Federal Offenders: Trends in Community Supervision (Letter Report,
08/13/97, GAO/GGD-97-110).
GAO reviewed the trends in the number of federal offenders serving terms
of community supervision during fiscal years 1990 through 1996, focusing
on: (1) the growth of the total supervision population and any changes
in the composition of that population by type of supervision; (2) the
number of offenders who had special conditions imposed on their terms of
supervision, such as home confinement or drug treatment; and (3) the
number of persons who were removed from supervision for violating the
terms of their supervision.
GAO noted that: (1) the total population of federal offenders under
community supervision rose 10 percent during fiscal years 1990 and 1996;
(2) the most notable change in the mix of this population occurred in
the percentage of offenders serving a term of community supervision
following a prison term; (3) specifically, the probation population
decreased about 35 percent, while those on postprison supervision rose
94 percent; (4) the increase in the postprison supervision population is
entirely due to the large increase in the number of offenders on
supervised release; (5) during fiscal years 1991 through 1995, the
number of offenders sentenced with serious criminal histories grew at a
significantly greater rate than did those with less serious criminal
histories; (6) further, available data suggest that inmates released
from the Bureau of Prisons prisons in fiscal years 1997 through 2001 may
include a greater number of high-risk offenders than did the population
released through fiscal year 1996; (7) the total number of offenders
with special conditions remained relatively stable between fiscal years
1992 and 1996; (8) in addition, the total number of offenders removed
from supervision for violating their terms of supervision increased by
nearly 18 percent between fiscal years 1990 and 1996; (9) to the extent
that the trends continue in the: (a) mix of offenders under federal
supervision; (b) number of offenders sentenced with more serious
criminal histories; and (c) number of offenders removed from supervision
due to violations, the workload of probation officers would likely
increase; and (10) if the trend in the number of offenders with special
conditions remains stable, it would not likely affect the workload of
probation officers.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-97-110
TITLE: Federal Offenders: Trends in Community Supervision
DATE: 08/13/97
SUBJECT: Parole
Law enforcement
Statistical data
Parolees
Recidivism
Probation officers
Projections
Offender rehabilitation
Drug treatment
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Committees
August 1997
FEDERAL OFFENDERS - TRENDS IN
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
GAO/GGD-97-110
Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
(188627)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AOUSC - Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
BOP - Bureau of Prisons
USPC - United States Parole Commission
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-274290
August 13, 1997
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable Howard Coble
Chairman
The Honorable Barney Frank
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
This report discusses trends in the number of federal offenders
serving terms of community supervision during fiscal years 1990
through 1996.\1 At the end of fiscal year 1996, there were almost as
many convicted offenders serving terms of community supervision as
there were inmates in federal prisons. The Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) has asserted that offenders serving terms of
postprison supervision pose more problems for probation officers and
present a greater risk to the community than those serving terms of
probation. According to AOUSC, inmates released from prison face
transitional problems and have more social, psychological, or medical
problems than offenders placed on probation.
This report is intended to assist your committees in their oversight
of community supervision programs. Our overall objective in this
self-initiated review was to identify changes in the federal
community supervision population that could affect probation
officers' workload. This report discusses trends in (1) the growth
of the total supervision population and any changes in the
composition of that population by type of supervision; (2) the number
of offenders who had special conditions imposed on their terms of
supervision, such as home confinement or drug treatment; and (3) the
number of persons who were removed from supervision for violating the
terms of their supervision.
To accomplish our objective, we obtained and analyzed relevant data
from AOUSC and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on the numbers of
offenders in the supervision programs, those who had special
conditions imposed on them, and the number of offenders removed from
the programs. Our scope and methodology are discussed in more detail
in appendix I.
We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from September 1996 to
June 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the
Director, AOUSC. These comments are discussed at the end of this
letter.
--------------------
\1 Community supervision includes offenders sentenced to a term of
probation and offenders who are serving a term of supervision in the
community, either parole or supervised release, after release from
prison. For further explanation of the types of community
supervision, see glossary.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984\2 (1) created the U.S. Sentencing
Commission to develop a set of federal sentencing guidelines,\3 (2)
replaced parole with supervised release for postprison supervision,
and (3) made probation a separate sentence. Prior to these changes,
federal offenders could be sentenced to a term of probation as part
of a suspended prison sentence, meaning that they were released from
custody but had to routinely report to officers of the court
(probation officers), or be sentenced to prison terms. Offenders who
exhibited good behavior while in prison could be released on parole
after serving as little as one-third of their prison terms. The
United States Parole Commission (USPC) determined whether and when an
offender was granted parole.
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 made probation a separate sentence
and restricted an offender's eligibility for probation. The
sentencing guidelines, in implementing the provisions of the act, are
more detailed and provide judges less sentencing discretion than the
system they replaced.
The implementation of the sentencing guidelines, laws providing
mandatory minimum sentences\4 for certain offenses (mostly drug and
violent offenses), and laws broadening federal criminal jurisdiction
have together resulted in a steadily growing federal prison
population.\5 From fiscal years 1990 through 1996, the number of
inmates in federal prisons grew from 58,021 to 94,695. Under the
sentencing guidelines, offenders sentenced to a prison term of 1 year
or more usually also receive a term of postprison supervision (about
1 to 5 years) called supervised release. Offenders must serve at
least 85 percent of their prison terms before they are eligible for
supervised release.\6
The primary goals of community supervision are to control risk to the
community, enforce conditions of supervision, and provide for
correctional treatment. Appendix II includes flowcharts of the
supervision process that depict how offenders under each type of
supervision enter and proceed through the community supervision
program.
Probation officers are responsible for supervising offenders on
community supervision. They are to evaluate each offender's needs
and prepare a supervision plan, enforce any conditions of release,
monitor offender behavior, and report violations to the courts.
According to AOUSC officials, the higher the perceived risk to the
community, the more intensive the supervision, including more
frequent contacts with the offender. Further, AOUSC has also
indicated that risk is associated with several factors. These
factors include the extent to which offenders had serious criminal
histories, had special conditions imposed on their supervision, or
had violated the terms of their supervision. As noted earlier, AOUSC
also believes that postprison offenders generally require more
intensive supervision because these risk factors are more prevalent
among this population.
Some offenders under community supervision may have special
conditions placed on them. For example, offenders may be placed on
home confinement with or without electronic monitoring\7 ; be
required to participate in drug, alcohol, or mental health treatment
or counseling programs; be required to provide community service; or
receive any combination of these conditions. These special
conditions may be imposed by the judge at sentencing, or the
probation officer may determine that such special conditions are
required when preparing the supervision plan\8 or when monitoring the
offender's behavior while on community supervision.\9 If the
probation officer determines that such conditions are necessary, the
probation officer may petition the court to impose special conditions
during the course of the offender's supervision.
According to AOUSC, offenders are removed from supervision because
they violate the terms of their supervision or their term (1)
expires, (2) terminates early, or (3) terminates for various
noncriminal-related reasons, such as death or medical conditions.\10
AOUSC classifies violations of supervision as technical, minor, or
major. A technical violation is a violation of the conditions of
supervision other than the conviction for a new offense. A minor
violation is a conviction for a minor offense, such as disorderly
conduct or drunken driving, for which the sentence is imprisonment
for 90 days or less, probation for 1 year or less, or a fine. A
major violation is the involvement in or conviction for a new major
offense, including absconding from custody, having been arrested on
another charge, or convicted and sentenced to more than 90 days of
imprisonment or more than 1 year of probation. Offenders who violate
their release conditions may be imprisoned, particularly if they have
been convicted of a new offense, or may be sanctioned in other ways,
such as having more restrictive conditions placed on their release.
Violations generally create additional work for probation officers.
First, when an offender violates one or more of his or her release
conditions, the probation officer may petition the court to impose
more restrictive release conditions, such as more frequent drug
testing, which the probation officer must monitor. The probation
officer may, at his or her option, choose to file a violation report
with the court and petition the court to have the violator removed
from community supervision and incarcerated. If the officer chooses
to petition the court for removal (through the local U.S. Attorney's
office), the officer must prepare a violation report and usually must
appear at a court hearing to consider the probation officer's
request.
--------------------
\2 Public Law 98-473 (chapter II of title II).
\3 The guidelines apply to all crimes committed on or after November
1, 1987. Persons may still be sentenced under the preguidelines
system if their crimes were committed prior to November 1, 1987. The
guidelines were not implemented nationally until the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld their constitutionality in January 1989 in Mistretta v.
U.S., 488 U.S. 361.
\4 Mandatory minimum sentence refers to a statutory provision
requiring the imposition of at least a specified minimum sentence
when the statutorily specified criteria have been met.
\5 For further discussion of inmate prison trends, see Federal and
State Prisons: Inmate Populations, Costs, and Projection Models
(GAO/GGD-97-15, Nov. 25, 1996).
\6 Offenders sentenced under the guidelines are eligible for a
maximum reduction in their prison terms of 54 days per year for
satisfactory behavior.
\7 Electronic monitoring is the use of any electronic equipment to
provide information about the location of the offender.
\8 Other conditions, such as the frequency of offender meetings with
the probation officer, imposed by the probation officer may be in
addition to those imposed at sentencing.
\9 For offenders serving a term of parole, however, USPC determines
when special conditions are required.
\10 According to AOUSC, other reasons may include deportation,
release to the military (probation officers also supervise those
released on parole from military prisons), or release from
supervision during an appeal.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The total population of federal offenders under community supervision
rose 10 percent during fiscal years 1990 through 1996.\11 The most
notable change in the mix of this population occurred in the
percentage of offenders serving a term of community supervision
following a prison term. Specifically, the probation population
decreased about 35 percent, while those on postprison supervision--
i.e, parole and supervised release--rose 94 percent. The increase in
the postprison supervision population is entirely due to the large
increase in the number of offenders on supervised release.
During fiscal years 1991 through 1995, the number of offenders
sentenced with serious criminal histories grew at a significantly
greater rate than did those with less serious criminal histories.
Further, available data suggest that inmates released from BOP
prisons in fiscal years 1997 through 2001 may include a greater
number of high-risk offenders than did the population released
through fiscal year 1996.
The total number of offenders with special conditions remained
relatively stable between fiscal years 1992 and 1996. In addition,
the total number of offenders removed from supervision for violating
their terms of supervision increased by about 21 percent between
fiscal years 1990 and 1996.
To the extent that the trends continue in (1) the mix of offenders
under federal supervision, (2) the number of offenders sentenced with
more serious criminal histories, and (3) the number of offenders
removed from supervision due to violations, the workload of probation
officers would likely increase. If the trend in the number of
offenders with special conditions remains stable, it would not likely
affect the workload of probation officers.\12
--------------------
\11 We used 1990 as our base year because this was the first full
fiscal year the guidelines were implemented nationally. Although the
guidelines applied to crimes committed after October 31, 1987, they
were not implemented nationally until January 1989, when the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality. Prior to the Supreme
Court decision, more than 200 district court judges had invalidated
the guidelines in whole or in part. This delay in national
implementation, combined with the requirement that those sentenced to
prison must serve 85 percent of their prison terms before being
released, limited the number of persons on supervised release in
fiscal year 1990. Generally, only those sentenced to short prison
terms (about 2 years or less) could have been released from prison to
begin their supervised release terms by fiscal year 1990, which began
on October 1, 1989.
\12 This assumes that probation officers would continue to devote
about the same amount of time to offenders with special conditions as
they have in the past.
FEWER FEDERAL OFFENDERS HAVE
BEEN SENTENCED DIRECTLY TO
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Although the total federal population on community supervision grew
only 10 percent from fiscal years 1990 through 1996 (compared to a 63
percent growth in the federal prison population),\13 two noteworthy
changes occurred in that population, both caused by the
implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. First, the
percentage of offenders sentenced directly to community supervision
(probation) decreased, and the percentage of offenders sentenced to
prison terms with required supervised release increased. Second, the
percentage of offenders released from prison to parole also
decreased, reflecting the decrease in the number of offenders who
were sentenced under the preguidelines system. BOP estimates project
that these trends will continue and that a larger proportion of
offenders who could pose a higher risk of recidivism are scheduled to
be released to community supervision over the next 5 years.
As shown in figure 1, during fiscal years 1990 through 1996, the
total federal population under community supervision grew by about 10
percent, from 80,592 to 88,966.\14 During this period, the probation
population decreased by about 35 percent; the parole population
declined about 59 percent; and the supervised release population
increased about 648 percent. Overall, the parole and supervised
release--i.e., postprison--population rose 94 percent in the
period.\15
Figure 1: Trends in the
Federal Community Supervision
Population, Fiscal Years
1990-1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Included in the category of parole are mandatory release, military
parole, and special parole.
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
Additionally, as figure 2 shows, the distribution of this population
for the three major types of supervision--probation, parole, and
supervised release--changed considerably.
Figure 2: Distribution of the
Community Supervision
Population Among the Three
Types of Supervision, Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
Despite the growth in the community supervision population, figure 3
shows that the distribution of offenders on supervision for the major
crime types--violent, white collar, drugs, and all other--did not
change significantly.\16
Figure 3: Distribution of the
Community Supervision
Population by Type of Offense
Committed, Fiscal Years
1992-1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
Between fiscal years 1992 and 1996,\17 the largest group of convicted
offenders on supervision were drug offenders. These offenders
increased moderately from about 32 percent of the total supervision
population in fiscal year 1992 to over 38 percent in fiscal year
1996.\18 Offenders convicted of white collar crimes remained
relatively unchanged at between 27 and 28 percent of the supervision
population. Together, offenders in these two crime categories
accounted for more than 60 percent of all offenders on supervision
for each year during this period.\19
--------------------
\13 See table III.1 for actual numbers.
\14 According to AOUSC, the number of probation officers increased
about 46 percent during fiscal years 1990 through 1996.
\15 See table III.2 for actual numbers.
\16 Using AOUSC criminal offense classifications, we categorized
offense types into violent, white collar, drugs, and all other.
Violent offenses include homicide, robbery, assault, and weapons and
firearms. White collar offenses include embezzlement and fraud. All
other offenses include burglary, larceny, auto theft, forgery and
counterfeiting, immigration, liquor/tax, postal, traffic, and other
related offenses.
\17 Fiscal year 1992 was the earliest year for which complete data
were available.
\18 BOP reported that, between fiscal years 1992 and 1996, drug
offenders comprised about 60 percent of all federal offenders in BOP
prisons.
\19 See table III.3 for actual numbers.
BOP PROJECTIONS OF TRENDS IN
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
BOP provided us with estimates of the number of offenders serving
prison terms as of September 30, 1996, who are scheduled to be
released from prison to community supervision between fiscal years
1997 and 2001. These estimates include those offenders sentenced
prior to the sentencing guidelines who are scheduled to enter the
parole program and those offenders who were sentenced under the
sentencing guidelines and are to enter the supervised release
program. BOP provided its estimates of release by the major offense
category for which the offender was originally convicted and
sentenced--drugs, violent, homicide, white collar, and all others.
As shown in table 1, BOP estimates that the number of offenders
released on parole will continue to decline, while the number of
offenders released to the supervised release program will continue to
increase. In fiscal years 1997 through 2001, BOP expects that about
55,700 of the offenders who were inmates as of September 30, 1996,
will be released to a term of supervised release and about 5,200
released on parole. Over 70 percent of these approximately 61,000
offenders were convicted of violent or drug-related crimes.
Table 1
Estimated Number of BOP Inmates Serving
Prison Terms as of September 30, 1996,
by Offense Committed, to Be Released in
Fiscal Years 1997-2001
Preguidelines offenders\a Sentencing guidelines offenders\b
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Offense 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
----------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ===== ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- =====
Violent 865 408 272 185 135 1,865 2,971 2,207 1,702 1,411 917 9,208
Homicide 48 30 26 18 27 149 56 37 32 27 25 177
White collar 306 126 69 31 17 549 3,474 1,167 480 222 122 5,465
Drugs 846 362 259 143 125 1,735 10,24 7,139 5,756 4,891 3,811 31,83
2 9
Other 386 195 106 100 69 856 5,004 1,894 971 673 445 8,987
====================================================================================================
Total 2,451 1,121 732 477 373 5,154 21,74 12,44 8,941 7,224 5,320 55,67
7 4 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The actual number of offenders who may be released to
postprison supervision during fiscal years 1997-2001 would include
those shown in the table above plus the total number of offenders who
will be sentenced to and will complete their prison terms during
these years. BOP could provide release estimates only for those
offenders in BOP custody as of September 30, 1996.
\a Offenders to be released to parole.
\b Offenders to be released to supervised release.
Source: BOP.
OFFENDERS WITH MORE SERIOUS
CRIMINAL HISTORIES MAY HAVE
HIGHER RISK OF RECIDIVISM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
As previously noted, AOUSC has indicated that workload can be
affected by the extent to which offenders had serious criminal
histories. A 1993 BOP report on a sample of inmates released from
BOP prisons suggests that an offender's criminal history score is
related to the risk of recidivism.\20 The higher the criminal history
category the greater the risk of recidivism. Criminal history is
also one of the variables in the risk-assessment scale probation
officers use to determine the level of supervision an offender on
community supervision may require.\21
The inmates released from BOP prisons in fiscal years 1997 through
2001 may include a greater number of higher risk offenders than the
population released through fiscal year 1996.
Since the sentencing guidelines apply to all offenses committed on or
after November 1, 1987, only a very small percentage of offenders
have been sentenced under the preguidelines system in the 1990s.
Offenders sentenced under the preguidelines system may apply for
release on parole after serving one-third of their sentence.\22 Thus,
offenders remaining in prison in fiscal year 1996 or later under the
preguidelines system are likely to be those who have received long
sentences, which are usually associated with more serious crimes;
have been denied parole because of behavioral problems in prison that
may heighten the risk they pose to the community once released; or
both. According to AOUSC officials, such offenders may pose a higher
risk of recidivism than offenders with shorter sentences who were
released after serving one-third of their sentences.
Offenders sentenced under the guidelines and released after fiscal
year 1996 are likely to include more offenders with extensive
criminal histories who have received longer sentences and who thus
may pose a higher risk of recidivism than those released before
fiscal year 1996. Under the guidelines, offenders are assigned a
criminal history category based on the extent of their prior criminal
behavior. The categories range from I, for those with virtually no
prior criminal history, to VI, for those with the most serious
criminal history. Offenders with more serious criminal histories
generally receive longer sentences for the same offense than those
with less extensive criminal histories.\23
Figure 4 shows that, in fiscal years 1991 through 1995,\24 the number
of offenders sentenced in the three most serious criminal history
categories--IV, V, and VI--grew at greater rates than did the number
of offenders with less serious criminal histories.\25
Figure 4: Percent Change in
the Number of Offenders
Sentenced, by Criminal History
Category, Fiscal Years
1991-1995
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission data.
--------------------
\20 Miles D. Harer, Recidivism Among Federal Inmates in 1987: A
Preliminary Report, Bureau of Prisons, 1993, in U.S. Department of
Justice, An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders With Minimal
Criminal Histories, February 1994.
\21 In their comments on a draft of this report, AOUSC officials
noted that they were implementing a new risk-assessment scale
developed by the Federal Judicial Center. The purpose of the new
scale, which retains criminal history as one of its variables, is to
improve officers' ability to determine the appropriate level of
offender supervision.
\22 For example, an offender who began serving a 10-year prison term
in January 1993 would be eligible to apply for parole in April 1996.
\23 For example, in fiscal year 1993, the average sentence for an
offender convicted of a firearms offense who was in the least serious
criminal history category (I) was 39.2 months. For an offender in
the most serious category (VI), the average sentence for the same
offense was 139.3 months.
\24 Fiscal year 1996 data were not available.
\25 See table III.4 for actual numbers.
NUMBER OF OFFENDERS ON
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION WITH
SPECIAL CONDITIONS REMAINED
RELATIVELY STABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Offenders with special conditions may be placed on home confinement
with or without electronic monitoring; be required to participate in
drug, alcohol, or mental health treatment or counseling programs; be
required to perform community service; or receive any combination of
these conditions. As discussed earlier, AOUSC has indicated that
workload can be affected by the extent to which offenders had special
conditions imposed on their terms of supervision. Figure 5 shows
that, between fiscal years 1992 and 1996, the number of offenders
with special conditions remained relatively stable.
Figure 5: Trends in the Number
of Offenders Under Community
Supervision With Special
Conditions, Fiscal Years
1992-1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
In addition, as shown in greater detail in table 2, the proportion of
the total supervision population with special conditions remained
relatively stable within a range of 42 to 46 percent during the same
period.
Table 2
Federal Offenders Under Community
Supervision With Special Conditions, by
Type of Special Condition, Fiscal Years
1990-1996
Special conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
of
total
supervi
sion
populat
ion
Mental with
Drug Substance health Home Communit special
Fiscal treatmen abuse treatmen confinemen y conditi
year t treatment t t service Total\a ons
------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- -------- ======== -------
1992 18,574 4,447 3,307 1,715 7,588 35,631 41.5%
1993 20,418 4,715 3,808 2,363 8,910 40,214 46.3
1994 21,338 4,831 4,288 2,349 8,025 40,831 45.8
1995 18,291 3,864 4,681 2,451 7,428 36,715 42.8
1996 19,246 3,607 5,163 2,592 7,315 37,923 42.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a An offender may be counted in more than one special condition
category.
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
For each year in this 5-year period, the data showed that about 60
percent or more of the offenders with special conditions received
treatment for drug or substance abuse.
As shown in table 3, the proportion of the total supervision
population with special conditions varied within the three major
types of supervision. Specifically, probation offenders with special
conditions increased from about 39 to 50 percent. The percentage on
parole decreased from about 44 to 41 percent, while those on
supervised release declined from 45 to about 37 percent. The
percentage of the parole and supervised release--i.e.,
postprison--population with special conditions decreased from about
45 to 38 percent.
Table 3
Federal Offenders Under Community
Supervision With Special Conditions, by
Type of Supervision, Fiscal Years 1992-
1996
Probation Parole Supervised release Postprison\a
------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------
Number Number Number Percent Total
of of Percent Total of of total offenders
offender Percent offender of total offender offender on on
Number of s with of Total s with on s on s with postpriso postpriso
offenders Percent of Total special total offender special supervis supervis special n n
with special total on offenders on conditio on s on conditio ed ed conditio supervisi supervisi
Fiscal year conditions probation probation ns parole parole ns release release ns on on
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- ---------
1992 18,277 38.7% 47,208 8,572 44.3% 19,350 8,782 45.4% 19,362 17,354 44.8% 38,712
1993 21,354 48.7 43,810 6,930 41.7 16,629 11,930 45.2 26,384 18,860 43.8 43,013
1994 19,539 47.3 41,300 6,016 42.0 14,310 15,276 45.6 33,493 21,292 44.5 47,803
1995 17,257 48.4 35,679 4,329 40.6 10,664 15,129 38.3 39,479 19,458 38.8 50,143
1996 16,955 50.0 33,902 3,784 41.3 9,153 17,184 37.4 45,911 20,968 38.1 55,064
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The numbers in this category include parole and supervised
release.
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
NUMBER OF OFFENDERS ON
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION WHO WERE
REMOVED FOR VIOLATING THEIR
TERMS OF SUPERVISION INCREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Offenders can be removed from supervision because (1) they violate
the terms of their supervision; or because (2) their term expires,
they terminate early, or they terminate for noncriminal- related
reasons. As noted earlier, AOUSC has indicated that workload can be
affected by the extent to which offenders violate their terms of
supervision. Figure 6 shows that, between fiscal years 1990 and
1996, the number of offenders removed from supervision for violating
the terms of their supervision increased from 7,360 to 8,922 (about
21 percent).
Figure 6: Trends in the Number
of Offenders Removed From
Supervision for Violating Their
Terms, Fiscal Years 1990-1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
As shown in more detail in table 4, in fiscal years 1990 through
1996, from 9 to 10 percent of the total federal supervision
population were removed from their supervision annually because they
had violated their terms. During the same period, from about 28 to
31 percent of the total population were removed from supervision
without a violation.
Table 4
Federal Offenders Removed From
Supervision, Fiscal Years 1990-1996
Offenders removed
Offenders removed without a
with a violation violation
------------------ ------------------
Total
Percent of Percent of offenders
total on total on on
supervisio supervisio supervisio
Fiscal year Number n Number n n
------------------ ------ ---------- ------ ---------- ==========
1990 7,360 9.1% 23,926 29.7% 80,592
1991 7,638 9.2 24,574 29.6 83,012
1992 8,433 9.8 26,338 30.7 85,920
1993 8,297 9.6 25,493 29.4 86,823
1994 8,199 9.2 24,848 27.9 89,103
1995 8,797 10.3 25,937 30.2 85,822
1996 8,922 10.0 27,202 30.6 88,966
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
Table 5 shows that, in fiscal years 1990 through 1996, violation
rates\26 remained relatively constant for probation and parole
offenders, from 6 to 7 and 14 to 18 percent, respectively. After an
initial jump from over 5 to nearly 12 percent from fiscal year 1990
to 1992, the violation rate for supervised release offenders remained
relatively unchanged at about 11 percent.\27 Parole and supervised
release--i.e., postprison--offenders had violation rates over 60
percent higher than that for offenders on probation.
Table 5
Federal Offenders Removed From
Supervision With a Violation, by Type of
Supervision, Fiscal Years 1990-1996
Probation offenders Parole offenders Supervised release offenders Postprison offenders\a
------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------ -----------------------------
Percent of
Percent of total on
Percent of Number Percent of Number total on Total Number postprison Total
Number total on Total remove total on Total remove supervised supervised remove supervisio postpriso
Fiscal year removed probation probation d parole parole d release release d n n
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------ ---------- ------ ------ ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- ---------
1990 3,186 6.1% 52,266 3,836 17.3% 22,188 338 5.5% 6,138 4,174 14.7% 28,326
1991 3,005 6.1 49,399 3,348 15.5 21,664 1,285 10.8 11,949 4,633 13.8 33,613
1992 2,873 6.1 47,208 3,254 16.8 19,350 2,306 11.9 19,362 5,560 14.4 38,712
1993 2,733 6.2 43,810 2,642 15.9 16,629 2,922 11.1 26,384 5,564 12.9 43,013
1994 2,569 6.2 41,300 2,055 14.4 14,310 3,575 10.7 33,493 5,630 11.8 47,803
1995 2,586 7.3 35,679 1,925 18.1 10,664 4,286 10.9 39,479 6,211 12.4 51,143
1996 2,488 7.3 33,902 1,513 16.5 9,153 4,921 10.7 45,911 6,434 11.7 55,064
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The numbers in this category include offenders on parole and
supervised release.
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
Offenders can be removed from supervision for committing one of three
types of violations: major, minor, or technical. In fiscal years
1990 through 1996, a higher percentage of postprison--i.e, parole and
supervised release--offenders were removed for major violations (from
23 to 29 percent) than were offenders on probation (from 16 to 18
percent). Overall, technical violations accounted for an average of
about 70 percent of all offenders removed for violations annually in
fiscal years 1990 through 1996. During the same period, an average
of about 8 percent were removed for committing a minor violation,
while an average of 23 percent were removed for committing a major
violation.
--------------------
\26 For each category of supervision--probation, parole, or
supervised release--the violation rate is defined as the percentage
of all offenders on supervision during the fiscal year who were
removed for a violation of the terms of their supervision.
\27 For the reasons noted in footnote 11, the number of persons on
supervised release was relatively small in 1990, and those on
supervised release were likely to be offenders sentenced to short
prison terms.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
On July 17, 1997, AOUSC provided us with written technical comments
and clarifications on a draft of this report, which we incorporated
into the report where appropriate. AOUSC generally agreed with the
contents of the draft report.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We are providing copies of this report to the Director of AOUSC and
other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others
upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Please contact me on (202) 512-3610 if you or your staff have any
questions.
Norman J. Rabkin
Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
We initiated this assignment to provide Congress with information on
the size and growth of the community supervision population as a
result of the implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
Our overall objective was to identify changes in the federal
community supervision population that could affect probation
officers' workload. Specifically, we determined trends in (1) the
growth of the total supervision population and any changes in the
composition of that population by type of supervision; (2) the number
of offenders who had special conditions imposed on their term of
supervision, such as home confinement or drug treatment; and (3) the
number of persons who were removed from supervision for violating the
terms of their supervision.
To develop information on the growth trends in the supervision
population, we obtained AOUSC annual reports for fiscal years 1990
through 1996 and other documents. The data for these reports were
derived from AOUSC's Federal Probation Supervision Information
System. We also analyzed AOUSC statistics on the number of
individuals currently under supervision, the number removed from
supervision--with and without a violation--and the principal reasons
for their removal, for fiscal years 1990 through 1996. We chose
fiscal year 1990 as our base year because it was the first full year
in which the federal sentencing guidelines were implemented on a
national basis.
To obtain some data on potential future trends in the postprison
community supervision population, we reviewed BOP's estimates of the
number of inmates who were expected to be released to community
supervision in fiscal years 1997 through 2001. BOP estimated release
dates for inmates in its prisons as of September 30, 1996. BOP
provided these estimates by major offense for inmates sentenced under
the preguidelines (parole) and guidelines (supervised release)
sentencing rules. These data did not include estimates of the number
of inmates who may be sentenced to prison and subsequently released
in the years 1997 through 2001. BOP could not provide estimates of
this population until its revision of its prison population
projection model is complete. BOP said that these data were derived
from its management information system, SENTRY. In addition, we
analyzed data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission's annual reports
for fiscal years 1991 through 1995 on the average length of
imprisonment for offenders sentenced, by criminal history category.\1
These data were derived from the Commission's MONFY data file, which
contains sentencing information on offenders sentenced under the
guidelines.
To describe the special conditions that may be imposed on
supervisees, we analyzed information provided by AOUSC on special
conditions for fiscal years 1992 through 1996, as well as the per
diem cost of administering each condition. This information included
the number of offenders who had received each type of treatment or
who had been placed on electronic monitoring or community service in
each of these years. It is possible for an offender to be counted in
more than one of these categories, but the data AOUSC provided did
not identify how many offenders had more than one special condition
or the duration for which a special condition was imposed.
To obtain information on the number of offenders removed from
supervision with and without violations, we obtained and analyzed
AOUSC annual reports on removals.
We did not conduct an independent assessment of the databases or of
the policies and procedures used to assess and ensure their
reliability and validity.
--------------------
\1 Some offenders in criminal history category VI are classified as
"career offenders." The 1990 annual report did not report separately
the number of category VI offenders who were classified as career
offenders or their average sentences. The annual reports for fiscal
years 1991 through 1995 do provide separate data on category VI
offenders who were classified as career offenders. Thus, for
comparative purposes, we excluded from our analysis fiscal year 1990.
In addition, at the time of our analysis, fiscal year 1996 data were
not available.
DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROCESS
========================================================== Appendix II
Community supervision consists of three major programs: probation,
parole, and supervised release. Persons on probation have usually
been sentenced directly to probation at sentencing and may begin
their term of probation immediately after sentencing. Persons on
parole and supervised release enter community supervision after
serving a term of imprisonment. The following sections describe how
individual offenders proceed through the community supervision
program.
PROBATION
Prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a term of probation
operated as a suspended sentence. Under the terms of the act, as
reflected in the federal sentencing guidelines, probation is a
separate sentence that may have elements of punishment,
incapacitation, deterrence, and correctional treatment.
Special conditions that may be imposed as part of a sentence of
probation include home confinement with or without electronic
monitoring; participation in drug, alcohol, or mental health
treatment or counseling programs; community service; or any
combination of these conditions. The judge may impose some special
conditions as part of the sentence, and the probation officer may
impose additional conditions as part of the supervision plan prepared
for each offender. In addition to special conditions, there are
mandatory conditions of supervision that apply to all offenders.
These include prohibitions on (1) committing another federal, state,
or local crime during the term of probation; (2) possessing a
firearm; and (3) possessing controlled substances. In addition, the
judge may order the offender to pay a fine and/or restitution as part
of the sentence.
As figure II.1 indicates, if the offender does not violate the
conditions set by the court or imposed by the probation officer
during his or her term of probation, the offender is to be released
at the end of the term.
Figure II.1: The Community
Supervision Process for
Offenders on Probation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
If, however, the offender violates a condition or a set of
conditions, the probation officer may report the offense to the court
and recommend that probation be revoked and the offender be
incarcerated. The court then determines whether the offender will be
incarcerated. In the case of a new felony or misdemeanor, the
offender may be tried for a new crime.
Not all violations lead to court hearings. For example, instances of
noncompliance may be addressed initially through an administrative
case conference involving the deputy chief probation officer or
supervising probation officer, the probation officer, and the
offender. The conference is to involve a complete review of the case
and consideration of possible interventions or sanctions, including
community service, drug or alcohol in-patient treatment, and
electronically monitored home confinement. For these sanctions to be
imposed, the offender must waive his or her right to counsel and a
hearing.
PAROLE
Figure II.2 shows that offenders imprisoned under the presentencing
guidelines system can be released on parole after serving a portion
of their prison terms. These offenders committed crimes prior to
November 1, 1987. Offenders who exhibit good behavior while in
prison may be released on parole after serving as little as one-third
of their prison terms. The United States Parole Commission (USPC)
determines whether and when an offender will be granted parole.
Figure II.2: The Community
Supervision Process for
Offenders on Parole
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
As is the case with probation, mandatory and special conditions may
be imposed on parolees. Offenders convicted of crimes committed
before November 1, 1987, may receive a sentence of incarceration
followed by a period of parole. Offenders receiving prison terms
must complete a minimum of one-third of the sentence before they are
eligible for parole to the community. Some offenders are not paroled
to the community because the USPC deems them to be a risk to the
community. These offenders are to remain in prison until they have
served their entire sentence, less a minimum period for community
supervision. They are then released to the community under mandatory
release.\1
After an offender has served one-third of the sentence, USPC may
approve parole and impose special and mandatory conditions. If the
offender does not violate any of the conditions, he or she completes
supervision. If, however, the offender violates a condition or a set
of conditions, USPC can either modify the conditions of supervision
by making them more restrictive or revoke parole and have the
offender reincarcerated. In the event the offender has committed a
new crime, he or she may be prosecuted for the offense.
SUPERVISED RELEASE
Offenders who committed offenses on or after November 1, 1987, may be
given both a term of imprisonment and a term of supervised release by
the sentencing judge. The offender serves his or her entire prison
sentence, less a maximum reduction of 54 days per year for
satisfactory behavior. As in the cases of probation and parole, the
supervised release offender is also assigned mandatory and, if
needed, special conditions. Figure II.3 shows that mandatory and
special conditions may be imposed by the sentencing judge, as well as
by the probation officer, in cases where the need for a special
condition has arisen after sentencing. The conditions imposed by the
probation officer may have been specified in the prerelease plan
developed by BOP prior to the offender's release from prison. The
probation officer may also determine that special conditions are
required when preparing the supervision plan or when monitoring the
offender's behavior while on supervised release.
Figure II.3: The Community
Supervision Process for
Offenders on Supervised Release
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a The conditions imposed by the probation officer may have been
specified in the prerelease plan developed by BOP prior to the
offender's release from prison. The probation officer may also
determine that special conditions are required when preparing the
supervision plan or when monitoring the offender's behavior while on
supervised release.
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
If the offender does not violate any of the conditions, he or she can
complete supervision as planned. If, however, he or she violates the
conditions, the probation officer can exercise some discretion in
either modifying the special conditions or referring the case to the
court for disposition. Unlike parole, where revocation and
reincarceration decisions can be made by USPC, in the case of
supervised release, these decisions are made by the district court.
In the event the offender has committed a new crime, he or she may be
prosecuted for the offense.
As previously outlined in the discussion of probation, not all
infractions are reported to the courts or result in revocation of
supervision. The probation officer has some discretion in deciding
whether to refer a case to the court or to an administrative case
conference.
--------------------
\1 As a form of release from prison mandated by statute, and which
has been phased out under the Sentencing Reform Act, mandatory
release can be distinguished from either probation or parole in that
mandatory releasees essentially are denied regular parole because
they are dangerous offenders or committed serious acts. The statute
provided for release 180 days prior to the expiration of the
prisoner's sentence to allow for a minimal period of supervision.
CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION POPULATION
========================================================= Appendix III
As shown in table III.1, the federal community supervision population
rose by about 10 percent between fiscal years 1990 and 1996. The
corresponding population growth in the federal prison system\1 was
about 63 percent, from 58,021 in fiscal year 1990 to 94,695 in fiscal
year 1996.\2
Table III.1
Federal Prison and Community Supervision
Populations, Fiscal Years 1990-1996
Total federal
community
Total federal supervision
Fiscal year prison population population
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1990 58,021 80,592
1991 64,131 83,012
1992 70,670 85,920
1993 79,799 86,823
1994 85,850 89,103
1995 90,159 85,822
1996 94,695 88,966
Percent change, fiscal years 63.2% 10.4%
1990-1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of BOP and AOUSC data.
Table III.2 shows that, from fiscal years 1990 to 1996, the probation
and parole populations decreased about 35 and 59 percent,
respectively; while the supervised release population increased 648
percent. Overall, the postprison population increased 94 percent
during the same period.
Table III.2
Trends in the Federal Community
Supervision Population, by Type of
Supervision, Fiscal Years 1990-1996
Supervise Postpriso
Fiscal year Probation Parole d release n\a
-------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
1990 52,266 22,188 6,138 28,326
1991 49,399 21,664 11,949 33,613
1992 47,208 19,350 19,362 38,712
1993 43,810 16,629 26,384 43,013
1994 41,300 14,310 33,493 47,803
1995 35,679 10,664 39,479 50,143
1996 33,902 9,153 45,911 55,064
Percent change, (35.1)% (58.7)% 648.0% 94.4%
fiscal years 1990-1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The numbers in this category include offenders on parole and
supervised release.
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
Table III.3 shows the distribution of offenders on community
supervision for the major crime types. As shown, drug offenders, who
accounted for the largest number of offenders on community
supervision, increased from nearly 32 percent of the total community
supervision population in fiscal year 1992 to about 38 percent in
fiscal year 1996.
Table III.3
Trends in the Community Supervision
Population, by Type of Offense
Committed, Fiscal Years 1992-1996
Type of offense committed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drugs Violent White collar All other\a
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Fi Percent Percent Percent Percent
sc Number of total Number of total Number of total Number of total
al of on of on of on of on
ye offende supervisi offende supervisi offende supervisi offende supervisi
ar rs on rs on rs on rs on
-- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------- ---------
19 27,346 31.8% 8,138 9.5% 24,324 28.3% 26,112 30.4%
92
19 28,677 33.0 8,422 9.7 24,630 28.4 25,094 28.9
93
19 30,586 34.3 8,630 9.7 25,136 28.2 24,751 27.8
94
19 31,193 36.4 8,315 9.7 23,870 27.8 22,444 26.2
95
19 34,046 38.3 8,728 9.8 23,838 26.8 22,354 25.1
96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This category includes burglary, larceny, auto theft, forgery and
counterfeiting, immigration, liquor/tax, postal, traffic, and other
related offenses.
Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.
Table III.4 shows the number of offenders sentenced each year, by
criminal history category, in fiscal years 1991 through 1995. As
shown, the number of offenders sentenced each year in the three most
serious criminal history categories (IV, V, and VI) grew at greater
rates than those for offenders with lesser criminal histories.
Table III.4
Number of Offenders Sentenced Each Year,
by Criminal History Category, Fiscal
Years 1991-1995
Number of offenders sentenced by criminal
history category
--------------------------------------------
I II III IV V VI
(0 or (2 or (4- (7- (10- (13 or
Year sentenced 1)\a 3)\a 6)\a 9)\a 12)\a more)\b
------------------------ ------ ------ ---- ---- ------ --------
1991 13,194 3,014 3,25 1,72 1,007 1,350
7 1
1992 15,101 3,451 3,71 1,95 1,236 1,584
4 6
1993 17,070 3,693 4,18 2,30 1,378 2,005
7 3
1994 15,457 3,616 4,27 2,37 1,373 2,338
8 4
1995 14,818 3,379 4,20 2,48 1,503 2,385
2 2
Percent change, fiscal 12.3% 12.1% 29.0 44.2 49.3% 76.7%
years 1991-1995 % %
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Numbers in parenthesis are the range of criminal history points
for each category.
\b Numbers in category VI exclude offenders classified as career
criminals, whose average sentence in each year exceeded 193 months.
Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission annual reports.
--------------------
\1 Includes only inmates in BOP facilities. BOP also supervises
inmates in community corrections centers, contract detention centers,
other contract facilities, and home confinement.
\2 The disparity between the growth in the prison population and the
slower growth in the supervision population reflects the effect of
the sentencing guidelines on sentences. Longer sentences combined
with the requirement that inmates serve at least 85 percent of their
sentences have resulted in a growing BOP population of older inmates.
LIST OF MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS
REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION
William O. Jenkins, Jr., Assistant Director, Administration of
Justice Issues
Anthony L. Hill, Evaluator-in-Charge
Brenda I. Rabinowitz, Evaluator
David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst
Katherine M. Wheeler, Publishing Advisor
Michelle D. Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel
GLOSSARY
============================================================ Chapter 0
MANDATORY RELEASE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:0.1
A form of release from prison mandated by statute, which has been
phased out by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Mandatory release
can be distinguished from either probation or parole in that
mandatory releasees essentially are denied regular parole because
they are dangerous offenders or have committed serious acts. The
statute provided for release 180 days prior to the expiration of the
prisoner's sentence to allow for a minimal period of supervision.
MILITARY PAROLE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:0.2
A form of early release from a military prison through the exercise
of discretion by the United States Parole Commission (USPC) and the
operation of the good-time laws that were in effect before the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
PAROLE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:0.3
A form of early release from prison through the exercise of
discretion by the USPC and the operation of the good-time laws that
were in effect before the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Parole can
be distinguished from either probation or supervised release in that
parolees are released from custody early but remain in the legal
custody of the Attorney General while in the community. If parole is
revoked, the parolee may be returned to custody to continue serving
the sentence. Prisoners can be released again to parole and
reincarcerated until the maximum sentence imposed has been served.
PROBATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:0.4
A sentence to supervision in the community by a probation officer.
In addition to some mandatory conditions, other conditions may apply.
The maximum term of probation supervision varies by offense class.
SPECIAL PAROLE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:0.5
An additional term of supervision, which has been phased out by the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. A term of special parole begins upon
completion of any period on parole or mandatory release supervision
from the regular sentence. If the prisoner is released by expiration
of good time without any supervision, the special parole term begins
upon such release.
SUPERVISED RELEASE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:0.6
Following completion of the offender's term of imprisonment, a period
of supervision in the community imposed by a judge at the time of
sentencing. In addition to some mandatory conditions, other
conditions may apply. Under the sentencing guidelines, the court
must order supervised release to follow any term of imprisonment that
exceeds 1 year or if required by a specific statute. The court may
order supervised release to follow imprisonment in any other case.
The maximum term of supervised release varies by offense class.
Offenders on supervised release are supervised by probation officers.
*** End of document. ***