compared to 54% in 2000, and 72% were on active status in 2012,
compared to 76% in 2000. During 2012, males made up about
76% of the adult probation population, compared to 78% in 2000.

Table 4
Probationers who exited supervision, by type of exit,
2008–2012

Figure 6
Estimated percent of the at-risk probation population
incarcerated, 2000–2012

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

2009
100%
65%
16
3

2010
100%
65%
16
3

2011
100%
66%
16
2

2012
100%
68%
15
3

1
10

1
10

1
11

1
9

1
9

1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
2,320,100 2,327,800 2,261,300 2,189,100 2,089,800

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Distributions are based on
probationers for which type of exit was known, and reporting agencies may change
from year to year.
--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 supervision).
bIncludes probationers discharged from supervision who failed to 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.
Includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.
cIncludes, but not limited to, probationers discharged from supervision through a
legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 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; or were released on bond.
dEstimates rounded to the nearest hundred. Includes estimates for nonreporting
agencies. Estimates are based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published BJS estimates or other BJS statistical series. See Methodology for a
discussion about changes in estimating probation exits.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2012.

Percent
8

6

4

2

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Note: Estimates are based on most recent available data and may differ from
previously published BJS estimates or other BJS statistical series. The at-risk
population is defined 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, 2000–2012.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

6

U.S. parole population decreased slightly during 2012
The parole population declined slightly in 2012 after
2 consecutive years of within-year increases. During 2012,
the parole population decreased by about 500 offenders, from
an estimated 851,700 at the beginning of the year to 851,200
at yearend (appendix table 4). The federal parole population
increased 3.5% over the same period, from 106,955 at the
beginning of the year to 110,739 at yearend. (See Offenders
under federal community supervision.)

Among jurisdictions reporting an increase in their parole
population during 2012, Pennsylvania (up 6,770), Texas
(up 6,292), and the federal system (up 3,784) accounted for
more than half (55%) of the increase. Overall, 25 states and the
federal system reported within-year increases, totaling about
30,800 additional parolees at yearend 2012.
At yearend 2012, 24 states and the District of Columbia
reported an estimated 31,300 fewer persons on parole than at
the beginning of the year. The decline in California’s parole
population accounted for 72% of the decline among states
reporting declines.

Offenders under federal community supervision
Federal offenders serve three distinct forms of community
supervision, including probation, parole (i.e., mandatory
release, military parole, and special parole), and a term of
supervised release after having served a term in prison. The
federal community supervision data are based on federal fiscal
year data ending September 30, which is a different reference
period from findings elsewhere in this report. (See Methodology
for more detail on types of federal offenders under community
supervision and the source of these data.)

Most federal offenders under community supervision
were serving a term of supervised release
Over the 25-year period from 1987 to 2012, the number of
offenders on community supervision experienced an average
annual increase of 2.5%, from 71,400 at midyear 1987 to an
estimated 132,600 on September 30, 2012 (figure 7). During
this same period, the number of offenders on post-incarceration
supervision increased from 17,900 (consisting entirely of
parolees) to an estimated 110,400 (including 1,600 parolees and
108,800 on supervised release). Federal offenders on probation
decreased from 53,500 at midyear 1987 to an estimated 22,100
on September 30, 2012.

Males were a larger share of the population serving a
term of supervised release
The number of females serving a term of federal supervised
release increased by more than a third, from an estimated
11,600 on September 30, 2000, to 15,700 on September
30, 2010 (the latest date for which information is available).
However, the percentage of females serving a term of
supervised release decreased from 18% to 15% (see appendix
table 7). This occurred as the number of males on supervised
release increased by nearly two-thirds, from an estimated
52,400 in 2000 to 86,100 in 2010. Nearly all federal parolees at
fiscal yearend 2010 were male (97%), as both the number and
percentage of females on parole decreased from 2000 to 2010.

Figure 7
Number of offenders under federal supervision, by type of
supervision, 1987–2012
Number
150,000
120,000
90,000
Parole

60,000
30,000
0

Supervised release

Probation
1987

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010 2012

Note: Data from 1987 to 1994 based on a count of the supervised population as of
June 30. Data beginning in 1995 based on a count as of September 30.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, 1987–2012.

Felony drug offenders serving a term of supervised
release increased more rapidly compared to other
offenders
Felony drug offenders continued to makeup the largest share
of federal offenders under community supervision, increasing
from 40% of the total population in 2000 to 46% in 2010 (see
appendix table 8). This increase was due to a 61% increase
in drug offenders who were serving a term of supervised
release, from an estimated 34,100 in 2000 to 54,900 in 2010.
The increase in drug offenders on supervised release offset the
decrease in federal felony drug offenders on probation and
parole, from an estimated 5,700 in 2000 to 3,300 in 2010.

The percentage of females on federal probation increased from
31% in 2000 to 36% in 2010, as both the number of females and
males serving a sentence of federal probation decreased.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

7

Entries and exits to parole both declined; entries declined
at a faster rate
During 2012, nearly 1 million persons moved onto and off
parole. About 496,100 adults entered parole, while the same
estimated number exited parole (figure 8). The decline in
entries to parole from 2008 to 2012 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 2012 - Advance Counts, NCJ
242467, BJS web, July 2013.) From 2011 to 2012, the decline in
entries (9.1%) exceeded the decline in exits (6.8%).

FIGURE 8
Estimated parole entries and exits, 2000–2012
Number
600,000

550,000

500,000

Parolees entering through discretionary release surpassed
those entering through mandatory release
More than a third (35%) of parolees who entered supervision
during 2012 entered through mandatory release from
prison, continuing the decline that began in 2008, when
more than half (54%) entered through mandatory release
(figure 9). This marks the fourth consecutive year of decline in
mandatory releases. During 2012, parolees entering through a
discretionary release (41%) surpassed those entering through
a mandatory release, becoming the most common type of
entry to parole. Parolees who had their parole reinstated
accounted for a larger share of parole entries during 2012
(13%) than during 2011 (10%). One in 10 entered through a
term of supervised release, which was unchanged from 2011.
A term of supervised release is a release type designated by
the federal system and is similar to that of mandatory release.
If mandatory and 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 entries

Parole exits
450,000

400,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously published
estimates or other BJS statistical series. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

FIGURE 9
Entries to parole, by type of entry, 2000–2012
Percent
60
Mandatorya
50
40
Discretionary
30
20
Term of supervised releaseb

Reinstatement

10
Other
0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

aIncludes data reported as term of supervised release by states and the District of

Columbia from 2008 to 2012.
bFederal data only. Includes estimates for 2000 to 2007.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

8

Parole turnover rate declined for third consecutive year
The parole turnover rate fell from 63 exits per 100 parolees in
2011 to 58 per 100 parolees in 2012, continuing a declining
trend since 2010 (table 5). This decline resulted in an increase
in the mean length of stay on parole, from 19.1 months in 2011
to 20.6 months in 2012.

2012 (20 per 100 parolees compared to 15 per 100 parolees).
This decline was offset slightly by the increase in the rate of
parolees who completed their term of supervision or received
an early discharge between 2011 and 2012 (33 per 100 parolees
compared to 34 per 100 parolees).

The decline in the overall turnover of the parole population
was driven by the decline in the rate of parolees who exited
supervision and returned to incarceration between 2011 and

Among the estimated 496,100 parolees who exited supervision
in 2012, 58% completed their term of supervision or received
an early discharge, up from 52% in 2011 (table 6). A quarter
(25%) of parolees returned to incarceration in 2012, compared
to about a third (32%) in 2011.

Table 5
Rate of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008–2012

Table 6
Percent of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008–2012

Type of exit
Total exit ratea
Completion
Returned to incarceration
With new sentence
With revocation
Other/unknown
Absconder
Other unsatisfactoryb
Transferred to another state
Death
Otherc
Estimated mean time served
on parole (in months)d

2008
69
34
24
6
17
1
7
1
1
1
1
17 mo.

2009
70
35
24
6
17
1
6
1
1
1
2
17 mo.

2010
67
35
22
6
16
1
6
1
1
1
1
18 mo.

2011
63
33
20
5
13
2
6
1
1
1
2
19 mo.

2012
58
34
15
5
8
2
6
1
1
1
1
21 mo.

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
aThe 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).
bIncludes 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.
cIncludes, but not limited to, parolees discharged from supervision through a
legislative mandate 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, and were transferred to another state through an
interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation supervision.
dCalculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2012.

Type of exit
Total
Completion
Returned to incarceration
With new sentence
With revocation
Other/unknown
Absconder
Other unsatisfactorya
Transferred to another state
Death
Otherb
Estimated numberc

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
49%
51%
52%
52%
58%
36%
34%
33%
32%
25%
9
9
9
9
8
25
24
23
21
14
1
1
1
2
3
11%
9%
9%
9%
11%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
3%
3%
568,000 575,600 562,500 532,500 496,100

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Distributions based on parolees
for which type of exit was known.
aIncludes 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.
bIncludes, but not limited to, parolees 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, or were transferred to another state through an interstate
compact agreement or discharged to probation supervision.
cEstimates rounded to the nearest hundred. Includes estimates for nonreporting
agencies. Estimates based on most recent data available and may differ from
previously published BJS estimates or other BJS statistical series. See Methodology
for a discussion about changes in estimating parole exits.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2012.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

9

Since 2006, the rate of reincarceration among parolees
steadily declined
During 2012, an estimated 9% of all parolees who were at risk
of reincarceration were incarcerated (figure 10). This is down
from 12% reincarcerated in 2011. The decline observed was
largely due to the decline in the number of parolees being
returned to incarceration in California. The rate at which
all adults 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 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 parole during the year. This pool is defined as
those at risk of incarceration.
While the rates at which parolees returned to incarceration
with either a new sentence or as a result of revocation declined
from 2008 to 2012, the rate of parolees who returned with a
new sentence decreased more slowly (from about 4% in 2008
to 3% in 2012) than the rate of those who returned as a result
of revocation (from about 10% in 2008 to 5% in 2012).
Most characteristics of parolees were unchanged during 2012
During 2012, most characteristics of adult parolees remained
stable when compared to those in 2011. Males continued to
make up about 9 in 10 (89%) of the adult parole population
(appendix table 6). About 4 in 10 parolees were non-Hispanic
white (41%) or non-Hispanic black (40%), and about 2 in 10
(17%) were Hispanic. Among parolees, 82% were on active
supervision, and 95% had a maximum sentence of one year
or more. Nearly 3 in 10 (29%) were being supervised for a
violent offense.

FIGURE 10
Estimated percent of the at-risk parole population returned to
incarceration, 2000–2012
Percent
20

15
Total
10

With revocation

5

With new sentence
0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Note: Estimates based on most recent available data and may differ from previously
published BJS estimates or other BJS statistical series. The at-risk population is
defined 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
Methodology for more detail about the at-risk measure of incarceration, including
the method of estimation.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

10

Methodology
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Probation Survey
and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980 and collect data
from probation and parole agencies in the United States that
supervise adults. In these data, adults are persons subject to the
jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Juveniles
prosecuted as adults in a criminal court are considered
adults. Juveniles under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court or
correctional agency are excluded from these data. The National
Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service of the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, BJS’s predecessor
agency, began a statistical series on parole in 1976 and on
probation in 1979.
The two surveys collect data on the total number of adults
supervised in the community on January 1 and December 31
each year, the number of 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.
During 2012, Westat (Rockville, MD) served as BJS’s collection
agent for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data for
the federal system were provided directly to BJS from the
Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office
of the United States Courts (AOUSC) through the Federal
Justice Statistics Program (FJSP).
Probation
The 2012 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 468
respondents: 33 central state reporters; 435 separate state,
county, or court agencies, including the state probation agency
in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for 65 counties
in Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the federal
system. The states with multiple reporters were Alabama (3),
Arizona (2), Colorado (8), Florida (41), Georgia (2), Idaho
(2), Kentucky (3), Michigan (134), Missouri (2), Montana (4),
New Mexico (2), Ohio (187), Oklahoma (3), Tennessee (3),
Washington (33), and West Virginia (2).
Three localities in Florida, one in Kentucky, nine in Michigan,
16 in Ohio, and three in Washington did not provide data
for the 2012 collection. For these localities, the agency’s most
recent December 31 population was used to estimate the
January 1 and December 31, 2012, populations.
Parole

One respondent in California did not provide data. The
December 31, 2011, population count was used to estimate the
January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, populations.
In this report, federal parole includes a term of supervised
release from prison, mandatory release, parole, military parole,
and special parole. A term of supervised release is ordered
at the time of sentencing by a federal judge, and it is served
after release from a federal prison sentence. Definitional
differences exist between parole reported here and in other BJS
statistical series.
Additional information about the data collection instruments
is available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov.
Adjustments to account for offenders with dual
community correctional status
Some offenders on probation or parole may have had dual
community correctional statuses because they were serving
separate probation and parole sentences concurrently. With
the 2007 data, BJS began collecting information on the number
of parolees who were also on probation at yearend. The total
community supervision populations from 2008 through
2012 reported in figure 1 (and the 2012 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 from 2008 through 2012 do 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 7). Because some probation and parole
agencies were not able to provide these data, the total number
of parolees also on probation from 2008 through 2012 may
be underestimates.
Table 7
Parolees on probation excluded from the January 1 and
December 31 community supervision populations, 2008–2012
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

January 1*
3,562
3,905
8,259
8,259
10,958

December 31
3,905
4,959
8,259
10,958
12,672

*For 2008–2009 and 2011–2012, data 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 Probation Survey and Annuarl Parole
Survey, 2008–2012.

The 2012 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 55 respondents:
50 central state reporters, including 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).
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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

11

Reporting changes in the number of adults on probation
and parole, 2000–2012
In a given data collection year, respondents are asked to
provide both the January 1 and December 31 population
counts. At times, the January 1 count differs greatly from the
December 31 count of the prior year. The difference reported
may result from administrative changes, such as implementing
new information systems, resulting in data review and cleanup;
reconciling probationer records; reclassifying offenders,
including those on probation to parole and offenders on
dual community supervision statuses; and including certain
probation populations not previously reported (e.g., supervised
for an offense of driving while intoxicated or under the
influence, some probationers who had absconded, and some
on an inactive status). The cumulative discrepancies between
the yearend and beginning year (for the year prior) between
2000 and 2012 in the probation population counts resulted
in an overall decline of about 139,600 probationers (table 8).
Discrepancies between the yearend and beginning year parole
population count resulted in an increase of about 22,800
parolees between 2000 and 2012 (table 9).
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, NCJ 236019, BJS web, November 2011,
for a discussion of this expansion.
Table 8
Change in the number of adults on probation based on
reporting changes, 2000–2012
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total change,
yearend 2000–2012

December 31
probation population
3,839,532
3,934,713
3,995,165
4,073,987
4,140,638
4,162,495
4,237,023
4,293,163
4,270,917
4,198,155
4,055,514
3,971,319
3,942,776
103,244

Change*
-13,323
-2,982
28,902
18,856
3,154
4,262
-21,662
-58,692
-32,327
-73,122
-2,399
9,771
…
-139,562

… Not available.
*Calculated as the difference between the January 1 probation population in the
year of the reporting change and the December 31 probation population in the year
prior to the reporting change.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2012.

Estimating change in population counts
Technically, the change in the probation and parole
populations from the beginning of the year to the end of the
year should equal the difference between entries and exits
during the year. However, those numbers may not be equal.
Some probation and parole information systems track the
number of cases that enter and exit community supervision,
not the number of offenders. This means that entries and exits
may include case counts as opposed to counts of offenders,
while the beginning and yearend population counts represent
individuals. Additionally, all of the data on entries and exits
may not have been logged into the information systems or the
information systems may not have fully processed all of the
data before the data were submitted to BJS.
Estimates of annual change reported in appendix tables 1, 2,
and 4 were calculated as the difference between the January 1
and December 31 populations within the reporting year. At
the national level, 504 parolees were the difference between the
change in the parole population measured by the difference
between January 1 and December 31, 2012, populations
and the difference between parole entries and exits during
2012. For probation at the national level, 3,186 probationers
were the difference between the change in the probation
population measured by the difference between January 1 and
December 31, 2012, populations and the difference between
probation entries and exits during 2012.
In figures 1, 2, and 3, the annual percent change was based
on the difference between the January 1 and December 31
populations within the reporting year, while change calculated
Table 9
Change in the number of adults on parole based on reporting
changes, 2000–2012
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total change,
yearend 2000–2012

December 31
parole population
725,527
731,147
753,141
773,498
775,875
784,354
798,219
826,097
828,169
824,115
840,676
853,852
851,158

Change*
-1,629
1,186
-2,207
23,614
-4,023
-3,738
1,656
-4,920
1,391
13,703
-78
-2,190
…

125,631

22,765

… Not available.
*Calculated as the difference between the January 1 parole population in the year
of the reporting change and the December 31 parole population in the year prior to
the reporting change.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

12

using the yearend populations in these figures would be the
difference between December 31 populations in each given
year. As previously discussed, jurisdiction counts reported for
January 1 may be different from December 31 counts reported
in the previous year. As a result, the direction of change based
on yearend data could be in the opposite direction of the
annual percent change. This occurred between 2007 and 2008.
The apparent decrease observed in the community supervision
and probation rate between 2007 and 2008 was due to a change
in scope for two jurisdictions. While a comparison of yearend
to yearend yields a decline, the annual percent change actually
increased. See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010,
BJS web, NCJ 236019, November 2011, for a description of
changes in reporting methods.
Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies
during 2012
Based on the availability of data, BJS used three methods
of ratio estimation 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.

Imputing probation entries
The first method was used to estimate entries for probation
agencies that were unable to report these data in 2012, but
able to report in 2011. We estimated probation entries in 2012
by using the ratio of entries in 2011 to the agency’s probation
population on January 1, 2011, and applying that ratio to the
agency’s January 1, 2012, population. This method was used
to estimate probation entries in nonreporting counties and
district agencies in Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and
Washington.
The second method was used to estimate 2012 probation
entries for agencies that did not report entries in both 2011
and 2012. The ratio of 2011 entries to the January 1, 2011,
population among reporting agencies of similar size within
the state was used to estimate the number of entries for
nonreporting agencies. This method was used to estimate
probation entries and exits for nonreporting counties and
district agencies in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington.
The third method was used to estimate probation entries by
using the ratio of 2011 imputed entries to the January 1, 2011,
probation population and applying that ratio to the agency’s
January 1, 2012, population. This method was used to estimate
probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in
Colorado, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

Imputing parole entries
To estimate parole entries for parole agencies that were unable
to report these data in 2012 but were able to report in 2011,
we calculated the ratio of entries in 2011 to the agency’s parole
population on January 1, 2011, and applied that ratio to the
agency’s January 1, 2012, population. This method was used to
estimate in California.

Imputing probation and parole exits
A single method was used to estimate probation and parole
exits. For both probation and parole, BJS added the agency’s
estimated entries in 2012 to the agency’s population on January
1, 2012, and subtracted that estimate from the population on
December 31, 2012. For probation, this method was used in
Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio,
Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia. For parole, this
method was used in California.
Calculating mean length of stay
Mean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate.
Patterson and Preston (2007) provide tests of various methods
for estimating expected length of stay and report the results of
simulations showing that under assumptions of a stationary
population with a small growth rate, the inverse of the exit rate
performs well relative to a life-table approach to estimating
mean time served.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
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.
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.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

13

The rate of incarceration (for parolees this is also referred
to as the rate of return to incarceration or the rate of
reincarceration) based on the at-risk probation or
parole population is defined as the ratio of the number
of probationers or parolees who were discharged from
supervision during the year because they were incarcerated for
a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, to the number of
all probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated during
the year. The at-risk population is defined as the number of
probationers or parolees under supervision at the start of the
year (on January 1) plus the number who entered supervision
during the year. This pool of probationers or parolees could
be incarcerated at any time during the year; therefore, they
were at risk of incarceration. The formula used to calculate
this outcome measure is I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t)), where t equals the
year referenced, P(t-1) equals the start of the year population,
and E(t) equals the number of probationers or parolees who
entered supervision during the year.
The at-risk measure of incarceration accounts for all
probationers or parolees under supervision during the year
(i.e., probationers or parolees who were under supervision
on January 1 plus those who entered during the year) who
are the probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated.
This measure is not limited to those who are discharged
during the year and permits each probationer or parolee to be
incarcerated at any time during the year.
Change in the Annual Parole Survey
In 2008, the Annual Parole Survey included a new 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, NCJ 236019, BJS web,
November 2011, for detail on estimation methods to analyze
national trends for all types of entry to parole.
Types of federal offenders under community supervision
Since the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was enacted on
November 1, 1987, offenders sentenced to federal prison are
no longer eligible for parole, but are required to serve a term
of supervised release following release from prison. Those
sentenced to prison prior to November 1, 1987, continue
to be eligible for parole, as do persons violating laws of the
District of Columbia, military offenders, and foreign treaty
transfer offenders (see http://www.uscourts.gov/news/
TheThirdBranch/11-05-01/Parole_in_the_Federal_Probation_
System.aspx). Federal offenders under supervision in the
District of Columbia are reported separately in this report.
Unlike other parts of this report where all forms of federal
post-prison supervision are grouped together under the
generic term “parole,” the data in this box separate federal

offenders who were serving a term of supervised release from
the types of federal post-prison supervision which are more
precisely described as parole.
The Sentencing Reform Act also requires the adoption and use
of sentencing guidelines, which also took effect on November
1, 1987. Many offenses for which probation had been the
typical sentence prior to this date, particularly property and
regulatory offenses, subsequently resulted in sentences to
prison. Changes in how federal offenders are supervised in
the community were first described in the BJS report Federal
Offenders under Community Supervision, 1987–96 (NCJ
168636, August 1998), and updated in Federal Criminal Case
Processing, 2002: With trends 1982-2002, Reconciled Data (NCJ
207447, January 2005).

Source of data
The source of data for the federal population from 1987 to
2010, as reported in the box on page 7 is BJS’s Federal Justice
Statistics Program (FJSP) database, compiled from source files
provided by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (AOUSC). Data for 2011 and 2012, which appear in
Figure 6: Number of offenders under federal supervision, by
type of supervision, 1987–2012, were estimated by averaging
counts for June 30 and December 30, obtained directly
from the AOUSC website on October 30, 2013 (http://www.
uscourts.gov/Statistics/StatisticalTablesForTheFederalJudiciary.
aspx), table E-2.
Unlike the federal data presented elsewhere in this report,
which are for the calendar year ending December 31, the data
presented in this box are based on the federal fiscal year ending
September 30 (or, as noted, for June 30), permitting analysis of
the two major types of federal post-prison supervision to begin
in 1987. Calendar year data for federal offenders with a term
of supervised release, as distinct from those on other types of
post-prison supervision, including parole (includes military
parole and special parole) and mandatory release, were not
collected by the Annual Parole Survey until 2008, though some
estimates from 1998 to 2007 are possible. Comparison of the
federal fiscal year data in this box with data collected by the
Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey for years
in which there is overlap showed a very close correspondence,
with differences attributable to the variations between federal
fiscal year and calendar year reference periods.
Use of the federal fiscal year data also allowed for an analysis
of type of supervision by sex and by type of offense, neither of
which are available from the Annual Parole Survey.
The number of offenders by sex for September 30, 2000,
reported in Appendix table 7: Federal offenders under
supervision, by sex, 2000, 2005, and 2010, were estimated by
applying the percentages of males and females, as reported in
BJS’s Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2000, table 7.2
(NCJ 194067), to updated counts of the number of persons
under supervision obtained from BJS’s Federal Criminal Case
Processing, 2002: With trends 1982–2002, Reconciled Data,
2004, figure 4 (NCJ 207447).

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

14

The number of offenders by type of offense for September
30, 2000, reported in Appendix table 8: Federal offenders
under supervision, by type of offense, 2000, 2005, and 2010,
were estimated, by recalculating the percentage of the total
represented by each type of offense, as reported in BJS’s
Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2000, table 7.1
(NCJ 194067), and applying these revised percentages to
updated counts of the number of persons under supervision
obtained from BJS’s Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2002:
With trends 1982–2002, Reconciled Data, 2004, figure 4
(NCJ 207447).

Parole: Explanatory notes

Probation: Explanatory notes

California’s total parole population includes 12,979 persons on
January 1, 2012, and 32,948 persons on December 31, 2012,
who were under post-release community supervision as a
result of California’s public safety realignment. These persons
account for 29,298 parolees entering and 9,329 parolees exiting
supervision during 2012.

Florida—Nonreporting agencies in 2012—three local agencies
did not report data. The most recently available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2012, and
December 31, 2012, populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2012 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.
Kentucky—Nonreporting agencies in 2012—one local
agency did not report data. This agency’s December 31, 2011,
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2012, and
December 31, 2012, populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2012 for additional information on
imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Michigan—Nonreporting agencies in 2012—nine local
agencies did not report data. The most recently available
December 31 population count was used to estimate
January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, populations. See
Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2012
for additional information on imputing entries and exits for
nonreporting agencies.
Ohio—Nonreporting agencies in 2012—16 local agencies
did not report data. The most recently available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2012, and
December 31, 2012, populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2012 for additional information on
imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.

Alabama—Closed agency in 2012—one agency has been
removed from the roster because they no longer supervise
parolees for the state.
California—Nonreporting agency in 2012—one respondent
in California did not provide data. The December 31, 2011,
population count was used to estimate the January 1, 2012, and
December 31, 2012, populations. See Imputing entries and exits
for nonreporting agencies in 2012 for additional information on
imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.

Appendix tables
Community supervision
Appendix table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2012
Probation
Appendix table 2. Adults on probation, 2012
Appendix table 3. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000,
2011, and 2012
Parole
Appendix table 4. Adults on parole, 2012
Appendix table 5. Adults entering parole, by type of entry,
2012
Appendix table 6. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000,
2011, and 2012
Federal supervision
Appendix table 7. Federal offenders under supervision, by sex
and year, 2000, 2005, and 2010
Appendix table 8. Federal offenders under supervision, by type
of offense and year, 2000, 2005, and 2010

Washington—Nonreporting agencies in 2012—three local
agencies did not report data. The most recently available
December 31 population count was used to estimate
January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, populations. See
Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2012
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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

15

Appendix Table 1
Adults under community supervision, 2012
Jurisdiction

U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabamad
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Californiad
Coloradoe
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Floridad,e
Georgiad,f
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuckyd,e
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigand,e
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexicoe
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohiod,e
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islande
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washingtond,e
West Virginiae
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Entries
Community supervision
a
population, 1/1/2012
Reported Imputedb
4,821,800
2,500,200 2,544,400
129,400
60,000
60,000
4,692,400
2,440,200 2,484,400
69,500
22,000
22,000
8,700
2,600
2,600
83,100
38,500
38,500
54,700
18,200
18,200
409,600
252,700
252,700
86,900
63,900
64,200
51,800
27,600
27,600
16,700
13,300
13,300
14,300
7,800
7,800
249,200
174,700
177,700
478,800
242,800
242,800
24,000
7,100
7,100
33,300
14,900
14,900
151,700
85,600
85,600
135,100
93,400
93,400
34,100
18,100
18,100
22,600
25,000
25,000
69,600
26,200
32,300
69,800
29,500
29,500
7,200
3,300
3,300
109,600
47,900
47,900
70,900
77,700
77,700
208,600
115,800
127,000
113,300
67,600
67,600
36,600
12,400
12,400
78,100
37,300
37,300
10,800
4,400
4,400
17,000
12,300
12,300
17,000
9,900
9,900
6,300
4,200
4,200
129,900
47,500
47,500
22,800
9,900
12,300
160,300
53,800
53,800
103,800
62,500
62,500
5,000
3,900
3,900
265,200
141,800
154,500
26,900
11,500
11,500
59,900
22,600
22,600
272,400
150,700
150,700
25,000
400
5,200
39,100
16,600
16,600
9,600
5,100
5,100
74,000
32,700
32,700
512,400
199,100
199,100
14,800
7,300
7,300
7,100
4,100
4,100
51,600
21,100
21,100
92,700
56,600
60,100
10,600
3,400
3,500
64,400
29,500
29,500
5,700
3,400
3,400

Exits
Reported
2,537,400
56,800
2,480,600
24,900
2,300
39,800
19,400
275,400
62,600
27,800
13,800
8,500
175,500
258,700
7,200
12,700
85,300
97,200
17,900
25,500
25,200
29,100
3,500
47,300
77,800
122,900
66,700
11,400
39,200
4,400
13,600
10,100
4,200
47,500
6,400
60,200
65,700
3,700
134,600
10,600
22,600
144,000
400
15,200
4,700
31,800
195,800
7,800
4,300
19,000
60,400
3,400
29,300
3,100

Imputedb
2,585,900
56,800
2,529,000
24,900
2,300
39,800
19,400
275,400
63,000
27,800
13,800
8,500
178,700
258,700
7,200
12,700
85,300
97,200
17,900
25,500
33,100
29,100
3,500
47,300
77,800
135,000
66,700
11,400
39,200
4,400
13,600
10,100
4,200
47,500
8,800
60,200
65,700
3,700
148,300
10,600
22,600
144,000
5,900
15,200
4,700
31,800
195,800
7,800
4,300
19,000
63,400
3,500
29,300
3,100

Community supervision
population, 12/31/2012a
4,781,300
132,600
4,648,700
66,600
9,100
79,900
52,600
387,000
89,300
50,500
16,200
13,700
245,400
462,500
23,800
35,500
152,000
131,300
34,300
22,100
68,900
70,100
7,000
110,300
70,800
197,700
114,200
37,600
76,100
10,800
15,600
16,700
6,300
129,900
26,500
154,000
99,900
5,200
271,500
27,800
60,000
279,100
24,300
40,500
10,000
77,600
515,000
14,400
7,000
53,900
97,200
10,600
64,600
5,900

Number under community
supervision per 100,000
Number Percent adult residents, 12/31/2012c
-40,500 -0.8%
1,981
3,200 2.4%
55
-43,700 -0.9%
1,926
-2,900 -4.2
1,795
300 -3.7
1,655
-3,200 -3.8
1,608
-2,100 -3.8
2,344
-22,600 -5.5
1,335
2,300 2.7
2,240
-1,300 -2.5
1,799
-500 -3.0
2,269
-700 -4.7
2,587
-3,800 -1.5
1,591
-16,300 -3.4
6,192
-200 -0.7
2,178
2,200 6.6
3,019
300 0.2
1,544
-3,800 -2.8
2,645
200 0.6
1,455
-500 -2.0
1,020
-700 -1.0
2,044
400 0.6
2,005
-200 -3.0
654
700 0.6
2,416
-100 -0.1
1,343
-10,900 -5.2
2,588
900 0.8
2,770
1,000 2.7
1,673
-1,900 -2.4
1,644
/
:
1,376
-1,400 -8.1
1,118
-300 -1.6
791
-100 -1.1
596
/
:
1,891
3,600 16.0
1,680
-6,300 -4.0
1,002
-3,900 -3.7
1,331
200 3.8
941
6,300 2.4
3,050
900 3.4
962
100 0.1
1,965
6,700 2.5
2,775
-700 -2.8
2,908
1,400 3.6
1,107
400 3.9
1,571
3,600 4.8
1,555
2,500 0.5
2,676
-500 -3.1
725
-200 -2.1
1,390
2,200 4.4
847
4,600 4.9
1,821
/
:
721
200 0.3
1,460
300 4.7
1,332
Change, 2012

Note: Counts were rounded to the nearest hundred. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the community supervision population for some
jurisdictions on December 31, 2012, does not equal the population on January 1, 2012, plus entries, minus exits.
/ Not reported.
: Not calculated.
aThe January 1 population excludes 10,958 offenders and the December 31 population excludes 12,672 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.
cRates were computed using the estimated U.S. adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2012.
dSee probation, parole, or both Explanatory notes for more detail.
eData for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology 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 Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, 2012.

Appendix Table 2
Adults on probation, 2012
Entries
Probation population,
Jurisdiction
1/1/2012
Reported Imputeda
U.S. total
3,981,090
2,004,073 2,048,300
Federal
22,455
10,332
10,332
State
3,958,635
1,993,741 2,038,000
Alabama
60,913
19,507
19,507
Alaska
6,955
1,678
1,678
Arizona
75,409
26,446
26,446
Arkansas
31,039
9,140
9,140
California
297,917
161,335
161,335
Coloradoc
76,164
54,219
54,600
Connecticut
49,257
24,685
24,685
Delaware
16,195
12,756
12,756
District of Columbia
8,706
6,239
6,239
Floridac,d
245,040
168,720
171,700
Georgiad,e
457,217
230,474
230,474
Hawaii
22,316
6,192
6,192
Idaho
29,203
13,277
13,277
Illinois
125,442
58,404
58,404
Indiana
124,967
84,443
84,443
Iowa
29,828
14,364
14,364
Kansas
17,353
21,275
21,275
Kentuckyc,d
56,140
15,893
22,000
Louisiana
42,753
13,709
13,709
Maine
7,159
3,275
3,275
Maryland
96,359
41,063
41,063
Massachusetts
68,615
74,906
74,906
Michiganc,d
185,984
106,408
117,600
Minnesota
107,423
61,811
61,811
Mississippi
29,466
9,574
9,574
Missouri
56,912
23,496
23,496
Montana
9,875
3,898
3,898
Nebraska
15,876
10,399
10,399
Nevada
11,637
5,576
5,576
New Hampshire
4,119
2,815
2,815
New Jersey
114,611
40,622
40,622
New Mexicoc
19,852
7,232
9,600
New York
113,071
31,489
31,489
North Carolina
100,479
58,286
58,286
North Dakota
4,563
3,074
3,074
Ohioc,d
252,901
133,403
146,100
Oklahoma
24,448
11,046
11,046
Oregon
37,468
13,744
13,744
Pennsylvania
177,851
97,469
97,469
Rhode Islandc
24,518
..
4,800
South Carolina
33,362
14,158
14,158
South Dakota
6,819
3,604
3,604
Tennessee
61,852
27,297
27,297
Texas
408,472
158,133
158,133
Utah
11,912
5,561
5,561
Vermont
6,072
3,638
3,638
Virginia
50,566
20,539
20,539
Washingtonc,d
84,229
50,867
54,400
West Virginiac
8,599
1,861
2,000
Wisconsin
45,710
22,890
22,890
Wyoming
5,041
2,851
2,851

Exits
Reported
2,041,341
10,950
2,030,391
22,427
1,460
27,503
10,057
161,524
53,626
25,181
13,310
6,679
169,861
245,630
6,297
10,874
59,339
88,265
14,859
21,607
15,653
15,164
3,492
40,782
74,848
110,062
61,077
8,272
24,938
3,899
11,910
5,892
2,846
40,347
5,798
36,813
62,084
2,873
128,544
9,988
14,084
97,543
..
12,575
3,223
27,160
161,132
6,079
3,757
18,149
56,015
1,891
22,272
2,730

Imputeda
2,089,800
10,950
2,078,800
22,427
1,460
27,503
10,057
161,524
54,000
25,181
13,310
6,679
173,100
245,630
6,297
10,874
59,339
88,265
14,859
21,607
23,600
15,164
3,492
40,782
74,848
122,200
61,077
8,272
24,938
3,899
11,910
5,892
2,846
40,347
8,200
36,813
62,084
2,873
142,200
9,988
14,084
97,543
5,500
12,575
3,223
27,160
161,132
6,079
3,757
18,149
59,100
2,000
22,272
2,730

Number on probation
Change, 2012
Probation population,
per 100,000 U.S. adult
12/31/2012
Number Percent residents, 12/31/2012b
3,942,776
-38,314 -1.0%
1,633
21,837
-618 -2.8%
9
3,920,939
-37,696 -1.0%
1,624
57,993
-2,920 -4.8
1,563
7,173
218 3.1
1,311
72,452
-2,957 -3.9
1,459
30,122
-917 -3.0
1,341
297,728
-189 -0.1
1,027
77,793
1,629 2.1
1,953
47,736
-1,521 -3.1
1,700
15,641
-554 -3.4
2,185
8,266
-440 -5.1
1,566
240,869
-4,171 -1.7
1,561
442,061
-15,156 -3.3
5,919
22,211
-105 -0.5
2,029
31,606
2,403 8.2
2,691
124,507
-935 -0.7
1,265
121,145
-3,822 -3.1
2,441
29,333
-495 -1.7
1,243
17,021
-332 -1.9
784
54,511
-1,629 -2.9
1,617
41,298
-1,455 -3.4
1,181
6,942
-217 -3.0
652
96,640
281 0.3
2,117
68,673
58 0.1
1,303
178,597
-7,387 -4.0
2,338
108,157
734 0.7
2,625
30,768
1,302 4.4
1,370
55,470
-1,442 -2.5
1,197
9,874
-1
-1,255
14,260
-1,616 -10.2
1,019
11,321
-316 -2.7
536
4,088
-31 -0.8
390
114,886
275 0.2
1,673
21,381
1,529 7.7
1,358
107,747
-5,324 -4.7
701
96,070
-4,409 -4.4
1,280
4,764
201 4.4
863
256,853
3,952 1.6
2,886
25,506
1,058: 4.3
882
37,128
-340 -0.9
1,216
177,777
-74
-1,768
23,818
-700 -2.9
2,848
34,945
1,583 4.7
954
7,200
381 5.6
1,136
64,430
2,578 4.2
1,292
405,473
-2,999 -0.7
2,107
11,394
-518 -4.3
575
5,953
-119 -2.0
1,184
52,956
2,390 4.7
832
88,339
4,110 4.9
1,654
8,573
-26 -0.3
582
46,328
618 1.4
1,047
5,162
121 2.4
1,161

Note: Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the probation population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2012, does not equal the population on January 1, 2012, plus
entries, minus exits. Counts may not be actual as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some or all detailed data.
-- Less than 0.05%.
..Not known.
aReflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
bRates were computed using the estimated U.S. 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 Explanatory 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, 2012.

Appendix Table 3
Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2011, and 2012
Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitea
Black/African Americana
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%

2011
100%

2012
100%

78%
22

75%
25

76%
24

54%
31
13
1
1
…

54%
31
13
1
1
…

54%
30
13
1
1
…

76%
…
…
9
9
3
…
3

72%
1
1
5
9
3
6
2

72%
1
1
7
10
3
3
3

52%
46
2

53%
45
2

53%
45
2

…%
…
…
…
…
24
24
18
6
52

18%
3
3
12
27
25
17
15
3
12

19%
4
3
12
28
25
17
15
2
11

Note: Each characteristic is based on probationers with a known status. Detail may
not sum to total due to rounding.
...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, 2011, and 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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

18

Appendix Table 4
Adults on parole, 2012
Parole population,
Jurisdiction
1/1/2012
U.S. total
851,662
Federal
106,955
State
744,707
Alabama
8,601
Alaska
1,777
Arizona
7,708
Arkansas
23,670
Californiac,d,e
111,703
Colorado
10,775
Connecticut
2,561
Delaware
553
District of Columbia
6,153
Florida
4,203
Georgia
25,489
Hawaii
1,706
Idaho
4,047
Illinois
26,208
Indiana
10,154
Iowa
4,446
Kansas
5,254
Kentucky
13,699
Louisiana
27,092
Maine
21
Maryland
13,237
Massachusetts
2,264
Michigan
22,598
Minnesota
5,841
Mississippi
7,127
Missouri
21,140
Montana
958
Nebraska
1,149
Nevada
5,332
New Hampshire
2,204
New Jersey
15,306
New Mexico
2,958
New York
47,243
North Carolina
3,744
North Dakota
440
Ohio
12,344
Oklahoma
2,459
Oregon
22,463
Pennsylvania
94,581
Rhode Island
505
South Carolina
6,315
South Dakota
2,764
Tennessee
12,138
Texas
105,996
Utah
2,933
Vermont
1,069
Virginia
2,244
Washington
8,422
West Virginia
2,043
Wisconsin
20,452
Wyoming
618

Entries

Exits

Reported Imputeda
496,080 496,100
49,659
49,659
446,421 446,400
2,508
2,508
922
922
12,019
12,019
9,066
9,066
91,363
91,400
9,638
9,638
2,875
2,875
524
524
1,527
1,527
5,956
5,956
12,342
12,342
868
868
1,661
1,661
27,229
27,229
8,973
8,973
3,700
3,700
3,767
3,767
10,269
10,269
15,838
15,838
0
0
6,871
6,871
2,801
2,801
9,361
9,361
5,813
5,813
2,783
2,783
13,804
13,804
501
501
1,928
1,928
4,280
4,280
1,353
1,353
6,859
6,859
2,686
2,686
22,323
22,323
4,232
4,232
843
843
8,398
8,398
443
443
8,902
8,902
53,230
53,230
410
410
2,445
2,445
1,522
1,522
5,355
5,355
40,992
40,992
1,786
1,786
493
493
568
568
5,731
5,731
1,532
1,532
6,570
6,570
561
561

Reported Imputeda
496,071 496,100
45,875
45,875
450,196 450,200
2,493
2,493
817
817
12,267
12,267
9,364
9,364
113,905 113,900
8,955
8,955
2,643
2,643
476
476
1,797
1,797
5,621
5,621
13,070
13,070
942
942
1,860
1,860
25,981
25,981
8,974
8,974
2,995
2,995
3,895
3,895
9,549
9,549
13,984
13,984
0
0
6,475
6,475
2,959
2,959
12,846
12,846
5,648
5,648
3,106
3,106
14,272
14,272
509
509
1,694
1,694
4,233
4,233
1,390
1,390
7,178
7,178
566
566
23,344
23,344
3,617
3,617
854
854
6,093
6,093
592
592
8,493
8,493
46,460
46,460
417
417
2,644
2,644
1,525
1,525
4,625
4,625
34,700
34,700
1,726
1,726
525
525
829
829
4,349
4,349
1,523
1,523
6,999
6,999
417
417

Change, 2012
Parole population,
12/31/2012
Number Percent
851,158
-504
-0.1%
110,739
3,784
3.5%
740,419
-4,288
-0.6%
8,616
15
0.2
1,882
105
5.9
7,460
-248
-3.2
23,372
-298
-1.3
89,287
-22,416
-20.1
11,458
683
6.3
2,793
232
9.1
601
48
8.7
5,883
-270
-4.4
4,538
335
8.0
24,761
-728
-2.9
1,632
-74
-4.3
3,848
-199
-4.9
27,456
1,248
4.8
10,153
-1
-5,151
705
15.9
5,126
-128
-2.4
14,419
720
5.3
28,946
1,854
6.8
21
0
-13,633
396
3.0
2,106
-158
-7.0
19,113
-3,485
-15.4
6,006
165
2.8
6,804
-323
-4.5
20,672
-468
-2.2
950
-8
-0.8
1,383
234
20.4
5,379
47
0.9
2,167
-37
-1.7
14,987
-319
-2.1
5,078
2,120
71.7
46,222
-1,021
-2.2
4,359
615
16.4
429
-11
-2.5
14,649
2,305
18.7
2,310
-149
-6.1
22,872
409
1.8
101,351
6,770
7.2
498
-7
-1.4
6,116
-199
-3.2
2,761
-3
-0.1
13,138
1,000
8.2
112,288
6,292
5.9
2,993
60
2.0
1,037
-32
-3.0
1,983
-261
-11.6
8,895
473
5.6
2,052
9
0.4
20,023
-429
-2.1
762
144
23.3

Number on parole per
100,000 U.S. adult
residents, 12/31/2012b
353
46
307
232
344
150
1,041
308
288
99
84
1,114
29
332
149
328
279
205
218
236
428
828
2
299
40
250
146
303
446
121
99
255
207
218
322
301
58
78
165
80
749
1,008
60
167
436
263
583
151
206
31
167
139
453
171

Note: Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the parole population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2012, does not equal the population on January 1, 2012, plus
entries, minus exits. Counts may not be actual as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some or all detailed data.
-- Less than 0.05%.
aReflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
bRates were computed using the estimated U.S. adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2013.
cData for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology for more detail.
dSee Explanatory notes for more detail.
eIncludes post-release community supervision parolees: 12,979 on January 1, 2012; and 29,298 entries, 9,329 exits, and 32,948 on December 31, 2012.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2012.

Appendix Table 5
Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2012
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Californiaf
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaiig
Idahog
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexicog
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvaniag
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakotag
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermontg
Virginia
Washingtong
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Total reported
496,080
49,659
446,421
2,508
922
12,019
9,066
91,363
9,638
2,875
524
1,527
5,956
12,342
868
1,661
27,229
8,973
3,700
3,767
10,269
15,838
0
6,871
2,801
9,361
5,813
2,783
13,804
501
1,928
4,280
1,353
6,859
2,686
22,323
4,232
843
8,398
443
8,902
53,230
410
2,445
1,522
5,355
40,992
1,786
493
568
5,731
1,532
6,570
561

Discretionarya
187,003
457
186,546
..
..
39
5,695
..
3,984
1,899
..
278
44
12,342
640
1,250
16
0
3,700
0
6,728
1,167
0
3,427
2,545
8,417
~
2,322
10,358
501
1,864
2,999
706
4,816
~
6,267
75
843
147
443
1,134
50,721
410
1,380
511
5,096
39,298
1,659
340
128
200
1,532
112
513

Mandatoryb
128,098
732
127,366
..
..
506
26
18,376
3,204
0
..
0
5,067
0
0
~
25,268
8,973
0
5
3,541
14,440
0
3,444
0
602
5,813
0
913
0
0
1,122
0
2,043
1,360
6,975
548
0
8,013
..
7,702
0
~
1,065
913
3
677
0
0
399
5,531
0
837
0

Reinstatementc
57,916
52
57,864
..
..
223
3,082
43,293
2,172
..
..
0
3
..
26
411
240
0
0
131
~
209
0
~
205
342
~
461
1,399
0
54
159
542
~
1,326
~
~
0
238
..
11
2,509
~
0
..
238
353
8
141
40
0
0
0
48

Term of supervised
released
82,823
48,418
34,405
..
..
10,202
257
..
0
976
..
1,249
594
0
0
~
..
0
0
3,586
~
..
0
..
17
~
~
0
0
0
0
~
..
0
~
8,392
3,609
0
0
..
11
0
~
0
..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,512
0

Othere
5,734
0
5,734
..
..
1,049
6
396
278
0
..
0
16
0
202
~
956
0
0
45
~
22
0
~
34
0
~
0
1,134
0
0
0
99
0
~
689
0
0
0
..
0
0
~
0
..
18
549
119
12
1
0
0
109
0

Unknown or
not reported
34,506
0
34,506
2,508
922
0
0
29,298
0
0
524
0
232
0
0
0
749
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
98
0
115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

..Not known.
~Not applicable.
aIncludes persons entering due to a parole board decision.
bIncludes persons whose release from prison was not decided by a parole board. Includes persons entering due to determinate sentencing, good-time provisions, or emergency
releases.
cIncludes persons 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.
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.
fIncludes 32,948 Post-Release Community Supervision parolees on December 31, 2012.
gSome or all detailed data are estimated for type of sentence.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2012.

Appendix Table 6
Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2011, and 2012
Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitea
Black/African Americana
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%

2011
100%

2012
100%

88%
12

89%
11

89%
11

38%
40
21
1
-…

41%
39
18
1
1
--

41%
40
17
1
1
--

83%
4
7
5
…
1

81%
6
6
4
-3

82%
5
6
4
-3

3%
97

4%
96

5%
95

…%
…
…
…
…
…
…

28%
9
19
23
33
3
13

29%
9
20
22
33
4
13

Appendix Table 7
Federal offenders under supervision, by sex, 2000, 2005,
and 2010
Type of supervision
Total offenders under
supervision
All offendersb
Male
Female
Probation
All offendersb
Male
Female
Supervised release
All offendersb
Male
Female
Parole
All offendersb
Male
Female

2000a

Percent
2005

2010

99,500 111,807 126,554
78,058 88,728 102,266
21,442 22,995 23,843

100%
78.5
21.5

100%
79.4
20.6

100%
81.1
18.9

31,019
21,341
9,678

26,022 22,685
16,956 14,209
9,036 8,093

100%
68.8
31.2

100%
65.2
34.7

100%
63.7
36.3

63,937
52,364
11,573

82,989 101,839
69,055 86,082
13,884 15,695

100%
81.9
18.1

100%
83.2
16.7

100%
84.6
15.4

100%
95.8
4.2

100%
97.2
2.7

100%
97.3
2.7

2000a

4,544
4,353
191

Number
2005 2010

2,796
2,717
75

2,030
1,975
55

Note: Fiscal year data ending September 30.
aCounts and percentages for 2000 may not be comparable to previously published
BJS reports due to updated information or revised estimation methods. See
Methodology.
bTotal includes offenders whose sex was unknown.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, 2000, 2005,
and 2010.

Note: Each characteristic is based on parolees with a known status. Detail 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, 2011, and 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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

21

Appendix Table 8
Federal offenders under supervision, by type of offense, 2000, 2005, and 2010
Type of supervision
Most serious offense of conviction
Total offenders under supervision
All offensesb
Felonies
Violent
Property
Drug
Public-order
Weapon
Immigration
Misdemeanors
Probation
All offensesb
Felonies
Violent
Property
Drug
Public-order
Weapon
Immigration
Misdemeanors
Supervised release
All offensesb
Felonies
Violent
Property
Drug
Public-order
Weapon
Immigration
Misdemeanors
Parole
All offensesb
Felonies
Violent
Property
Drug
Public-order
Weapon
Immigration
Misdemeanors

2000a

Number
2005

2010

2000a

Percent
2005

2010

99,500
89,007
5,817
28,838
39,756
8,518
4,534
1,543
10,493

111,807
103,641
6,606
27,699
48,484
8,449
9,325
2,910
8,166

126,554
119,814
6,648
26,214
58,221
9,190
14,658
4,759
6,740

100%
89.5
5.9
29.0
40.0
8.6
4.6
1.5
10.5

100%
92.8
5.9
24.8
43.4
7.6
8.4
2.6
7.3

100%
94.8
5.3
20.7
46.0
7.3
11.6
3.8
5.3

31,019
21,074
647
11,853
3,440
3,758
697
679
9,945

26,022
18,309
360
10,136
2,966
2,852
1,158
743
7,713

22,685
16,620
348
8,651
2,831
2,715
1,151
864
6,065

100%
67.9
2.1
38.2
11.1
12.1
2.2
2.2
32.1

100%
70.6
1.4
39.1
11.4
11.0
4.5
2.9
29.7

100%
73.5
1.5
38.2
12.5
12.0
5.1
3.8
26.8

63,937
63,397
3,831
16,522
34,098
4,421
3,667
859
540

82,989
82,538
5,084
17,314
44,495
5,394
8,016
2,163
451

101,839
101,168
5,251
17,402
54,924
6,293
13,341
3,894
671

100%
99.2
6.0
25.8
53.3
6.9
5.7
1.3
0.8

100%
99.5
6.1
20.9
53.7
6.5
9.7
2.6
0.5

100%
99.4
5.2
17.1
54.0
6.2
13.1
3.8
0.7

4,544
4,536
1,340
463
2,219
339
170
5
8

2,796
2,794
1,162
249
1,023
203
151
4
2

2,030
2,026
1,049
161
466
182
166
1
4

100%
99.8
29.5
10.2
48.8
7.5
3.7
0.1
0.2

100%
100
41.6
8.9
36.6
7.3
5.4
0.1
0.1

100%
99.9
51.7
7.9
23.0
9.0
8.2
-0.2

Note: Fiscal year data ending September 30.
--Less than 0.05%.
aCounts and percentages may not be comparable to previously published BJS reports due to updated information or revised estimation methods. See Methodology.
bTotal in 2005 and 2010 includes offenders whose offense category could not be determined.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, 2000, 2005, and 2010.

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 , 2012 | D E C E M B E R 2013	

22

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyses, and disseminates statistical
information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the
operation of justice systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is
acting director.
This report was written by Laura M. Maruschak and Thomas P. Bonczar.
Erinn J. Herberman, Ph.D., and Sheri Simmons verified the report.
Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn
produced the report.
December 2013, NCJ 243826

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

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook
Advertise Here 3rd Ad
Prisoner Education Guide side