Skip navigation

Probation and Parole in the U.S., 2013 BJS 2014

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

October 2014, NCJ 248029

Erinn J. Herberman, Ph.D., and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians

A

t yearend 2013, an estimated 4,751,400 adults
were under community supervision—a
decline of about 29,900 offenders from
yearend 2012 (figure 1). About 1 in 51 adults in the
United States was under community supervision
at yearend 2013. The community supervision
population includes adults on probation, parole, or
any other post-prison supervision. (See BJS definition
of probation and parole.)
The small decline in the number of adults under
community supervision was due to the drop in
the probation population. Probationers accounted
for most (82%) of the adults under community
supervision. The probation population declined
from an estimated 3,942,800 offenders at yearend
2012 to 3,910,600 at yearend 2013, falling about
32,200 offenders. The decline in the adult community
corrections population was slightly offset by a small
increase in the parole population, which grew from
about 851,200 offenders at yearend 2012 to 853,200 at
yearend 2013.

Bul l etin

Probation and Parole in the
United States, 2013
Figure 1
Adults under community supervision at yearend,
2000–2013
Yearend population (in millions)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from
previously published statistics. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and
Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013.

HIGHLIGHTS
„„ At yearend 2013, an estimated 4,751,400 adults were

„„ The incarceration rate among probationers at risk of

under community supervision—down about 29,900
offenders from yearend 2012.

violating their conditions of supervision increased
slightly to 5.4% in 2013, following a 4-year period of
gradual decline.

„„ Approximately 1 in 51 adults in the United States was

under community supervision at yearend 2013.
„„ Between yearend 2012 and 2013, the adult probation

population declined by about 32,200 offenders, falling
to an estimated 3,910,600 offenders at yearend 2013.
„„ Movement both onto and off probation increased

during 2013, with about 2,094,100 entries and
2,131,300 exits.
„„ During 2013, 66% of probationers who exited

supervision were discharged because they either
completed their term of supervision or received an
early discharge—a slight decrease from 68% in 2012.

„„ The adult parole population increased by about 2,100

offenders between yearend 2012 and 2013, to about
853,200 offenders at yearend 2013.
„„ Both parole entries (down 6.2%) and exits (down 7.8%)

declined between 2012 and 2013, with approximately
922,900 movements onto and off parole during 2013.
„„ The reincarceration rate among parolees at risk of

violating their conditions of supervision increased
slightly, from approximately 9% during 2012 to about
10% in 2013, reversing a 6-year trend of decline.

BJS

TABLE 1
U.S. adult residents on community supervision, probation, and
parole, 2000–2013
Community supervision
Year
population
2000
4,565,100
2001
4,665,900
2002
4,748,300
2003
4,847,500
2004
4,916,500
2005
4,946,800
2006
5,035,200
2007
5,119,300
2008
5,095,200
2009
5,017,900
2010
4,887,900
2011
4,814,200
2012
4,781,300
2013
4,751,400
Average annual percent
change, 2000–2012
0.4%
Percent change,
2012–2013
-0.6

Probation
3,839,500
3,934,700
3,995,200
4,074,000
4,140,600
4,162,500
4,237,000
4,293,200
4,271,000
4,198,200
4,055,500
3,971,300
3,942,800
3,910,600

Parole
725,500
731,100
753,100
773,500
775,900
784,400
798,200
826,100
828,200
824,100
840,700
853,900
851,200
853,200

0.2%

1.3%

-0.8

0.2

Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Detail may not sum to total due to
rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published statistics. Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over
time. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole
Survey, 2000–2013.

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 year,
characteristics of the populations at yearend, and other
information. Reporting methods for some probation and
parole agencies have changed over time (see Methodology).
Appendix tables present additional 2013 data by jurisdiction.
Community supervision population declined in 2013,
due to a drop in probationers
The number of U.S. adults under community supervision
declined by about 29,900 (down 0.6%) between yearend
2012 and 2013, dropping to an estimated 4,751,400 offenders
at yearend 2013 (table 1). The number of adults under
community supervision at yearend declined for the first
time in 2008 and continued to decrease each year through
2013. This decline follows more than two and a half decades
of population growth (ranging from 0.6% to12.9%), as the
number of adults under community supervision increased
each year from 1980 to 2007. For trend data beginning in
1980, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011 (NCJ
239686, BJS web, November 2012).

BJS 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.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

2

The probation population declined by about 32,200 between
yearend 2012 and 2013, falling to an estimated 3,910,600
offenders at yearend 2013 (figure 2; appendix table 2). During
the same period, the parole population grew by about 2,100,
increasing to an estimated 853,200 offenders at yearend 2013
(figure 3; appendix table 4).
The community supervision population was adjusted to
account for parolees who were also serving a probation
sentence which led to a slight difference in the observed
number of adults under community supervision at yearend
2013. (See Methodology for discussion of adjustments.)

Rate of adults under community supervision continued to
decline during 2013
Community supervision and probation rates declined each
year from 2007 to 2013, while parole rates fluctuated. The
rate of adults under community supervision fell from 1,980
offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2012 to
1,950 at yearend 2013, which was consistent with the decline in
the number of adults under community supervision (table 2).
The probation rate dropped from 1,633 offenders per 100,000
U.S. adult residents at yearend 2012 to 1,605 at yearend 2013.

FIGURE 2
Adults on probation at yearend, 2000–2013

FIGURE 3
Adults on parole at yearend, 2000–2013

Yearend population (in millions)
5

Yearend population
1,000,000

4

800,000

3

600,000

2

400,000

1

200,000

0

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously published
statistics. 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, 2000–2013.

0

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously published
statistics. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013.

TABLE 2
U.S. adult residents on community supervision, probation, and parole, 2000, 2005–2013
Year
2000
2005
2006
2007
2008c
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

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
2,014
1,662
357
1,980
1,633
353
1,950
1,605
350

U.S. adult residents on—
Community supervisionb
Probation
1 in 46
1 in 55
1 in 45
1 in 54
1 in 45
1 in 53
1 in 45
1 in 53
1 in 45
1 in 54
1 in 47
1 in 56
1 in 48
1 in 58
1 in 50
1 in 60
1 in 50
1 in 61
1 in 51
1 in 62

Parole
1 in 291
1 in 285
1 in 283
1 in 277
1 in 279
1 in 284
1 in 281
1 in 280
1 in 284
1 in 286

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Rates based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. Rates based on the community
supervision, probation, and parole population counts as of December 31 of the reporting year and the estimated U.S. adult resident population on January 1 of each
subsequent year.
aIncludes adults on probation and adults on parole. For 2008 to 2013, detail may not sum to total because the community supervision rate was adjusted to exclude parolees
who were also on probation. See Methodology.
bIncludes adults on probation and parole.
cSee Methodology for estimating change in population counts.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, 2000, 2005–2013; and U.S. Census Bureau, National Intercensal Estimates, 2001,
2005–2010, and Population Estimates, January 1, 2011–2014.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

3

Although the number of offenders on parole increased
somewhat, the rate declined slightly (from 353 parolees
per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2012 to 350 at
yearend 2013), given that the U.S. adult resident population
also increased.

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
FIGURE 4
Estimated probation entries and exits, 2000–2013

Probation entries increased following five consecutive
years of decline; exits increased after three consecutive
years of decline
During 2013, movement both onto and off probation increased
(figure 4). Probation entries increased (up 2.2%) from about
2,048,300 entries during 2012 to 2,094,100 during 2013.
Probation exits also increased (up 2.0%) during the same
period, from about 2,089,800 exits during 2012 to 2,131,300
during 2013. Overall, more than 4.2 million movements
occurred onto and off probation during 2013, compared to
nearly 4.1 million during 2012.
During 2009, the number of exits from probation exceeded the
number of entries for the first time since data collection began.
This trend continued during 2013, with exits from probation
exceeding entries by approximately 37,200. (See Methodology
for a discussion of estimating change in population counts.)

Number
2,500,000
2,400,000
Probation entries

2,300,000
2,200,000

Probation exits

2,100,000
2,000,000

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13

Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates based on most recent data and
may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000–2013.

Completion rates for probationers have remained stable
since 2009
The completion rate—turnover due to completing the term
of supervision either through a full-term completion or early
discharge—was 36 exits per 100 probationers during 2013. This
rate is consistent with rates observed since 2009 (table 3).

TABLE 3
Rate of probation exits, by type of exit, 2008–2013
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 time served on probation (in months)e

2008
55
35
9
2
-6
--2
22 mo.

2009
55
36
9
2
-6
--2
22 mo.

2010
55
36
9
1
-6
--2
22 mo.

2011
55
36
9
1
-5
--2
22 mo.

2012
53
36
8
1
-5
--2
23 mo.

2013
54
36
8
1
-6
--2
22 mo.

Note: Rate per 100 probationers. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Rates based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics.
See Methodology.
--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 who were discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement; had their sentence dismissed or overturned by the
court through an appeal; had their sentence administratively closed, deferred, or terminated by the court; were awaiting a hearing; and were released on bond.
eCalculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2013.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

4

indirect measure of the average time an offender can expect
to serve on probation. The exit rate increased slightly during
2013, from 53 per 100 probationers in 2012 to 54 per 100 in
2013, which resulted in a small decline in the mean length
of stay on probation (from 23 months in 2012 to 22 months
in 2013).
During 2013, 66% of the 2,131,300 probationers who exited
supervision were discharged because they either completed
their term of supervision or received an early discharge—a
slight decrease from 68% in 2012 (table 4).
Incarceration rate among at-risk probationers increased
slightly during 2013
The incarceration rate among probationers at risk of violating
their conditions of supervision—including incarceration for
a new offense, a revocation, and other reasons—increased
slightly, from 5.1% in 2012 to 5.4% in 2013 (figure 5). This
increase followed a 4-year period of gradual decline, from 6.0%
in 2008 to 5.1% in 2012. The incarceration rate is defined as
the ratio of the number of probationers who were discharged
during the year as the result of incarceration to the number
of probationers who were at risk of incarceration at any
point during the year. The probation population at risk of
incarceration is comprised of the population at the beginning
of the year and all probation entries during the year.
Percentage of females on probation increased slightly
since 2000
The percentage of females in the adult probation population
increased slightly over the past decade, climbing from 22% in
2000 to 25% in 2013 (appendix table 3). At yearend 2013, over

half (54%) of probationers were non-Hispanic white, 30% were
non-Hispanic black, and 14% were Hispanic or Latino—
a similar distribution for race and Hispanic origin observed
since 2000.
The percentage of probationers supervised for a felony offense
increased from 52% in 2000 to 55% in 2013. The percentage of
probationers on active status has decreased since 2000, falling
from 76% in 2000 to 69% in 2013.
FIGURE 5
Estimated percent of the at-risk probation population
incarcerated, 2000–2013
Percent
8
6
4
2
0

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published statistics. 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, 2000–2013.

TABLE 4
Probationers who exited supervision, by type of exit, 2008–2013
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

2012
100%
68%
15
3
1
9
1
1
4
2,089,800

2013
100%
66%
15
3
-11
1
1
3
2,131,300

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Percents based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. Percents based on probationers
with known type of exit. Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over time. See Methodology.
-- Less than 0.5%.
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 who were discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement; had their sentence dismissed or overturned by the
court through an appeal; had their sentence administratively closed, deferred, or terminated by the court; were awaiting a hearing; and were released on bond.
dCounts rounded to the nearest 100. Calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. Includes estimates for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2008–2013.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

5

California Public Safety Realignment
California’s Public Safety Realignment (PSR) policy responded to
a U.S. Supreme Court mandate to reduce prison overcrowding.
The policy took effect on October 1, 2011. The PSR is designed
to reduce the prison population through normal attrition of the
existing population while placing new offenders not convicted
of violent, serious, or sexual offenses under county jurisdiction
for incarceration in local jail facilities rather than state prisons.
Under the PSR, offenders not convicted of violent, serious, or
sexual offenses who are serving time in state prisons become
eligible for post-release community supervision (PRCS) rather
than the traditional state parole. Some new offenders receive
a straight sentence to county jail, while other new offenders’
sentences include a term of mandatory supervision (MS) in the
community following release from incarceration. Both the PRCS
and MS populations fall within the BJS definition of parole,
which includes post-custody conditional supervision.
At yearend 2013, California’s combined parole population
(87,500 offenders) included an estimated 45,600 offenders
under state parole by the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 33,100 offenders on PRCS, and 8,800
offenders on MS (figure 6). At yearend 2010, the year before PSR
took effect, California’s parole population (105,100 offenders)
was comprised entirely of parolees under state parole. By
yearend 2013, the state’s combined parole population declined
by 17,600 offenders. During this time, California’s state parole
population declined by 59,500 offenders, while the PRCS and
MS populations increased to 41,900 offenders. Nationally, the
parole population grew by 12,500 offenders (up 1.5%) between
yearend 2010 and yearend 2013. The increase of about 4.1%
(up 30,100 offenders) in jurisdictions other than California
since 2010 was partially offset by the decrease in California’s
parole population.
Combined total entries to parole in California declined 64%,
from 166,300 offenders in 2010 (when all entries were to state
parole) to an estimated 60,000 in 2013 (figure 7).1 This was the
result of a decrease in entries to state parole of nearly 80%, to an
estimated 35,400 during 2013.
1Entries

and exits to state parole supervision for 2013 were not available
from the CDCR and were imputed by BJS. See Methodology.

FIGURE 6
California adult parole population, 2010 and 2013
Population
120,000
2010
100,000

2013

80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0

Combined state State parole
parole, post-release
custody supervision, and
mandatory supervision

/
Post-release
custody
supervision

/
Mandatory
supervision

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published statistics. See Methodology.
/ Value equals zero.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2010 and 2013.

FIGURE 7
California parole entries, 2010 and 2013
Entries
180,000

2010

150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000

2013*

30,000
0

Combined state
State
parole, post-release parole
custody supervision, and
mandatory supervision

/
Post-release
custody
supervision

/
Mandatory
supervision

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published statistics. See Methodology.
*Data were imputed.
/ Value equals zero.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2010 and 2013.

continued on next page

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

6

California Public Safety Realignment (continued)
The smaller number of entries to state parole during 2013
was partially offset by entries to the newly established PRCS
and MS. In 2013, state parolees accounted for 59% (35,400) of
combined total entries, PRCS accounted for 30% (17,900), and
MS accounted for 11% (6,700). In 2013, combined total exits
(67,600) from parole supervision exceeded entries (60,000).
(figure 8).

Since PSR was implemented, entries to probation increased
nearly 15%, from an estimated 149,000 offenders in 2010 to
170,800 in 2013. During the same period, California’s probation
population remained relatively stable, growing 0.4% (up about
1,200 offenders) (table 5).

FIGURE 8
California parole exits, 2010 and 2013

TABLE 5
California adult probation population, 2010 and 2013

Exits
180,000

2010

Year
2010
2013

150,000
120,000
90,000
60,000

Percent change of population
Probation entries
Probation exits
Yearend probation population

2013*

Probation
exits
167,883
166,655

December 31
probation
population
292,874
294,057

14.6%
-0.7
0.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2010 and 2013.

30,000
0
Combined state
State
parole, post-release parole
custody supervision, and
mandatory supervision

Probation
entries
149,029
170,803

/
Post-release
custody
supervision

/
Mandatory
supervision

Note: Estimates based on most recent data and may differ from previously
published statistics. See Methodology.
*Data were imputed.
/ Value equals zero
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2010 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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

7

U.S. parole population increased slightly in 2013

Parole turnover rate decreased for fourth consecutive year

From yearend 2012 to 2013, the parole population increased
slightly (up about 2,100 offenders), from an estimated 851,200
offenders at yearend 2012 to 853,200 at yearend 2013. Both the
state (up about 1,600 offenders) and federal (up 500 offenders)
parole populations grew slightly during this period.

The parole turnover rate fell from 58 exits per 100 parolees in
2012 to 54 per 100 parolees in 2013, continuing a downward
trend that started in 2009 (table 6). This decline resulted in an
increase in the mean length of stay on parole, rising from 21
months in 2012 to 22 months in 2013.

Parole entries and exits declined during 2013; exits
decreased at a faster rate

The rate of parolees who completed their term of supervision
or received an early discharge decreased from 34 per 100
parolees in 2012 to 33 per 100 parolees in 2013, while the
rate of parolees who exited supervision and returned to
incarceration increased from 15 per 100 parolees in 2012 to 16
per 100 parolees in 2013.

In 2013, about 922,900 movements occurred onto and off
parole, with an estimated 465,400 entries and about 457,500
exits (figure 9). Both entries and exits have declined since
2009. During 2013, the decline in exits (7.8%) exceeded the
decline in entries (6.2%). The decline in entries to parole was
consistent with the 2.1% decline in the number of prison
releases from yearend 2012 to yearend 2013. For more
information, see Prisoners in 2013 (NCJ 247282, BJS web,
September 2014).
FIGURE 9
Estimated parole entries and exits, 2000–2013
Number
600,000
Parole entries
550,000

500,000

Parole exits

450,000

400,000

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13

Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates based on most recent data and
may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013.

TABLE 6
Rate of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008–2013
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

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

2010
67
35
22
6
16
1
6
1
1
1
1

2011
63
33
20
5
13
2
6
1
1
1
2

2012 2013
58
54
34
33
15
16
5
5
8
10
2
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

17 mo. 17 mo. 18 mo. 19 mo. 21 mo. 22 mo.

Note: Rate per 100 parolees. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Rates
based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. See
Methodology. Rates based on parolees with known type of exit. See appendix table 7
for type of exit by jurisdiction.
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
reported as unsatisfactory exits.
cIncludes, but not limited to, parolees who were discharged from supervision
because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, had their sentence terminated by the court through
an appeal, or were transferred to another state through an interstate compact
agreement and discharged to probation supervision.
dCalculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2013.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

8

Incarceration rate among at-risk parolees increased
slightly during 2013
An estimated 10% of all parolees who were at risk of
reincarceration were incarcerated during 2013—an increase
from 9% in 2012 (figure 10). The incarceration rate is defined
as the ratio of the number of parolees who were discharged
during the year as the result of incarceration to the number of
parolees who were at risk of incarceration at any point during
the year. The parole population at risk of incarceration is
defined as the sum of the population at the beginning of the
year and all parole entries during the year.
During 2013, 3.1% of parolees who were at risk of
reincarceration were incarcerated for a new sentence,
compared to 2.9% during 2012. The rate at which parolees
were reincarcerated as a result of revocation increased slightly,
from about 5.3% in 2012 to 6.1% in 2013.
Most characteristics of parolees were unchanged
during 2013
Characteristics of adult parolees remained stable when
compared to those in 2012. Males continued to make up
about 88% of the adult parole population (appendix table 6).
Approximately 43% of parolees were non-Hispanic white, 38%
were non-Hispanic black, and 17% were Hispanic or Latino.
The percentage of parolees on active supervision increased
from 82% in 2012 to 84% in 2013. During the same period, the
majority (95%) of parolees had a maximum sentence of one
year or more and 29% of parolees were being supervised for a
violent offense—both levels unchanged from those observed
in 2012.

FIGURE 10
Estimated percent of the at-risk parole population returned to
incarceration, 2000–2013
Percent
20

15
Incarceration
10
Revocation
5
New sentence
0

‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13

Note: Percents based on most recent data and may differ from previously published
statistics. See Methodology. Estimates based on parolees with known type of exit.
See appendix table 7 for type of exit by jurisdiction. 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.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2013.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

9

Methodology

Parole

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 2013 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 54 respondents: 50
central state reporters; one municipal agency in Alabama; the
state parole agency in Pennsylvania, which also provided data
for 65 counties in Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and
the federal system.

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 entries and exits to supervision
during the reporting year, and characteristics of the population
at yearend. See appendix tables for detailed data.

Additional information about the data collection instruments
is available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov.

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.

Some offenders on probation or parole may have had dual
community correctional statuses because they were serving
separate probation and parole sentences concurrently. With
the 2007 data, BJS began collecting information on the
number of parolees who were also on probation at yearend.
To avoid double counting, the total community supervision
populations from 2008 through 2013 reported in figure 1 (and
the 2013 counts in appendix table 1) have been adjusted based
on available information by excluding the total number of
parolees who were also on probation. As a result, the probation
and parole counts from 2008 through 2013 do not sum to the
total community supervision population in the same year.

During 2013, Westat (Rockville, MD) served as BJS’s collection
agent for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data
for the federal system were provided directly to BJS from
the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative
Office of the United States Courts through the Federal Justice
Statistics Program.
Probation
The 2013 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 468
respondents: 33 central state reporters; 435 separate state,
county, or court agencies, including the state probation agency
in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for 65 counties
in Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the federal
system. 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), Pennsylvania (2),
Tennessee (3), Washington (33), and West Virginia (2).
Two localities in Colorado, five in Florida, 13 in Michigan,
nine in Ohio, and two in Washington did not provide data
for the 2013 collection. For these localities, the agency’s most
recent December 31 population was used to estimate the
January 1 and December 31, 2013, populations. The largest
respondent in Oklahoma, composing the majority of the state’s
probation population, provided limited estimates for the 2013
collection that were used in the state and national totals but
not used to estimate Oklahoma state populations.

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.

Adjustments to account for offenders with dual
community correctional status

All of the estimates for parolees with dual community
correctional statuses are based on data reported by parole
agencies that were able to provide the information for the
reporting year (table 7). Some probation and parole agencies
TABLE 7
Parolees on probation excluded from the January 1 and
December 31 community supervision populations, 2008–2013
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

January 1*
3,562
3,905
8,259
8,259
10,958
12,672

December 31
3,905
4,959
8,259
10,958
12,672
12,511

Note: Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published
statistics.
*For 2008–2009 and 2011–2013, data were based on the count as of December 31 of
the prior reporting year. For 2010, the count as of December 31, 2010, was used as a
proxy because additional states reported these data in 2010.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole
Survey, 2008–2013.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

10

were not able to provide these data. Therefore, the total
number of parolees also on probation from 2008 through 2013
may be underestimated, which may result in overestimations
of the total population under community supervision.
Reporting changes in the number of adults on probation
and parole, 2000–2013
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 following)
between 2000 and 2012 in the probation population counts
resulted in an overall decline of about 136,543 probationers
(table 8). Discrepancies between the yearend and following
year parole population count resulted in an increase of about
11,158 parolees between 2000 and 2012 (table 9).
TABLE 8
Change in the number of adults on probation based on
reporting changes, 2000–2012
December 31
Year
probation population
2000
3,839,532
2001
3,934,713
2002
3,995,165
2003
4,073,987
2004
4,140,638
2005
4,162,495
2006
4,237,023
2007
4,293,163
2008
4,270,917
2009
4,198,155
2010
4,055,514
2011
3,971,319
2012
3,942,776
Total change, yearend 2000–2012
71,115

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
3,019
-136,543

Note: Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published
statistics.
*Calculated as the difference between the December 31 probation population in the
reporting year and the January 1 probation population in the following year.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

Probation coverage expanded, 1998–1999
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. For a discussion of this
expansion, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010
(NCJ 236019, BJS web, November 2011).
Estimating change in population 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.
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
127,688

Change*
-1,629
1,186
-2,207
23,614
-4,023
-3,738
1,656
-4,920
1,391
13,703
-78
-2,190
-11,607
11,158

Note: Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published
statistics.
*Calculated as the difference between the December 31 probation population in
the reporting year and the January 1 parole population in the following year.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000–2012.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

11

At the national level, 2,014 probationers were the difference
between the change in the probation population measured
by the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2013,
populations and the difference between probation entries
and exits during 2013. For parole, 5,702 parolees were the
difference between the change in the parole population
measured by the difference between January 1 and December
31, 2013, populations and the difference between parole entries
and exits during 2013.
The percentage 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.
In figures 1, 2, and 3, the annual percentage change was based
on the difference between the December 31 populations
for each 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 within-year change.
Imputing for nonreporting agencies during 2013
BJS used the methods described below to impute missing
probation and parole data for key items, including the January
1, 2013, population, entries, exits, and the December 31, 2013,
population.

Imputing the January 1, 2013, probation population
When the January 1, 2013, probation population was
missing, the December 31, 2012, probation population
value was carried over. This method was used to estimate
the January 1, 2013, probation population in nonreporting
counties and district agencies in Colorado, Florida, Michigan,
Ohio, and Washington.

Imputing the December 31, 2013, probation population
When the December 31, 2013, probation population was
missing along with either the total entries or total exits, the
missing value was imputed by estimating the net difference
between the December 31, 2013, population and the January 1,
2013, population based on the ratio of the 2012 net difference
between the December 31, 2012, population and the January
1, 2012, population to the January 1, 2012, population, and
then adding the estimated difference to the January 1, 2013,
population. This method was used to estimate the December
31, 2013, probation population in nonreporting counties
and district agencies in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio,
and Washington.

Imputing probation entries
Based on the availability of data, BJS used three methods of
ratio estimation to impute probation entries for agencies not
reporting these data. The first method was used to estimate
entries for probation agencies that were unable to report these
data in 2013 but were able to report in 2012. BJS estimated
probation entries in 2013 by using the ratio of entries in

2012 to the agency’s probation population on January 1,
2012, and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1, 2013,
population. This method was used to estimate probation
entries in nonreporting counties and district agencies in
Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and
Washington.
The second method was used to estimate 2013 probation
entries for agencies that did not report entries in both 2012
and 2013. The ratio of 2013 entries to the January 1, 2013,
population among reporting agencies of similar size within
the state was used to estimate the number of entries for
nonreporting agencies. This method was used to estimate
probation entries and exits for nonreporting counties and
district agencies in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington.
The third method was used to estimate probation entries by
using the ratio of 2012 imputed entries to the January 1, 2012,
probation population and applying that ratio to the agency’s
January 1, 2013, population. This method was used to estimate
probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in
Colorado, New Mexico, and Rhode Island.

Imputing parole entries
To estimate parole entries for parole agencies that were unable
to report these data in 2013 but were able to report in 2012,
BJS calculated the ratio of entries in 2012 to the agency’s parole
population on January 1, 2012, and applied that ratio to the
agency’s January 1, 2013, population. This method was used to
estimate parole entries 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 2013 to the agency’s population on January
1, 2013, and subtracted that estimate from the population on
December 31, 2013. For probation, this method was used in
Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio,
Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia. For parole, this
method was used in California.
Calculating mean length of 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.2 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.
2See

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

12

Community supervision outcome measures
The percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees
who completed supervision are defined as the number of
probationers or parolees who completed supervision during
the year and were discharged, among all probationers or
parolees who were discharged from supervision during the
year. The formula used to calculate this outcome measure is
C(t)/D(t), where D(t) = C(t) + I(t) + O(t). In this formula,
t equals the year referenced, C(t) equals the number
of probationers or parolees who were discharged from
supervision during the year after completing their terms or
who received an early discharge, and D(t) equals the total
number who were discharged from supervision during
the year. D(t) includes C(t), the number of offenders who
completed supervision; I(t), the number who were incarcerated
during the year; and O(t), the number who were discharged
during the year for other reasons.
The percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees
incarcerated 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; 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 and parolee to be
incarcerated at any time during the year.
Change in the Annual Parole Survey
In 2008, the Annual Parole Survey included a new category
for type of entry to parole, term of supervised release (TSR).
TSR is a fixed period of release to the community that follows
a fixed period of incarceration based on a determinate

sentencing statute; both are determined by a judge at the time
of sentencing. Accordingly, some states began reporting term
of supervised releases in 2008. The new category was added to
better classify the large majority of entries to parole reported
by the federal system. For detail on estimation methods to
analyze national trends for all types of entry to parole, see
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010 (NCJ 236019,
BJS web, November 2011).
Types of federal offenders under community supervision
Since the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was enacted on
November 1, 1987, offenders sentenced to federal prison are
no longer eligible for parole but are required to serve a term
of supervised release following release from prison. Those
sentenced to prison prior to November 1, 1987, continue
to be eligible for parole, as do persons violating laws of the
District of Columbia, military offenders, and foreign treaty
transfer offenders (see http://www.uscourts.gov/news/
TheThirdBranch/11-05-01/Parole_in_the_Federal_Probation_
System.aspx).
The Sentencing Reform Act also 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, BJS web, August 1998), and updated in the report,
Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2002: With trends 1982-2002,
Reconciled Data (NCJ 207447, BJS web, January 2005).

Probation: Explanatory notes
Colorado—Nonreporting agencies in 2013—two local agencies
did not report data. The most recently available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and
December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting
agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing
entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Florida—Nonreporting agencies in 2013—five local agencies
did not report data. The most recently available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and
December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting
agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing
entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
Georgia—Probation counts may overstate the number of
persons under probation supervision because the agency
that reports county data has the capacity to report probation
cases and not the number of persons under supervision.
Probationers with multiple sentences could potentially have
one or more cases with one or more private probation agencies
in one jurisdiction and/or one or more private probation
agencies within jurisdictions.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

13

Georgia reporting changes between 2012 and 2013—data are
not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting
on January 1, 2013, Georgia began including previously
unaccounted misdemeanant probationers in its population
counts. This change in reporting methods resulted in an
increase of 73,835 probationers on January 1, 2013 (515,896),
compared to December 31, 2012 (442,061).

Parole: Explanatory notes

Maryland—Reporting changes between 2012 and 2013—data
for 2013 are not comparable to those reported in previous
years. Starting on January 1, 2013, Maryland began reporting
on the number of persons under supervision, as opposed to
cases, resulting in a decrease of 55,517 probationers on January
1, 2013 (41,123), compared to December 31, 2012 (96,640).

California reporting changes between 2012 and 2013—data are
not comparable to those reported in previous years. Starting
on January 1, 2013, the number of persons under mandatory
supervision were included in the total parole population and
adjustments were made to the number of parolees under
post-release community supervision, resulting in an increase
of 5,833 parolees on January 1, 2013 (95,120), compared to
December 31, 2012 (89,287).

Michigan—Nonreporting agencies in 2013—13 local agencies
did not report data. The most recently available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and
December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting
agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing
entries and exits for nonreporting agencies. Closed agencies in
2013—three agencies were removed from the roster because its
cases were transferred to two other agencies.

California—Closed agency in 2013—one agency was removed
from the roster because it no longer supervised parolees for the
state. Nonreporting agencies in 2013—one agency was not able
to report entries and exits due to a high-level data conversion
project.

California’s total parole population includes 33,847 persons on
January 1, 2013, and 33,129 persons on December 31, 2013,
who were under post-release community supervision as a
result of California's Public Safety Realignment. These persons
account for 17,867 parolees entering and 18,585 parolees
exiting supervision during 2013.

Ohio—Nonreporting agencies in 2013—nine local agencies
did not report data. The most recently available December 31
population count was used to estimate January 1, 2013, and
December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for nonreporting
agencies during 2013 for additional information on imputing
entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.

California’s total parole population includes 4,934 persons on
January 1, 2013, and 8,818 persons on December 31, 2013,
under mandatory supervision. These persons account for
6,692 parolees entering and 2,808 parolees exiting supervision
during 2013. Detailed information on the types of entries and
exits were not available for these populations.

Oklahoma—Nonreporting agencies in 2013—one agency did
not report data but provided estimates for the January 1, 2013,
and December 31, 2013, populations, entries, and exits that
were used in the state and national totals.

Appendix tables

Pennsylvania—Reporting changes between 2012 and 2013—
data for 2013 are not comparable to those reported in previous
years. Beginning on January 1, 2013, Pennsylvania resolved
a double-counting issue, resulting in a decrease of 15,552
probationers on January 1, 2013 (162,225), compared to
December 31, 2012 (177,777).
Washington—Nonreporting agencies in 2013—two local
agencies did not report data. The most recently available
December 31 population count was used to estimate January
1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, populations. See Imputing for
nonreporting agencies during 2013 for additional information
on imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies.
West Virginia—Closed agency in 2013—one agency was
removed from the roster because its counts were included in
the data from other agencies.

Community supervision
Appendix table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2013
Probation
Appendix table 2. Adults on probation, 2013
Appendix table 3. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000,
2012, and 2013
Parole
Appendix table 4. Adults on parole, 2013
Appendix table 5. Adults entering parole, by type of entry,
2013
Appendix table 6. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000,
2012, and 2013
Appendix table 7. Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2013
Appendix table 8. Percent of parole exits, by type of exit,
2008–2013

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

14

Appendix Table 1
Adults under community supervision, 2013
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaskae
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Coloradod,e
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Floridad,e
Georgiaf
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuckye
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
Oklahomad
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islande
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washingtond,e
West Virginiae
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Entries
Community supervision
a
population, 1/1/2013
Reported Imputedb
4,772,700
2,464,400 2,559,500
130,400
59,000
59,000
4,642,300
2,405,400 2,500,500
71,000
23,200
23,200
9,200
1,100
2,800
79,900
39,000
39,000
52,300
17,800
17,800
390,100
195,400
230,800
89,300
62,700
63,200
50,600
23,900
23,900
16,200
13,600
13,600
13,500
6,900
6,900
245,100
171,500
180,500
536,200
305,000
305,000
23,900
5,800
5,800
34,800
11,300
11,300
152,000
88,400
88,400
133,400
93,000
93,000
34,300
20,100
20,100
22,100
24,900
24,900
72,100
42,100
42,100
69,700
30,900
30,900
7,000
3,200
3,200
46,800
38,200
38,200
70,800
76,300
76,300
202,100
109,800
125,000
111,900
52,900
52,900
37,600
12,700
12,700
76,400
39,500
39,500
9,200
4,400
4,400
14,500
12,200
12,200
16,700
9,500
9,500
6,300
4,300
4,300
129,600
47,700
47,700
19,400
7,300
9,700
156,400
53,900
53,900
99,900
64,600
64,600
5,200
4,200
4,200
271,700
135,800
149,300
..
..
..
59,700
23,200
23,200
254,500
152,100
152,100
24,300
400
5,100
40,100
16,000
16,000
9,500
4,300
4,300
77,100
31,000
31,000
515,100
191,600
191,600
14,400
7,600
7,600
7,000
4,100
4,100
54,400
29,400
29,400
100,400
53,800
57,400
10,500
1,900
3,200
64,500
29,300
29,300
5,600
3,400
3,400

Exits
Reported
2,445,200
57,500
2,387,700
23,400
800
38,900
20,300
188,100
62,300
27,700
13,200
7,900
177,600
304,500
6,300
11,700
86,900
92,400
19,700
26,500
28,300
29,900
3,400
36,200
77,100
111,300
57,000
11,700
45,400
4,300
11,900
8,600
4,300
49,100
6,700
58,900
62,400
4,000
140,700
..
21,800
130,900
400
15,300
4,200
32,300
198,600
7,500
4,200
29,800
45,800
2,700
28,600
3,000

Imputedb
2,588,700
57,500
2,531,200
23,400
2,500
38,900
20,300
234,200
62,800
27,700
13,200
7,900
187,100
304,500
6,300
11,700
86,900
92,400
19,700
26,500
48,300
29,900
3,400
36,200
77,100
129,000
57,000
11,700
45,400
4,300
11,900
8,600
4,300
49,100
9,700
58,900
62,400
4,000
162,100
..
21,800
130,900
5,900
15,300
4,200
32,300
198,600
7,500
4,200
29,800
56,700
2,700
28,600
3,000

Community supervision
population, 12/31/2013a
4,751,400
131,900
4,619,400
70,800
9,500
79,200
50,200
381,600
89,700
45,400
16,700
12,600
237,800
536,200
23,300
35,200
153,400
134,000
34,700
20,500
65,900
70,700
6,700
46,300
70,000
195,200
107,800
38,600
70,400
9,500
14,800
17,600
6,300
128,100
18,700
151,400
100,600
5,500
267,400
..
61,100
275,800
23,400
40,900
9,500
77,900
508,000
14,500
6,900
55,800
111,100
11,000
65,300
6,000

Number under community
supervision per 100,000
Number Percent adult residents, 12/31/2013c
-21,300 -0.4%
1,950
1,500
1.2%
54
-22,800 -0.5%
1,895
-200 -0.3
1,896
300
3.5
1,728
-700 -0.9
1,570
-2,100 -4.1
2,223
-8,500 -2.2
1,301
400
0.5
2,209
-5,200 -10.3
1,608
500
2.8
2,299
-900 -6.9
2,326
-7,300 -3.0
1,521
-100
-7,117
-600 -2.3
2,116
400
1.1
2,957
1,500
1.0
1,552
600
0.5
2,677
400
1.2
1,462
-1,600 -7.4
942
-6,200 -8.6
1,943
1,000
1.4
2,006
-200 -3.2
631
-400 -0.9
1,006
-900 -1.2
1,313
-6,900 -3.4
2,545
-4,200 -3.7
2,590
1,000
2.7
1,707
-6,000 -7.8
1,511
300
2.8
1,194
300
2.3
1,048
900
5.5
823
/
:
593
-1,400 -1.1
1,856
-700 -3.5
1,184
-5,000 -3.2
979
700
0.7
1,323
200
4.6
959
-4,300 -1.6
2,989
..
..
..
1,400
2.3
1,981
21,200
8.3
2,734
-900 -3.5
2,791
800
2.1
1,102
/
:
1,489
800
1.0
1,550
-7,100 -1.4
2,597
100
0.8
717
-100 -1.5
1,365
1,400
2.6
869
10,800 10.7
2,056
500
4.8
748
800
1.2
1,468
400
6.3
1,338
Change, 2013

Note: Counts rounded to the nearest 100. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology.
Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the community supervision population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2013, does not equal the population on January 1, 2013, plus entries,
minus exits.
--Less than 0.05%.
: Not calculated.
..Not known.
/Not reported.
aThe January 1 population excludes 12,672 offenders and the December 31 population excludes 12,511 offenders under community supervision who were on both probation and parole. See
Methodology for more detail on dual status.
bReflects reported data, excluding jurisdictions for which data were unavailable.
cComputed using the estimated U.S. adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2013.
dSee Explanatory notes for more detail.
eData for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology.
fProbation counts include private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. See Methodology and Explanatory notes.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey, 2013.

Appendix Table 2
Adults on probation, 2013
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaskac
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Coloradoc,d
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Floridac,d
Georgiad,e
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuckyc
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michiganc,d
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexicoc
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohioc,d
Oklahomad
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islandc
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washingtonc,d
West Virginiac
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Entries
Probation population,
1/1/2013
Reported Imputeda
3,945,795
2,034,375 2,094,100
21,698
9,800
9,800
3,924,097
2,024,575 2,084,300
62,368
20,741
20,741
7,154
..
1,700
72,452
27,048
27,048
29,946
8,547
8,547
294,993
170,803
170,803
77,793
53,991
54,500
47,798
21,554
21,554
15,641
13,049
13,049
8,051
5,411
5,411
240,607
165,208
174,200
515,896
290,462
290,462
22,211
4,957
4,957
30,978
9,435
9,435
124,507
60,179
60,179
123,250
83,459
83,459
29,333
16,421
16,421
17,021
21,255
21,255
57,720
31,876
31,876
42,753
14,836
14,836
6,942
3,209
3,209
41,123
34,766
34,766
68,673
73,505
73,505
183,031
99,214
114,435
105,923
46,948
46,948
30,768
9,574
9,574
55,700
25,618
25,618
8,295
3,793
3,793
13,077
10,447
10,447
11,321
5,448
5,448
4,088
2,759
2,759
114,594
41,451
41,451
16,925
6,294
8,700
110,204
32,320
32,320
96,070
56,843
56,843
4,791
3,173
3,173
257,058
127,348
140,800
..
..
..
36,990
14,272
14,272
162,225
94,442
94,442
23,818
..
4,600
34,625
13,923
13,923
6,744
2,698
2,698
64,129
25,790
25,790
405,653
156,509
156,509
11,379
5,646
5,646
5,955
3,539
3,539
53,607
28,831
28,831
85,270
47,883
51,500
8,465
..
1,300
45,777
22,741
22,741
4,899
2,824
2,824

Exits
Reported
2,033,860
10,822
2,023,038
21,308
..
27,173
9,600
166,655
53,011
25,162
12,651
6,111
171,448
291,881
5,592
9,038
60,824
83,036
16,453
21,830
18,569
15,543
3,432
32,982
74,394
100,105
51,109
8,667
30,290
3,766
9,979
4,667
2,853
42,814
5,956
36,115
57,623
3,066
134,424
..
13,371
84,697
..
12,723
2,490
27,586
162,507
5,822
3,703
29,262
34,818
1,294
21,760
2,516

Imputeda
2,131,300
10,822
2,120,400
21,308
1,713
27,173
9,600
166,655
53,500
25,162
12,651
6,111
181,000
291,881
5,592
9,038
60,824
83,036
16,453
21,830
38,569
15,543
3,432
32,982
74,394
117,802
51,109
8,667
30,290
3,766
9,979
4,667
2,853
42,814
8,900
36,115
57,623
3,066
155,800
..
13,371
84,697
5,500
12,723
2,490
27,586
162,507
5,822
3,703
29,262
45,700
1,294
21,760
2,516

Number on probation
Change, 2013
Probation population,
per 100,000 adult
12/31/2013
Number Percent residents, 12/31/2013b
3,910,647
-35,148
-0.9%
1,605
20,676
-1,022
-4.7%
8
3,889,971
-34,126
-0.9%
1,596
61,801
-567
-0.9
1,655
7,167
13
0.2
1,308
71,527
-925
-1.3
1,418
29,289
-657
-2.2
1,298
294,057
-936
-0.3
1,003
78,843
1,050
1.3
1,942
42,723
-5,075 -10.6
1,515
16,039
398
2.5
2,209
7,351
-700
-8.7
1,362
233,128
-7,479
-3.1
1,491
514,477
-1,419
-0.3
6,829
21,576
-635
-2.9
1,958
31,375
397
1.3
2,634
123,862
-645
-0.5
1,253
123,673
423
0.3
2,471
29,301
-32
-0.1
1,233
16,446
-575
-3.4
756
51,027
-6,693 -11.6
1,505
42,046
-707
-1.7
1,192
6,719
-223
-3.2
629
40,716
-407
-1
884
67,784
-889
-1.3
1,273
176,795
-6,236
-3.4
2,305
101,762
-4,161
-3.9
2,446
31,675
907
2.9
1,402
51,028
-4,672
-8.4
1,094
8,472
177
2.1
1,066
13,545
468
3.6
960
12,102
781
6.9
565
3,994
-94
-2.3
379
113,231
-1,363
-1.2
1,639
16,696
-229
-1.4
1,057
106,409
-3,795
-3.4
688
94,442
-1,628
-1.7
1,242
4,898
107
2.2
860
250,630
-6,428
-2.5
2,802
..
..
..
..
37,891
901
2.4
1,228
171,970
9,745
6.0
1,705
22,988
-830
-3.5
2,737
35,825
1,200
3.5
964
6,952
208
3.1
1,084
64,216
87
0.1
1,278
399,655
-5,998
-1.5
2,043
11,203
-176
-1.5
554
5,791
-164
-2.8
1,148
54,020
413
0.8
841
95,217
9,947
11.7
1,762
8,465
0
0
574
46,758
981
2.1
1,051
5,207
308
6.3
1,165

Note: Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. Counts may not be actual, as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some or all detailed data.
Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the probation population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2013, does not equal the population on January 1, 2013, plus entries, minus exits.
Reporting methods for some probation agencies changed over time, and probation coverage was expanded in 1998 and 1999. See Methodology.
..Not known.
aDetail may not sum to total due to rounding. Reflects reported data, excluding jurisdictions for which data were unavailable.
bComputed 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.
dSee Explanatory notes for more detail.
eIncludes private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. See Methodology and Explanatory notes.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2013.

APPENDIX TABLE 3
Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2012, and 2013
Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origina
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
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%

2012
100%

2013
100%

78%
22

76%
24

75%
25

54%
31
13
1
1
…

54%
30
13
1
1
…

54%
30
14
1
1
--

76%
…
…
9
9
3
…
3

72%
1
1
7
10
3
3
3

69%
1
1
6
9
2
9
3

52%
46
2

53%
45
2

55%
43
2

…%
…
…
…
…
24
24
18
6
52

19%
4
3
12
28
25
17
15
2
11

19%
4
3
12
29
25
17
14
2
10

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent
data and may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology.
Characteristics based on probationers with known type of status.
--Less than 0.5%.
...Not available.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified.
bIncludes violent and property offenses in 2000 because those data were not
collected separately.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Probation Survey, 2000, 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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

17

APPENDIX TABLE 4

Adults on parole, 2013
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Californiac,d,e
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
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Parole population,
1/1/2013
839,551
108,679
730,872
8,616
2,000
7,460
23,227
95,120
11,458
2,793
601
5,928
4,538
24,673
1,659
3,848
27,456
10,153
5,151
5,126
14,416
27,092
21
5,648
2,130
19,113
6,006
6,804
20,679
943
1,383
5,379
2,167
14,987
2,468
46,222
4,359
427
14,653
2,310
22,755
92,315
481
6,000
2,761
12,981
112,288
2,986
1,037
1,891
15,091
2,052
20,491
729

Entries
Reported
430,018
49,212
380,806
2,428
1,103
11,929
9,238
24,559
8,716
2,367
579
1,467
6,252
14,565
802
1,897
28,236
9,574
3,675
3,600
10,267
16,058
1
3,403
2,785
10,539
5,918
3,106
13,863
608
1,764
4,085
1,496
6,266
1,038
21,570
7,723
1,051
8,450
908
8,930
57,654
408
2,105
1,570
5,229
35,076
1,929
568
534
5,870
1,917
6,592
538

Imputeda
465,500
49,212
416,200
2,428
1,103
11,929
9,238
60,000
8,716
2,367
579
1,467
6,252
14,565
802
1,897
28,236
9,574
3,675
3,600
10,267
16,058
1
3,403
2,785
10,539
5,918
3,106
13,863
608
1,764
4,085
1,496
6,266
1,038
21,570
7,723
1,051
8,450
908
8,930
57,654
408
2,105
1,570
5,229
35,076
1,929
568
534
5,870
1,917
6,592
538

Exits
Reported
411,305
46,665
364,640
2,062
800
11,753
10,660
21,396
9,328
2,520
523
1,772
6,107
12,627
680
2,674
26,106
9,387
3,231
4,661
9,761
14,406
1
3,239
2,749
11,213
5,927
3,009
15,141
530
1,901
3,942
1,407
6,335
762
22,753
4,800
917
6,306
664
8,439
46,167
430
2,549
1,716
4,761
36,062
1,632
510
568
11,017
1,416
6,832
491

Imputeda
457,500
46,665
410,800
2,062
800
11,753
10,660
67,600
9,328
2,520
523
1,772
6,107
12,627
680
2,674
26,106
9,387
3,231
4,661
9,761
14,406
1
3,239
2,749
11,213
5,927
3,009
15,141
530
1,901
3,942
1,407
6,335
762
22,753
4,800
917
6,306
664
8,439
46,167
430
2,549
1,716
4,761
36,062
1,632
510
568
11,017
1,416
6,832
491

Parole population,
12/31/2013
853,215
111,226
741,989
8,982
2,303
7,636
21,709
87,532
10,846
2,640
657
5,623
4,683
26,611
1,738
3,851
29,586
10,340
5,595
4,065
14,922
28,744
21
5,623
2,166
18,439
5,997
6,901
19,401
1,021
1,246
5,522
2,256
14,918
2,010
45,039
7,171
561
16,797
2,554
23,246
103,802
459
5,556
2,595
13,657
111,302
3,283
1,095
1,800
15,908
2,553
20,251
776

Change, 2013
Number
13,664
2,547
11,117
366
303
176
-1,518
-7,588
-612
-153
56
-305
145
1,938
79
3
2,130
187
444
-1,061
506
1,652
/
-25
36
-674
-9
97
-1,278
78
-137
143
89
-69
-458
-1,183
2,812
134
2,144
244
491
11,487
-22
-444
-166
676
-986
297
58
-91
817
501
-240
47

Percent
1.6%
2.3%
1.5%
4.2
15.2
2.4
-6.5
-8
-5.3
-5.5
9.3
-5.1
3.2
7.9
4.8
0.1
7.8
1.8
8.6
-20.7
3.5
6.1
:
-0.4
1.7
-3.5
-0.1
1.4
-6.2
8.3
-9.9
2.7
4.1
-0.5
-18.6
-2.6
64.5
31.4
14.6
10.6
2.2
12
-4.6
-7.4
-6
5.2
-0.9
9.9
5.6
-4.8
5.4
24.4
-1.2
6.4

Number on parole per
100,000 adult residents,
12/31/2013b
350
46
304
241
420
151
962
298
267
94
90
1,042
30
353
158
323
299
207
235
187
440
815
2
122
41
240
144
305
416
128
88
258
214
216
127
291
94
99
188
87
753
1,029
55
150
405
272
569
162
217
28
294
173
455
174

Note: Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology. Counts may not be actual, as reporting agencies may provide estimates on some
or all detailed data. Due to nonresponse or incomplete data, the parole population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2013, does not equal the population on January 1, 2013, plus entries,
minus exits.
: Not calculated.
/ Not reported.
aDetail may not sum to total due to rounding. Reflects reported data, excluding jurisdictions for which data were unavailable.
bComputed using the estimated U.S. adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2014.
cData for entries and exits were estimated when data were incomplete. See Methodology.
dSee Explanatory notes for more detail.
eIncludes post-release community supervision and mandatory supervision parolees: 38,781 on January 1, 2013; and 24,559 entries, 21,393 exits, and 41,947 on December 31, 2013.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2013.

APPENDIX TABLE 5

Adults entering parole, by type of entry, 2013
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaskaf
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idahof
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandf
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 Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermontf
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Total reported
430,018
49,212
380,806
2,428
1,103
11,929
9,238
24,559
8,716
2,367
579
1,467
6,252
14,565
802
1,897
28,236
9,574
3,675
3,600
10,267
16,058
1
3,403
2,785
10,539
5,918
3,106
13,863
608
1,764
4,085
1,496
6,266
1,038
21,570
7,723
1,051
8,450
908
8,930
57,654
408
2,105
1,570
5,229
35,076
1,929
568
534
5,870
1,917
6,592
538

Discretionarya
183,899
361
183,538
..
..
146
5,912
..
3,668
1,344
..
253
38
14,565
791
1,408
13
0
3,675
0
6,724
616
0
..
2,444
9,174
0
2,596
10,869
608
1,723
2,814
773
4,226
..
5,624
33
1,051
91
908
1,354
54,749
408
773
472
4,990
33,737
1,764
320
156
193
1,917
119
499

Mandatoryb
109,768
862
108,906
..
..
117
1,224
..
2,793
..
..
0
5,569
0
0
~
26,729
9,574
0
9
3,543
15,105
0
..
0
629
5,918
0
834
0
0
1,125
0
2,040
955
7,036
441
0
8,138
..
7,520
0
~
1,332
942
7
509
0
~
378
5,677
0
762
0

Reinstatementc
13,060
69
12,991
..
..
144
2,102
..
2,047
..
..
0
0
..
11
489
257
0
0
106
0
307
1
..
229
736
0
510
1,222
0
41
146
586
~
83
~
~
0
221
..
6
2,905
~
0
~
221
369
33
180
0
0
0
0
39

Term of supervised
released
85,972
47,920
38,052
..
..
10,576
0
..
0
1,023
..
1,214
640
0
0
~
~
0
0
3,433
0
14
0
..
112
~
0
0
~
0
0
~
~
0
..
8,174
7,249
0
0
..
9
0
~
0
~
0
0
0
~
0
0
0
5,608
0

Othere
4,782
0
4,782
..
..
946
0
..
208
0
..
0
5
0
0
~
778
~
0
52
0
16
0
..
0
0
~
0
938
0
0
0
133
0
..
736
~
0
0
..
41
0
~
0
154
11
461
132
68
0
0
0
103
0

Unknown or
not reported
32,537
0
32,537
2,428
1,103
0
0
24,559
0
0
579
0
0
0
0
0
459
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,403
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology.
~Not applicable.
..Not known.
aIncludes offenders entering due to a parole board decision.
bIncludes offenders whose release from prison was not decided by a parole board, offenders entering due to determinate sentencing, good-time provisions, and emergency releases.
cIncludes offenders 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 offenders 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 were estimated for type of sentence.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

19

APPENDIX TABLE 6
Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2012, and 2013
Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origina
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander
Two or more races
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%

2012
100%

2013
100%

88%
12

89%
11

88%
12

38%
40
21
1
-…

41%
40
17
1
1
--

43%
38
17
1
1
--

83%
4
7
5
…
1

82%
5
6
4
-3

84%
5
6
4
-1

3%
97

5%
95

5%
95

…%
…
…
…
…
…
…

29%
9
20
22
33
4
13

29%
10
20
22
32
4
13

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent
data and may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology.
Characteristics based on parolees with known type of status.
--Less than 0.5%.
...Not available.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified.
bIncludes public order offenses.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2000, 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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

20

APPENDIX TABLE 7
Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2013
Jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaskac
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idahoc
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandc
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraskac
Nevadac
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvaniac
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermontc
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Returned to incarceration
Total
With new With
To receive Other/
Other
reported Completion sentence revocation treatment unknown Absconder unsatisfactorya
411,305
234,691
33,499
67,462
2,820
9,482
7,552
4,779
46,665
26,153
1,946
10,085
5
97
1,443
1,443
364,640
208,538
31,553
57,377
2,815
9,385
6,109
3,336
2,062
1,552
213
121
..
0
132
..
800
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
11,753
8,427
193
2,979
0
0
0
0
10,660
3,651
1,373
5,352
0
0
90
24
21,396
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
9,328
4,480
3,811
867
0
~
~
~
2,520
1,392
..
..
..
996
132
0
523
331
..
..
..
..
..
85
1,772
828
0
0
0
394
0
308
6,107
3,973
376
750
0
0
0
0
12,627
10,092
353
557
5
1,217
113
0
680
431
1
232
0
0
0
0
2,674
673
~
~
~
1,646
333
~
26,106
14,476
1,945
7,081
~
~
835
0
9,387
2,775
720
2,078
0
0
1,633
0
3,231
1,831
79
479
0
0
0
812
4,661
3,832
174
0
0
246
169
0
9,761
5,326
376
3,212
0
749
0
0
14,406
7,259
654
992
~
1,379
~
833
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3,239
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2,749
2,086
101
541
0
0
0
0
11,213
7,646
1,388
2,029
~
~
~
~
5,927
3,127
353
2,433
0
0
0
~
3,009
1,802
..
..
..
664
3
..
15,141
6,554
1,257
3,726
844
1,280
1,251
~
530
304
9
208
0
0
0
0
1,901
1,295
82
508
0
0
1
0
3,942
2,877
253
250
~
473
41
0
1,407
621
..
786
~
~
..
~
6,335
4,436
112
1,631
0
0
~
0
762
439
..
..
..
..
66
169
22,753
11,817
1,408
7,327
1,962
0
0
~
4,800
3,652
323
239
~
0
504
41
917
657
35
200
..
0
16
..
6,306
4,292
1,281
112
0
0
172
0
664
573
33
42
..
..
..
..
8,439
4,813
890
1,744
4
~
2
717
46,167
29,954
5,261
4,457
0
0
534
155
430
292
36
95
..
0
0
0
2,549
2,060
122
288
0
0
0
45
1,716
871
75
710
~
5
0
~
4,761
2,646
1,157
818
0
0
0
0
36,062
27,471
5,938
811
..
322
..
..
1,632
306
211
928
0
0
0
125
510
318
80
94
~
14
~
0
568
255
174
63
0
0
20
0
11,017
10,861
..
..
..
0
0
0
1,416
825
12
508
0
0
59
0
6,832
4,050
656
2,015
0
~
0
0
491
309
38
113
0
0
3
22

Death
5,126
634
4,492
14
..
57
170
..
62
..
2
53
31
103
16
22
79
64
27
21
96
178
0
..
21
150
14
23
206
9
6
48
..
113
30
239
41
5
120
16
124
583
7
34
14
140
1,214
24
4
30
156
12
111
3

Unknown or
Otherb not reported
13,760
32,134
28
4,831
13,732
27,303
30
0
..
800
97
0
0
0
..
21,396
108
0
0
0
105
0
189
0
766
211
187
0
0
0
~
0
1,017
673
2,117
0
3
0
219
0
2
0
3,111
0
0
0
..
3,239
0
0
~
0
0
0
41
476
~
23
0
0
2
7
0
0
..
0
43
0
58
0
~
0
~
0
0
4
329
0
..
0
25
120
5,223
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
0
0
..
306
38
0
0
0
22
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology.
~Not applicable.
..Not known.
aIncludes parolees discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, had their parole sentence rescinded, had their parole sentence revoked
but were not returned to incarceration because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits. Includes some early terminations and
expirations of sentence.
bIncludes 3,543 parolees who were transferred to another state and 10,217 parolees who exited for other reasons. Other reasons include, but not limited to, parolees who were
deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, and were transferred to
another state through an interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation supervision.
cSome or all data were estimated for type of exit.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

21

APPENDIX TABLE 8
Percent of parole exits, by type of exit, 2008–2013
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
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

2012
100%
58%
25%
8
14
3
11%
2%
1%
1%
3%
496,100

2013
100%
62%
30%
9
18
3
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
457,500

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Counts based on most recent data and may differ from previously published statistics. See Methodology. Percents based on
parolees with known type of exit. See appendix table 7 for type of exit by jurisdiction.
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 who were discharged from supervision through a legislative mandate because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, and were transferred to another state through an interstate compact
agreement or discharged to probation supervision.
cEstimates rounded to the nearest 100. Includes estimates for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Parole Survey, 2008–2013.

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 , 2013 | O C TO B E R 2014	

22

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the
principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and
valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and
participates with national and international organizations to develop and
recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is
acting director.
This report was written by Erinn J. Herberman and Thomas P. Bonczar.
Danielle M. Kaeble verified the report.
Morgan Young and Lockheed Martin edited the report. Tina Dorsey
produced the report.
October 2014, NCJ 248029

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

 

 

Prison Phone Justice Campaign
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
Prison Phone Justice Campaign