Given your understanding of recidivism and imprisonment in the U.S., develop an effective punishment strategy that is likely to be cost effective and reduce re-offending. Responses must be at least 500 words and must directly cite the readings ( 2010 Recidivism)-( Correctional Population BJS)-( Punishment Philosophy).

Given your understanding of recidivism and imprisonment in the U.S., develop an effective punishment strategy that is likely to be cost effective and reduce re-offending.

Responses must be at least 500 words and must directly cite the readings ( 2010 Recidivism)-( Correctional Population BJS)-( Punishment Philosophy).

Please read these 3 pdf file readings and response the answer.
It will be 500 words.

P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
PHILOSOPHIES OF PUNISHMENT
Punishment serves numerous social-control functions, but it is usually justified
on the principles of retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation,
and/or restoration. The specific principles that underlie these dominant
philosophies for punishment are summarized below.
RETRIBUTION
One of the oldest and most basic justifications for punishment involves the
principles of revenge and retribution. This equation of punishment with the
15
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
16 PUNISHMENT
gravity of the offense is embedded in the Judeo–Christian tradition in the
Mosaic laws of the Old Testament that emphasize the idea of “an eye for an
eye.” Neither constrained by questions of offender culpability nor directed
at preventing future wrongdoing, offenders under a retributive philosophy
simply get what they deserve. Punishment is justified on its own grounds,
a general principle that has remained popular throughout Western history
in both law and widespread public beliefs about how justice should be dispensed
in democratic societies.
The classical retributive principle of “let the punishment fit the crime”
was the primary basis for criminal sentencing practices in much of Western
Europe in the nineteenth century. This principle of punishment was subsequently
modified in neoclassical thought to recognize that some offenders
who commit similar offenses may be less blameworthy or culpable due to
factors outside of their control (e.g., diminished capacity, mental disease or
defect, immaturity). Under this revised retributive theory of just deserts, punishment
should fit primarily the moral gravity of the crime and, to a lesser
extent, the characteristics of the offender.
A current example of retributive principles being used as the basis for punishment
involves mandatory sentencing policies and sentencing guidelines
systems in the United States. Mandatory sentences dictate uniform sanctions
for persons who commit particular types of offenses (e.g., enhanced penalties
for crimes committed with firearms), whereas determinate sentencing
guidelines prescribe specific punishments based on the severity of the criminal
offense and the extensiveness of the offender’s prior criminal record.
Consistent with a retributive philosophy, punishment under these sentencing
systems focuses primarily on the seriousness and characteristics of the
criminal act rather than the offender.
Although retribution is often linked to criminal sanctions, it is equally
applicable to other types of legal sanctions and informal sanctions. For example,
civil litigation that is based on the principle of strict liability is similar to
retributive philosophy in that compensatory and punitive damages focus on
the gravity of the prohibited act rather than characteristics of the offender.
Lethal and nonlethal sanctions that derive from blood feuds between rival
families, range wars in agrarian communities, terrorist attacks on civilian and
government targets, and acts of “street justice” by vigilante groups and other
extrajudicial bodies are often fueled by the twin motives of revenge and
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
PUNISHMENT PHILOSOPHIES AND TYPES OF SANCTIONS 17
retribution. Various economic punishments and sanctions that restrict business
practices (e.g., asset forfeitures, injunctions, product boycotts, worker
strikes and slowdowns, revocation of licenses, decertification of programs,
cease-and-desist orders, denial of benefits) may be justified on various utilitarian
grounds like protecting society or deterring wrongdoing, but they
may ultimately reflect the widespread belief in letting the punishment fit the
crime.
Retribution as a penal philosophy has been criticized on several fronts
when it is actually applied in practice. First, strict retributive sanctions based
solely on the nature of the offense (e.g., mandatory sentences for drug traf-
ficking, the use of firearms in the commission of crimes) are often criticized as
being overly rigid, especially in societies that recognize degrees of individual
culpability and blameworthiness. Second, the principle of lex talionis (i.e., the
“eye for an eye” dictum that punishment should correspond in degree and
kind to the offense) has limited applicability. For example, how do you sanction
in kind acts of drunkenness, drug abuse, adultery, prostitution, and/or
traffic violations like speeding? Third, the assumption of proportionality of
punishments (i.e., that punishment should be commensurate or proportional
to the moral gravity of the offense) is untenable in most pluralistic societies
because there is often widespread public disagreement on the severity of
particular offenses.1 Under these conditions, a retributive sentencing system
that espouses proportional sanctions would be based on the erroneous assumption
that there is public consensus in the rankings of the moral gravity
of particular types of crime.
Even with these criticisms, however, the retributive principle of lex talionis
and proportionality of sanctions remains a dominant justification of
punishment in most Western cultures. Retribution under a Judeo–Christian
religious tradition offers a divine justification for strict sanctions and it clearly
fits popular notions of justice (e.g., “he got what was coming to him”). The
dictum of “let the punishment fit the crime” also has some appeal as a principled,
proportional, and commensurate form of societal revenge for various
types of misconduct.
INCAPACITATION
A primary utilitarian purpose for punishment involves various actions designed
to decrease the physical capacity of a person to commit criminal or
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
18 PUNISHMENT
deviant acts. This principle of incapacitation focuses on the elimination of
individuals’ opportunity for crime and deviance through different types of
physical restraints on their actions. The conditions of confinement may be
so deplorable that they reduce the offender’s subsequent desire to engage in
misconduct, but such a deterrent effect is not a necessary component of incapacitation
in its pure and earliest form. In other words, a night in the “drunk
tank,” confinement in the military stockade, or the “grounding” of a wayward
adolescent are often considered useful incapacitative strategies even when
these practices do not lead to subsequent reform in one’s behavior.
A plethora of devices, techniques, and structures have been used throughout
history as means for incapacitation. The early tribal practices of banishment
to the wilderness, the English system of “transportation” of convicts
to other colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the exile of
citizens in ancient Greek society, and political exile in more modern times
are examples of incapacitative sanctions because they involve the physical
removal of persons from their former communities, thereby restricting their
physical opportunity for misconduct in the original setting. The stocks and
pillory in English history and Colonial America were devices used for both
public ridicule and incapacitation. Other types of incapacitating hardware
are as diverse as electronic shackles for monitoring offenders in open spaces,
Breathalysers that prevent drunk drivers from starting their cars, “kiddie harnesses”
to restrict the movement of young children in public places, and
chastity belts for limiting sexual promiscuity.
The function of incapacitation may also be served by other types of legal
and extralegal restrictions on one’s behavior. Other legal forms of incapacitation
involving civil or administrative decrees include court-ordered injunctions,
federal boycotts and restraint-of-trade agreements, restraining orders
in domestic violence cases, cease-and-desist orders, revocations of licenses,
foreclosures, and the passage of certification requirements to perform particular
tasks (e.g., college degree requirements for teaching, passing medical
board and bar exams for practicing medicine or law). Many of these actions
are economic sanctions in that they carry financial consequences for those
involved, but these civil and administrative rules can also be seen as incapacitative
in that they place physical restrictions on one’s possible actions. Ostracism,
the spreading of adverse publicity, “lumping” (i.e., doing nothing and
not responding to one’s inquiries), and censorship are some of the extralegal
and informal means of physically restricting one’s behavioral opportunities.
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
PUNISHMENT PHILOSOPHIES AND TYPES OF SANCTIONS 19
The most widely known type of incapacitation involves some form of incarceration,
or what others have termed “penal bondage.”2 Aside from their
incapacitative effect on restricting immediate criminal opportunities, penal
bondage of criminals, vagrants, debtors, social misfits, and other disadvantaged
groups across time periods and geographical contexts has often included
a component of forced labor (e.g., public works projects, forced servitude
in military campaigns) as a condition of confinement.
Physical structures for incapacitation may have different purposes or
functions besides the physical restraint of the body. These places of con-
finement are described across time and space in context-specific terms like
dungeons, towers, workhouses, gulags, jails, prisons, labor camps, “readjustment”
centers, correctional or treatment facilities, cottages, sanitariums, and
mental institutions. The specific language used for descriptive purposes also
signifies their functions beyond physical incapacitation.
During the last half century, several new forms of incapacitation have
emerged. For example, shock incarceration programs involve short-term incarceration
of juvenile offenders to show them the pains of imprisonment and
scare them into a future life of conformity. Work release programs and placement
in halfway houses are temporary incapacitation programs designed to
maintain community ties and ease the adjustment from prison to conventional
life. Another variant of incapacitation, intensive-supervision probation
(ISP), leaves adjudicated criminals in their community but under the watchful
eye of probation officers or other legal authorities.
The recent model of selective incapacitation in the United States is designed
to target criminal offenders thought to have the greatest probability
of repeat offending and place greater restraints on the nature and conditions
of confinement for these “high-risk” offenders. Although research suggests
that a small pool of people commits the predominant share of violent and
property crime, efforts to successfully predict these high-risk offenders suffer
from numerous ethical and practical problems, including high rates of
both “false positives” (i.e., falsely labeling someone as a high-risk offender)
and “false negatives” (i.e., releasing high-risk offenders because they were
erroneously characterized as low-risk).3
Contrary to early historical patterns of incapacitation that emphasized
the reduction of the physical opportunity for crime and deviance, modern
versions of this philosophy are more “forward-looking” in terms of focusing
on the utility of punishments for changing offenders’ criminal motivations
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
20 PUNISHMENT
once they are no longer physically restrained from committing deviance. In
this way, incapacitation is united with other utilitarian philosophies for punishment.
Different types of incapacitative sanctions may serve as the initial
framework for establishing successful programs of deterrence and rehabilitation.
DETERRENCE
The doctrine of deterrence asks a fundamental question about the relationship
between sanctions and human behavior: Are legal and extralegal sanctions
effective in reducing deviance and achieving conformity? Punishment
is said to have a deterrent effect when the fear or actual imposition of punishment
leads to conformity.4 The deterrent value of punishments is directly
linked to the characteristics of those punishments. Specifically, punishments
have the greatest potential for deterring misconduct when they are severe,
certain, and swift in their application. Punishments are also widely assumed
to be most effective for instrumental conduct (i.e., deliberate actions directed
at the achievement of some explicit goal) and for potential offenders who
have low commitment to deviance as a livelihood (e.g., the person is not a
professional criminal).5
Deterrence is based on a rational conception of human behavior in which
individuals freely choose between alternative courses of action to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain. From this classical perspective on crime and
punishment, criminal solutions to problems become an unattractive option
when the costs of this conduct exceed its expected benefit. Swift, certain,
and severe sanctions are costs that are assumed to impede the likelihood
of engaging in deviant behavior. From a deterrence standpoint, any type of
punishment (e.g., monetary, informal, incapacitative, corporal) has a potential
deterrent effect as long as it is perceived as a severe, certain, and swift
sanction.
The research literature on the effectiveness of criminal punishments outlines
the four major types of deterrence, which include the following:
¦ Specific deterrence involves the effectiveness of punishment on that particular
individual’s future behavior. Recidivism rates (e.g., rates of repeat
offending among prior offenders) are often used to measure the specific
deterrent value of punishments.
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
PUNISHMENT PHILOSOPHIES AND TYPES OF SANCTIONS 21
¦ General deterrence asks whether the punishment of particular offenders
deters other people from committing deviance. A comparison of crime
rates over time or across jurisdictions is typically used to ascertain the
general deterrent value of punishment.
¦ Marginal deterrence focuses on the relative effectiveness of different types
of punishments as either general or specific deterrents. For example, if recidivism
rates for drunk drivers are higher for those who receive monetary
fines than those who received jail time, jail time would be rated higher
in its marginal deterrent value as a specific deterrent for drunk driving.
Similarly, debates about capital punishment often focus on the marginal
deterrent value of life imprisonment compared to the death penalty as a
general deterrent for murder.
¦ Partial deterrence refers to situations in which the threat of sanction has
some deterrent value even when the sanction threats do not lead to lawabiding
behavior. For example, if a thief picked or “lifted” someone’s wallet
rather than robbing them at gunpoint (because the thief was fearful of the
more serious penalty for committing an armed robbery), the thief would
be treated as a “successful” case of partial deterrence. Similarly, tougher
fines for speeding passed in a jurisdiction would serve as a partial deterrent
under these two conditions: (1) the average motorist under the
new law exceeded the speed limit by 5 miles an hour and (2) the average
motorist under the old law exceeded the speed limit by 10 miles an
hour. The average motorist is still exceeding the speed limit but he or she
nonetheless is driving slower.
When the philosophy of deterrence is used in the context of penal reform,
it is often as a justification for increasing the severity of sanctions,
particularly in Western developed countries.6 Legislative responses to terrorist
attacks, drug trafficking, child abductions, and violent crimes on school
property have been directed primarily at increasing the severity and/or duration
of punishments (e.g., being a drug “kingpin” and participation in lethal
terrorist attacks are now capital crimes under U.S. federal law). Although
these greater punitive measures may serve to pacify widespread public demands
to “get tough” on crime, the specific and general deterrent effect of
such efforts is probably limited without attention to the other necessary
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
22 PUNISHMENT
conditions for effective deterrence (i.e., high certainty and high celerity of
punishments).7
Empirical efforts to assess the effectiveness of deterrence are limited by
several basic factors. First, persons may abide by laws or desist in deviant
behavior for a variety of reasons other than the looming threat or fear of legal
sanctions. Some of these nondeterrence constraints on behavior include
one’s moral/ethical principles, religious beliefs, physical inability to commit
the deviant act, and lack of opportunity. Second, neither swift nor certain
punishment exists in most legal systems in the contemporary world. The majority
of criminal offenses are typically unknown to the legal authorities and,
even among the known offenses, only a small proportion result in an arrest
and conviction. The typical criminal penalty and civil suits are often imposed
or resolved months, if not years, after the initial violation. Third, the severity
of punishment actually received by offenders is often far less than mandated
by law, due to the operation of such factors as plea bargaining, charge reductions,
jury nullifications, executive clemency and pardons, and “good time”
provisions. Under these conditions, it is unsurprising that the deterrent effect
of criminal and civil sanctions has not been clearly demonstrated across
a variety of contexts.
REHABILITATION
Although it may seem contradictory or at least somewhat odd to assert that
we punish for the treatment and reform of offenders, this basic principle
underlies the rehabilitation purpose of punishment. The ultimate goal of
rehabilitation is to restore a convicted offender to a constructive place in
society through some combination of treatment, education, and training.8
The salience of rehabilitation as a punishment philosophy is indicated by the
contemporary jargon of “correctional facilities,” “reformatories,” and “therapeutic
community” now used to describe jails, prisons, and other institutions
of incapacitation.
The link between places of incapacitation and reform is established
throughout much of written history. The earliest forms of penal confinement
in dungeons, towers, caves, and other dark and dreary places were largely incapacitative
in their primary function, but some degree of moral and spiritual
enlightenment was expected of those condemned to long periods of solitary
confinement. This idea of restraint to reform is evident within the context
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
PUNISHMENT PHILOSOPHIES AND TYPES OF SANCTIONS 23
of religious penance in Judeo–Christian practices in Western Europe and the
British colonies in North America and elsewhere. It is also manifested in U.S.
history in the early development of reformatories and penitentiaries. These
large-scale incarceration structures punished misguided youth and criminals
by isolating them so they could reflect on their deviant actions, repent, and
subsequently reform their behavior. Confinement and reflection for spiritual
reform are also of central importance in the religious principles found in
Hinduism and Buddhism.
In contrast to retribution that emphasizes uniform punishments based on
the gravity of the misconduct, rehabilitation focuses on the particular characteristics
of individual offenders that require treatment and intervention. This
individualized treatment approach is logically consistent with indeterminate
sentencing structures that give judges enormous discretion to tailor punishments
for the greatest good to the individual offender and provide parole
boards with equally high discretion to release or retain offenders for future
treatment. Through the application of current theories of human behavior
and the latest therapeutic techniques for behavioral modification, rehabilitation
experienced growing acceptance in many countries throughout much
of the twentieth century.9
Even though “correctional” institutions continue to espouse the benefits
of rehabilitation and specific treatment programs (e.g., drug treatment, anger
management, job training), support for rehabilitation in the United States was
dealt a major blow in the mid-1970s with publication of a report that concluded
that rehabilitation efforts had no appreciable effect on recidivism.10
National fiscal restraints, declines in correctional budgets for program development,
high public outcry for more severe and longer prison sentences,
and a growing crime-control political ideology that focuses on suppression
of criminal behavior rather than its early prevention are current conditions
in Western societies that are largely antithetical to the ideas of treatment and
rehabilitation.11
RESTORATION
One of the most recent goals of punishment derives from the principles of
restoration. As an alternative to other punishment philosophies (e.g., retribution,
incapacitation, rehabilitation), restorative justice fundamentally challenges
our way of thinking about crime and justice. The global victims’ rights
P1: ICD/NDN P2: JRT
052184407Xc02 CB766-Miethe-v1 January 23, 2005 16:17
24 PUNISHMENT
movement is a relatively new phenomenon, but, the general roots of restorative
justice can be traced back to the early legal systems of Western Europe,
ancient Hebrew justice, and precolonial African societies.12
Restorative justice literally involves the process of returning to their previous
condition all parties involved in or affected by the original misconduct,
including victims, offenders, the community, and even possibly the
government.13 Under this punishment philosophy, the offender takes full responsibility
for the wrongdoing and initiates restitution to the victim. The
victim and offender are brought together to develop a mutually beneficial
program that helps the victim in the recovery process and provides the offender
a means of reducing their risks of re-offending.
The theory of reintegrative shaming developed by John Braithwaite is
based on the principles of restorative justice.14 Offenders take personal responsibility
for their actions and condemnation is focused on the deviant act,
rather than the offender, and its impact on the victim and the community.
Both the offender and the community need to be reintegrated as a result of
the harm caused by the criminal behavior. Community mediation groups,
neighborhood councils, local support groups, and victim–offender conferences
are the primary means of achieving these restorative efforts.
The principles of restorative justice have been applied to the study
of both criminal and civil sanctions. For example, the institutionalized practice
of “written apology” and “letter of forgiveness” in the Japanese criminal
justice system is designed to express remorse and make restitution. By accepting
the apology, the victim forgives the offender.15 In all cases of restorative
justice, the goal is to restore both the individual parties and their community’s
sense of wholeness.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin
December 2014, NCJ 248479
Correctional Populations
in the United States, 2013
Lauren E. Glaze and Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statisticians
Annual percent change
Population (in millions) Annual percent change
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Population
’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Figure 1
Total population under the supervision of adult
correctional systems and annual percent change,
2000–2013
Note: Estimates were rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates may
not be comparable to previously published BJS reports because of
updated information or changes in methods. Includes estimates for
nonresponding jurisdictions. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and
Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, Census of Jail Inmates, and National
Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000–2013.
An estimated 6,899,000 persons were under
the supervision of adult correctional systems
at yearend 2013, down from 6,940,500 at
yearend 2012 (figure 1). The decrease of 41,500
offenders in 2013 resulted in the number of persons
under correctional supervision falling below
6.9 million for the first time since 2003. The decline
in the population during 2013 (down 0.6%) was less
than 1% for the second consecutive year, down from
2.1% in 2010 when the fastest annual decline in the
population was observed. About 1 in 35 adults in the
United States was under some form of correctional
supervision at yearend 2013. This rate was unchanged
from 2012, when it dropped to the lowest rate
observed since 1997.
This report summarizes data from several Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) correctional data collections to
provide statistics on the total population supervised
by adult correctional systems in the United States.
(See Methodology for sources.) These systems include
offenders living in the community while supervised
by probation or parole agencies and those under
the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or held in
local jails.
HIGHLIGHTS
? An estimated 6,899,000 persons were under the
supervision of adult correctional systems at yearend
2013, a decline of about 41,500 from yearend 2012.
? The correctional population declined 0.6% during
2013, down from 2.1% in 2010 when the fastest annual
decline in the population was observed.
? About 1 in 35 adults (2.8%) in the United States was
under some form of correctional supervision at yearend
2013, unchanged from 2012.
? For the second consecutive year, the community
supervision (down 0.6%) and incarcerated (down 0.5%)
populations declined by less than 1%.
? About 1 in 51 adults was on probation or parole at
yearend 2013, compared to 1 in 110 adults incarcerated
in prison or local jail.
? All of the decline in the correctional population during
2013 resulted from decreases in the probation (down
32,100) and local jail (down 13,300) populations.
? While the U.S. prison population increased during 2013
(up 4,300 prisoners), the federal prison population
(down 1,900) decreased for the first time since 1980.
? Since 2010, the female jail population has been the
fastest growing correctional population, increasing by
an average of 3.4% annually.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 2
During 2013, the community
supervision and incarcerated
populations declined by less than 1%
The 41,500 decline in the correctional
population during 2013 was attributed
to decreases in both the community
supervision and incarcerated
populations.1 An estimated 4,751,400
persons were on probation or parole
at the end of 2013, representing about
7 in 10 offenders under correctional
supervision (table 1).
2 (See appendix
table 1 for correctional population
estimates by jurisdiction.)
During 2013, the number of persons
under community supervision fell by
29,900, accounting for the majority
1
Because offenders with multiple correctional
statuses are excluded from the total correctional
population to avoid double counting offenders,
the sum of the community supervision and
incarcerated populations and the change in the
populations will not equal the total correctional
population. See table 6 and Methodology.
2
The total community supervision population
excludes parolees who were also on probation to
avoid double counting offenders. See table 6 and
Methodology.
Table 1
Estimated number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, by correctional status, 2000, 2005, and 2010–2013
Year
Total correctional
populationa
Community supervision Incarceratedb
Totala,c Probation Parole Totala Local jail Prison
2000 6,467,900 4,565,100 3,839,500 725,500 1,945,400 621,100 1,394,200
2005 7,055,800 4,946,800 4,162,500 784,400 2,200,400 747,500 1,525,900
2010 7,088,500 4,887,900 4,055,500 840,700 2,279,100 748,700 1,613,800
2011 6,990,400 4,814,200 3,971,300 853,900 2,252,500 735,600 1,599,000
2012 6,940,500 4,781,300 3,942,800 851,200 2,231,400 744,500 1,570,400
2013 6,899,000 4,751,400 3,910,600 853,200 2,220,300 731,200 1,574,700
Average annual percent
change, 2000–2012 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.0%
Percent change, 2012-2013 -0.6% -0.6% -0.8% 0.2% -0.5% -1.8% 0.3%
Note: Estimates were rounded to the nearest 100 and may not be comparable to previously published BJS reports due to updated information or rounding. Counts include
estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. All probation, parole, and prison counts are for December 31; jail counts are for the last weekday in June. Detail may not sum to total
due to rounding and adjustments made to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
aTotal was adjusted to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
bIncludes inmates held in local jails or under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons.
cIncludes some offenders held in a prison or jail but who remained under the jurisdiction of a probation or parole agency.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, Census of Jail Inmates, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000, 2005,
and 2010–2013.
of the decline in the total correctional
population. For the second consecutive
year, the community supervision
population decreased by less than 1%.
The rate of decline in the community
supervision population slowed between
2010 (down 2.6%) and 2012 (down
0.7%). During 2013 (down 0.6%), the
community supervision population
declined at rate that was relatively
unchanged from the previous year.
Similar to the community supervision
population, the number of inmates in
state and federal prisons and local jails
dropped between 2012 (2,231,400)
and 2013 (2,220,300).3 The decrease of
11,100 inmates during the year was the
smallest decrease in the incarcerated
population since it first declined in
2009 (down 12,600). During 2011,
the population decreased by 1.2%, the
fastest annual rate of decline since 2009.
3
The total incarcerated population excludes
prisoners who were held in a local jail to avoid
double counting inmates. See table 6 and
Methodology.
Since 2011, the rate of decline in the
population slowed slightly, from 0.9% in
2012 to 0.5% in 2013.
About 8 in 10 offenders under
community supervision at yearend
2013 were on probation (3,910,600),
compared to about 2 in 10 on parole
(853,200). All of the decrease in the
community supervision population
during 2013 was attributed to the
decline in the probation population
(down 0.8% or 32,100). The small
increase in the number of parolees
(up 0.2% or 2,100) partially offset the
decrease in the community supervision
population during the year.
At yearend 2013, about 70% of the
incarcerated population was under the
jurisdiction of state or federal prisons
(1,574,700), compared to 30% held
in local jails (731,200). However, the
decrease in the number of local jail
inmates (down 1.8% or 13,300) during
2013 accounted for all of the decline in
the incarcerated population.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 3
Figure 2
Estimated number and rate of persons supervised by adult correctional systems,
2000–2013
Number Rate
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Rateb
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
Numbera
’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13
Note: Counts were rounded to the nearest 100 and rates were rounded to the nearest 10. Estimates may not
be comparable to previously published BJS reports due to updated information or rounding. Counts include
estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. See Methodology.
aTotal was adjusted to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
bRates were computed using the U.S. adult resident population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for
January 1 of the following year.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, Census of Jail
Inmates, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000–2013. The adult resident population estimates are based
on the U.S. Census Bureau, National Intercensal Estimates, 2000–2012, and unpublished adult resident population
estimates on January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2014.
Between 2012 and 2103, the U.S.
prison population grew by 0.3% (4,300
prisoners), reversing a 3-year trend of
decreases in the population (table 1).
All of the increase in the U.S. prison
population was attributed to the
increase in the number of inmates under
the jurisdiction of state prisons (up 0.5%
or 6,300). The growth in the U.S. prison
population during 2013 masked the
first decline in the number of inmates
under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (down 0.9% or 1,900)
since 1980.4
Correctional supervision rate
dropped during 2013, continuing a
6-year trend
By yearend 2013, the correctional
supervision rate declined to 2,830
per 100,000 U.S. adult residents from
2,870 per 100,000 at yearend 2012
(figure 2). The correctional supervision
rate trended downward over the past 6
years, after reaching a peak of 3,210 per
100,000 adults in 2007. However, the
decline during 2013 (down 1.5%) was
less than the average annual decrease of
2.2% between 2007 and 2012.
Since the correctional population
first declined during 2008, the trend
in the correctional supervision
rate diverged from the trend in the
number of persons under correctional
supervision. Compared to the
decrease in the number of offenders
under correctional supervision, the
correctional supervision rate declined
4
See Prisoners in 2013 (NCJ247282, BJS web,
September 2014) for more information on the
prison population.
more rapidly. The number of persons
supervised by adult correctional systems
decreased by an average of 1.0% each
year from yearend 2007 to yearend
2013. In comparison, the average annual
decline in the correctional supervision
rate (down 2.1%) was twice as fast
during the period. However, half of the
decrease in the correctional supervision
rate since 2007 was attributed to the
increase in the size of the U.S. adult
resident population.5
5
See Methodology for more information about
the method used to decompose the decline in the
correctional supervision rate.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 4
Table 2
U.S. adult residents supervised by adult correctional systems, 2000, and 2005–2013
Total correctional populationa Community supervision population Incarcerated populationb
Year
Number supervised
per 100,000 U.S.
adult residentsc
U.S. adult residents
under correctional
supervision
Number on probation or
parole per 100,000 U.S.
adult residentsc U.S. adult residents on
probation or parole
Number incarcerated in
prison or local jail per
100,000 U.S. adult residentsc
U.S. adult residents
incarcerated in prison
or local jail
2000 3,060 1 in 33 2,160 1 in 46 920 1 in 109
2005 3,160 1 in 32 2,210 1 in 45 990 1 in 101
2006 3,190 1 in 31 2,230 1 in 45 1,000 1 in 100
2007 3,210 1 in 31 2,240 1 in 45 1,000 1 in 100
2008 3,160 1 in 32 2,200 1 in 45 1,000 1 in 100
2009 3,100 1 in 32 2,150 1 in 47 980 1 in 102
2010 3,000 1 in 33 2,070 1 in 48 960 1 in 104
2011 2,930 1 in 34 2,010 1 in 50 940 1 in 106
2012 2,870 1 in 35 1,980 1 in 50 920 1 in 108
2013 2,830 1 in 35 1,950 1 in 51 910 1 in 110
Note: Rates were estimated to the nearest 10. Estimates may not be comparable to previously published BJS reports due to updated information or rounding.
aIncludes offenders in the community under the authority of probation or parole agencies, under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons, or held in local jails.
bIncludes inmates under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or held in local jails.
cRates were computed using the U.S. adult resident population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for January 1 of the following year.
Source: Adult correctional population estimates are based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, Census of
Jail Inmates, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000, 2005-2013. The adult resident population estimates are based on the U.S. Census Bureau, National Intercensal
Estimates, 2000, and 2005–2012, and unpublished adult resident population estimates on January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2014.
Table 3
Estimated number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, by correctional status, 2010 and 2013
2010 2013
Correctional populations Population Percent of total population Population Percent of total population
Totala 7,088,500 100% 6,899,000 100%
Probationb 4,055,500 57.2 3,910,600 56.7
Paroleb 840,700 11.9 853,200 12.4
Prisonb 1,613,800 22.8 1,574,700 22.8
Local jailc 748,700 10.6 731,200 10.6
Offenders with multiple correctional statusesd 170,300 : 170,800 :
Note: Counts were rounded to the nearest 100 and include estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and because offenders with
multiple correctional statuses were excluded from the total correctional population. See Methodology.
:Not calculated.
aTotal was adjusted to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
bPopulation as of December 31.
cPopulation as of the last weekday in June.
dSome probationers and parolees on December 31 were held in a prison or jail but still remained under the jurisdiction of a probation or parole agency, and some parolees
were also on probation. In addition, some prisoners were held in jail. They were excluded from the total correctional population to avoid double counting. See table 6 and
Methodology.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2010 and 2013.
The rate of offenders under community
supervision declined between 2012 and
2013, from 1,980 per 100,000 adults
to 1,950 per 100,000. (table 2). Since
peaking at 2,240 per 100,000 adults
in 2007, the community supervision
rate trended downward, accounting
for three-quarters of the decline in
the correctional supervision rate from
2007 to 2013. By yearend 2013, the
incarceration rate also dropped slightly,
to 910 per 100,000 adults from 920
per 100,000 at yearend 2012. Since
2008 (1,000 per 100,000 adults), the
incarceration rate declined steadily.
Decreases in the probation and
jail populations accounted for the
decline in the correctional population
during 2013
Although the correctional population
continued to decline between 2010
and 2013, the composition of the
correctional population remained
unchanged. Probationers accounted
for the majority (57%) of offenders
under correctional supervision in 2010
and 2013, and prisoners (23%) made
up almost a quarter of the population
(table 3). Parolees and local jail inmates
represented the smallest and equal
shares of the correctional population in
2010 and 2013 (12% parolees and 11%
jail inmates).
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 5
Table 4
Change in the number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, 2010 and 2013
2010 2013 2010–2013
Change in
number
Percent of
total change
Change in
number
Percent of
total change
Change in
number
Percent of
total change
Total changea -148,600 100% Total changea -41,500 100% Total changea -189,500 100%
Total increase 16,600 100% Total increase 6,400 100% Total increase 12,500 100%
Parole 16,600 100 Prison 4,300 67.2 Parole 12,500 100
Total decrease -163,000 100% Parole 2,100 32.8 Total decrease -201,500 100%
Probation -142,600 87.5 Total decrease -45,400 100% Probation -144,900 71.9
Local jail -18,700 11.5 Probation -32,100 70.7 Prison -39,100 19.4
Prison -1,700 1.0 Local jail -13,300 29.3 Local jail -17,500 8.7
Offenders with multiple
correctional statusesb 2,200 :
Offenders with multiple
correctional statusesb 2,500 :
Offenders with multiple
correctional statusesb 600 :
Note: Estimates were rounded to the nearest 100 and include estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. See Methodology.
: Not calculated.
aTotal change includes the change in the number of offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See table 6 and Methodology.
bSome probationers and parolees on December 31 were held in a prison or jail but still remained under the jurisdiction of a probation or parole agency, and some parolees
were also on probation. In addition, some prisoners were held in jail. They were excluded from the total correctional population to avoid double counting. See table 6 and
Methodology.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2010 and 2013.
Between yearend 2012 and 2013,
decreases in the probation and local
jail populations led to the overall
decline in the correctional population.
Combined, the probation and jail
populations fell by 45,400 offenders
during 2013 (table 4). The decline in
the probation population accounted
for 71% (down 32,100) of the total
decrease in the correctional population,
as the probation population represented
the largest share of offenders under
correctional supervision. The local jail
population also decreased during 2013,
accounting for 29% (down 13,300) of
the total decline in the correctional
population. Increases in the prison (up
4,300 prisoners) and parole (up 2,100
parolees) populations slightly offset
the overall decrease in the correctional
population during the year.
Since 2010, the probation, prison, and
jail populations declined by a total of
201,500 offenders, with the probation
population accounting for the majority
(72%) of the decline. The parole
population was the only correctional
population to increase since 2010 (up
12,500), partially offsetting the overall
decline in the correctional population
over the 3-year period.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 6
Table 5
Estimated number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems and change in the population, by sex and correctional
status, 2000, 2010, and 2013
Total correctional
population* Probation Parole Local jail Prison
Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females
2000 5,389,600 1,078,400 3,003,300 836,200 635,800 89,700 550,200 71,000 1,301,000 93,200
2010 5,824,400 1,264,100 3,081,000 974,500 737,300 103,400 656,400 92,400 1,500,900 112,900
2013 5,642,700 1,256,300 2,948,500 962,100 751,000 102,200 628,900 102,400 1,463,500 111,300
Percent change,
2000–2010
Total 8.1% 17.2% 2.6% 16.5% 16.0% 15.3% 19.3% 30.1% 15.4% 21.1%
Average annual 0.8 1.6 0.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.6 1.4 1.9
Percent change,
2010–2013
Total -3.1% -0.6% -4.3% -1.3% 1.9% -1.2% -4.2% 10.8% -2.5% -1.4%
Average annual -1.1 -0.2 -1.5 -0.4 0.6 -0.4 -1.4 3.4 -0.8 -0.5
Note: Estimates of probationers, parolees, and prisoners are for December 31; estimates of local jail inmates are for the last weekday in June. Counts were rounded to nearest
100 and include estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. Detail may not sum to total due rounding and adjustments made to account for persons with multiple correctional
statuses. See Methodology.
*Total was adjusted to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000, 2010, and 2013.
Percent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2013 2010
2000
Total correctional Probation Parole Local jail Prison
population*
Figure 3
Percent of females supervised by adult correctional systems, by correctional status,
2000, 2010, and 2013
Note: Estimates of probationers, parolees, and prisoners are for December 31; estimates of local jail inmates are for
the last weekday of June. Includes estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. See Methodology.
*Total was adjusted to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, and National
Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000, 2010, and 2013.
Since 2000, the proportion of females
on probation and in jail increased;
the proportion of females in prison
and on parole remained stable
At yearend 2013 (18%), females
represented a slightly larger share of
the total correctional population than
in 2000 (17%) (figure 3). The small
increase was associated with an increase
in the percentages of females supervised
on probation and incarcerated in local
jails. In 2013, females accounted for
almost 25% of the probation population,
up from about 22% in 2000. Similarly,
females represented a larger share
of the local jail population in 2013
(14%) compared to 2000 (11%). The
percentage of females on parole or
incarcerated in state or federal prison
remained unchanged between 2000
and 2013.
Female jail, prison, and probation
populations grew at a faster rate than
the male populations between 2000
and 2010
The number of both males and females
under correctional supervision
increased between 2000 and 2010.
An estimated 1,264,100 females were
supervised by adult correctional
systems at yearend 2010, up from about
1,078,400 at yearend 2000 (table 5).
The number of males under correctional
supervision reached approximately
5,824,400 by yearend 2010, up from
5,389,600 at yearend 2000. However,
on average, females (up 1.6%) under
correctional supervision grew at an
annual rate that was twice the annual
growth rate for males (up 0.8%) during
the period.
While the number of males and
females increased for all correctional
populations between 2000 and 2010,
the growth in females was faster than
the growth in males for all populations
except parolees. The male (1.5%) and
female (1.4%) parole populations
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 7
increased at about the same rate each
year on average. Among both males and
females, the local jail population was the
fastest growing correctional population
between 2000 and 2010. However, on
average, the female jail population (up
2.6%) grew at a faster rate annually than
the male jail population (up 1.8%).
The number of females under the
jurisdiction of state or federal prisons
grew by 21% between 2000 and 2010,
compared to about a 15% increase
in the number of male prisoners.
Consequently, the growth in the
female prison population (up 1.9% on
average annually) was slightly faster
than the growth in the male prison
population (up 1.4%) during the period.
Between 2000 and 2010, the female
probation population increased by
17%, or an average of 1.5% annually.
In comparison, the male probation
population grew by 2.6%, or an average
rate of growth (up 0.3% per year) that
was about a fifth the growth rate of
female probationers.
Since 2010, female jail inmates
increased 11% and male parolees
increased 2%; all other correctional
populations declined
The decrease in both male and female
correctional populations was consistent
with the decline in the total number of
persons supervised by adult correctional
systems since 2010. However, while the
number of males under correctional
supervision declined by about 3.1%
since 2010, the female correctional
population (down 0.6%) decreased by
less than 1%. Compared to males (down
1.1%), the average annual rate of decline
in the female correctional population
(down 0.2%) was considerably slower.
The number of males and females
decreased across all correctional
populations between 2010 and 2013,
except for female jail inmates (up 11%)
and male parolees (up 2%). Since 2010,
the female jail population increased by
an average annual rate of 3.4%.
Methodology
Sources of data
The statistics presented in this report
include data from various Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) data collections,
each relying on the voluntary
participation of federal, state, and local
respondents. For more information
about any of the following data
collections, go to the Data Collections
page www.bjs.gov.
Annual Surveys of Probation and
Parole. The Annual Surveys of
Probation and Parole (ASPP) began in
1980. They collect data from probation
and parole agencies in the United States
that supervise adults. Both surveys
cover the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the federal system. BJS
defines probation as 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 defined as 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.
In these data, adults are persons who are
subject to the jurisdiction of an adult
court or correctional agency. Persons
age 17 or younger who were prosecuted
in criminal court as if they were adults
are considered adults, but persons age
17 or younger who were under the
jurisdiction of a juvenile court or agency
are excluded.
Annual Survey of Jails. The Annual
Survey of Jails (ASJ) has collected
data from a nationally representative
sample of local jails each year since
1982, except in 1983, 1988, 1993, 1999,
and 2005, when a complete census of
U.S. local jails was conducted. Jails
are confinement facilities, usually
administered by a local law enforcement
agency, that are intended to hold
adults, but they may also hold youth
age 17 or younger before or after they
are adjudicated. The ASJ data used in
this report include inmates age 17 or
younger who were held either before or
after they were adjudicated (about 4,600
persons in 2013).
To maintain the jail series in this
report, all tables and figures include
2013 national estimates of the local
jail population as of the last weekday
in June that were provided through
the ASJ, except appendix table 1. In
2013, BJS conducted another census
of jails through an existing collection
titled the Deaths in Custody Reporting
Program. BJS relied on local jail counts
provided for December 31 through the
2013 census to generate jurisdictionlevel
estimates of the total incarcerated
population and total correctional
population that appear in appendix
table 1. (ASJ is designed to provide only
national estimates.) Because appendix
table 1 includes the 2013 local jail
estimates as of December 31, the totals
of the correctional and incarcerated
populations reported in appendix table
1 are not consistent with the totals of
the populations reported in the other
tables and figures of this report. (See
Census of Jails and Deaths in Custody
Reporting Program.)
Census of Jails. The Census of Jails
began in 1970 and was conducted in
1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1999,
2005, and 2006. In 2013, BJS expanded
the 2013 Deaths in Custody Reporting
Program–Annual Summary on Inmates
under Jail Jurisdiction to act as the
2013 Census of Jails. The census is part
of a series of data collection efforts,
including the Census of Jail Inmates
and the Census of Jail Facilities, aimed
at studying the nation’s jails and their
inmate populations.
Deaths in Custody Reporting Program.
The Deaths in Custody Reporting
Program (DCRP) is an annual collection
that provides national, state, and
incident-level data on persons who
died while in the physical custody of
the 50 state departments of corrections
or the approximately 2,800 local
adult jail jurisdictions nationwide.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 8
The DCRP began in 2000 under the
Death in Custody Reporting Act of
2000 (P.L. 106-297), and it is the only
national statistical collection to obtain
comprehensive information about
deaths in adult correctional facilities.
In addition to the death count, BJS
requests that jails provide summary
statistics about their population and
admissions. All jails, including those
with no deaths to report (which includes
about 80% of jails in any given year), are
asked to complete the annual summary
survey form.
National Prisoner Statistics Program.
The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS)
program began in 1926 under a
mandate from Congress and has been
conducted annually. It collects data
from the nation’s state departments of
corrections and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP).
The NPS distinguishes between
inmates in custody and prisoners under
jurisdiction of correctional authorities.
To have custody of a prisoner, a state
or the BOP must hold that inmate in
one of its facilities. To have jurisdiction
over a prisoner, the state or BOP must
have legal authority over that prisoner,
regardless of where the prisoner is
incarcerated or supervised. Some
states were unable to provide counts
that distinguish between custody and
jurisdiction.6
With the exception of appendix
table 2, the NPS counts in all tables
and figures of this report are consistent
with the jurisdiction counts and
findings reported in Prisoners in 2013,
(NCJ 247282, BJS web, September
2014). The jurisdiction counts represent
BJS’s official measure of the prison
population and include persons held
in prisons, penitentiaries, correctional
facilities, halfway houses, boot camps,
farms, training or treatment centers,
and hospitals. They also include
prisoners who were temporarily absent
(fewer than 30 days), in court, or
on work release; housed in privately
operated facilities, local jails, or other
6
See Jurisdiction notes in Prisoners in 2013,
(NCJ 247282, BJS web, September 2014) to
determine which states did not distinguish
between custody and jurisdiction counts.
state or federal facilities; and serving
concurrent sentences for more than one
correctional authority.
The NPS custody counts are reported
in appendix table 2 and include all
inmates held within state and federal
facilities, including inmates housed
for other correctional facilities,
prisoners held in privately operated
facilities, prisoners age 17 or younger
who were serving time in a state or
federal correctional facility after being
sentenced in criminal court as if they
were adults (1,200 persons in 2013), and
inmates in the 6 states in which prisons
and jails form one integrated system,
including inmates age 17 or younger
who may have been held before or
after adjudication.
In 1995, BJS began collecting
yearend counts of inmates from the
departments of corrections in the U.S.
territories (American Samoa, Guam,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and U.S.
commonwealths (Northern Mariana
Islands and Puerto Rico). These data
are only included in appendix table 3
of this report and represent all inmates
under the jurisdiction or legal authority
of prison facilities in the U.S. territories
or commonwealths.
Survey of Jails in Indian Country.
The Annual Survey of Jails in Indian
Country (SJIC) has been conducted
annually since 1998, except in 2005
and 2006. The SJIC collects detailed
information on all adult and juvenile
confinement facilities, detention centers,
jails, and other facilities operated by
tribal authorities or the U.S. Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs.
These data are included in appendix
table 3 of this report.
Counts adjusted for offenders with
multiple correctional statuses
Offenders under correctional
supervision may have multiple
correctional statuses for several
reasons. For example, probation and
parole agencies may not always be
notified immediately of new arrests,
jail admissions, or prison admissions;
absconders included in a probation
or parole agency’s population in one
jurisdiction may actually be incarcerated
in another jurisdiction; persons may be
admitted to jail or prison before formal
revocation hearings and potential
discharge by a probation or parole
agency; and persons may be serving
separate probation and parole sentences
concurrently. In addition, state and
federal prisons may hold inmates in
county facilities or local jails to reduce
crowding in their prisons.
In 1998, through the ASPP, BJS
began collecting data on the number
of probationers and parolees with
multiple correctional statuses and has
since expanded on the information
collected. In 1999, through the NPS, BJS
began collecting data on the number
of prisoners under the jurisdiction of
state or federal prisons that were held
in county facilities or local jails. Table 6
includes adjustments that were made to
the total correctional population, total
community supervision population,
and total incarcerated population
estimates presented in this report
to exclude offenders with multiple
correctional statuses to avoid double
counting offenders.
The estimates from the ASPP are based on
data reported by the probation and parole
agencies that were able to provide the
information within the specific reporting
year. Because some probation and parole
agencies did not provide these data each
year, the numbers may underestimate
the total number of offenders who had
multiple correctional statuses between
2000 and 2013. Due to these adjustments,
the sum of correctional statuses in tables
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and appendix table 1 will not
equal the total correctional population.
In addition, the sum of the probation
and parole populations for 2008 through
2013 will not yield the total community
supervision population because the total
was adjusted for parolees who were also
on probation.
In addition, the sum of the prison and
local jail populations for 2000 through
2013 will not equal the total incarcerated
population because prisoners held in
local jails were excluded from the total.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 9
Table 6
Estimated number of offenders with multiple correctional statuses at yearend, by correctional status, 2000–2013
Probationers in— Parolees in—
Year Total
Prisoners held
in local jail Local jail
State or
federal prison Local jail
In state or
federal prison On probation
2000 112,500 70,000 20,400 22,100 : : :
2001 116,100 72,500 23,400 20,200 : : :
2002 122,800 72,600 29,300 20,900 : : :
2003 120,400 73,400 25,500 21,500 : : :
2004 130,400 74,400 34,400 21,600 : : :
2005 164,500 73,100 32,600 22,100 18,300 18,400 :
2006 169,900 77,900 33,900 21,700 20,700 15,700 :
2007 156,400 80,600 19,300 23,100 18,800 14,600 :
2008 178,500 83,500 23,800 32,400 19,300 15,600 3,900
2009 168,100 85,200 21,400 23,100 19,100 14,300 5,000
2010 170,300 83,400 21,300 21,500 21,400 14,400 8,300
2011 169,300 82,100 21,100 22,300 18,000 14,900 11,000
2012 168,200 83,500 21,200 21,600 18,500 10,700 12,700
2013 170,800 85,600 22,400 16,700 21,800 11,800 12,500
Note: Estimates were rounded to the nearest 100 and may not be comparable to previously published BJS reports due to updated information. Detail may not sum to total due
to rounding.
: Not collected or excluded from total correctional population.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000–2013.
Decomposing the decline in the
correctional supervision rate
To decompose the decline in the
correctional supervision rate discussed
in this report, the following formula
was used:
?R = [P1 * (1/GP1)] – [P0 * (1/GP0)]
= [P1 * ((1/GP1) – (1/GP0))] + [(1/GP0) *
(P1 – P0)]
= [(1/GP1) * (P1 – P0)] + [P0 * ((1/GP1)
– (1/GP0)]
In this formula, ?R is the change in
the correctional supervision rate, P1
is the total correctional population for
the most recent year, P0 is the total
correctional population for the earlier
year, GP1 is the U.S. adult resident
population for the most recent year, and
GP0 is the U.S. adult resident population
for the earlier year. The components
[(1/GP0) * (P1 – P0)] and [(1/GP1) *
(P1 – P0)] provided the change in the
correctional supervision rate due to
the change in the total correctional
population. These two components were
summed, and the average was used to
estimate the amount of change in the
correctional supervision rate attributed
to the change in the total correctional
population during that period.
The components [P1 * ((1/GP1) – (1/
GP0))] and [P0 * ((1/GP1) – (1/GP0)]
provided the change due to the U.S.
adult resident population. These two
components were summed, and the
average was used to estimate the
amount of change in the correctional
supervision rate attributed to the change
in the U.S. adult resident population
during the period.
Adjustments for nonresponse
Probation, parole, jail, and prison
population counts were adjusted to
account for nonresponse across the
data collections. The methods varied
and depended on the type of collection,
type of respondent, and availability of
information. For more information
for 2013, see the following reports: Jail
Inmates at Midyear 2013 – Statistical
Tables, NCJ 245350, BJS web, May 2014,
Prisoners in 2013, NCJ 247282, BJS
web, September 2014, and Probation
and Parole in the United States, 2013,
NCJ 248029, BJS web, October 2014.
The local jail population counts that
were collected through the 2013 Census
of Jails to produce the jurisdiction-level
estimates that are reported in appendix
table 1 were adjusted for unit and item
nonresponse. Nonresponse in the
2013 jail census was minimal as the
unit response rate was 92.4% and the
item response rate for the December
31, 2013, population total was 99.7%.
For jails that did not participate in the
census or were unable to provide the
2013 yearend count, a sequential hot
deck imputation procedure was used
to impute values. This procedure used
respondent (donor) data as a substitute
for missing values. The donor for
each nonrespondent was randomly
selected from within a set of similar
jails, which was sorted by the previous
year population value. The resulting
imputed values are generally similar to
previous year reported values, but are
not identical due to differences between
each donor and nonrespondent pair and
the year-to-year fluctuation in donor
population values.
The total number of prisoners under
the jurisdiction of correctional
authorities in the U.S. territories and
commonwealths in 2012 and 2013
includes estimates for nonresponse
(see appendix table 3). Guam did not
provide any data in 2012; therefore,
Guam’s prison population for 2012 was
estimated as the average of its 2011 and
2013 populations, and this estimate
was included in the U.S. total for
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 10
2012. The U.S. Virgin Islands provided
inconsistent data in 2013, Puerto Rico
provided only partial data (about 4,800
prisoners under their jurisdiction),
and American Samoa did not provide
any data in 2013. Because of limited
information, the U.S. Virgin Islands’
and Puerto Rico’s prison populations
in 2012 were used to impute their 2013
populations and the estimates were
included in the U.S. total for 2013.
American Samoa provided data in
2011; therefore, its prison population
in 2011 was used to impute the prison
population in 2012 and 2013. These
estimates were included in the U.S.
totals for 2012 and 2013. In addition, the
Northern Mariana Islands reported only
the number of inmates in the custody of
their facilities in 2013, not the number
of inmates under their legal jurisdiction.
The custody prison population was
used as an estimate of the number of
prisoners under their jurisdiction, as
the two populations have been equal in
prior collection years. This estimate was
included in the U.S. total for 2013.
Estimates of males and females
under correctional supervision
The number of males and the number
of females on probation or parole were
adjusted to account for nonresponse
using a ratio adjustment method.
For jurisdictions that did not provide
data on sex for a portion of their
population, the sex distribution of
the known portion of the population
was used to impute for the unknown
portion because it was assumed that
the distributions were the same. For
states that were unable to provide any
data on sex, the state national average
was used to impute the number of
males and females supervised in those
states. Adjusted jurisdiction totals were
then aggregated to produce national
estimates of the number of males and
females on probation and parole.
The number of prisoners by sex
represents the reported number
of males and females under the
jurisdiction of state or federal prisons
within the reference year. The number
of local jail inmates by sex represents
the adjusted number of males and
females in the custody of local jails
within the reference year. (For details
describing nonresponse adjustments
for characteristics of the local jail
population, see Jail Inmates at Midyear
2013 – Statistical Tables, NCJ 245350,
BJS web, May 2014.)
To generate estimates of the total
correctional population by sex for 2000,
2010, and 2013, the numbers of males
and females for all four correctional
statuses were aggregated, and the totals
were adjusted using ratio estimation to
account for male and female offenders
with multiple correctional statuses.
These adjustments were made by
correctional status.
To estimate the number of male and
female prisoners held in local jail, the
distribution of the prison population
by sex within the reference year was
applied to the total number of prisoners
in local jails. The estimated number
of female prisoners held in local jails
was then subtracted from the total
number of females under correctional
supervision. This same method was
used to adjust the number of males
under correctional supervision.
To estimate the number of males
and females on parole who were also
on probation in 2010 and 2013, the
distribution of the parole population
by sex within the reference year
was applied to the total number of
parolees on probation. The estimated
number of males with dual community
supervision statuses was then
subtracted from the total number of
males under correctional supervision.
This same method was used to
adjust the number of females under
correctional supervision.
For 2000, 2010, and 2013, the total
correctional population estimates were
adjusted to account for the number of
males and females on probation who
were held in prisons or local jails and
the number of males and females on
parole who were held in prisons or
local jails. The distribution of the local
jail population by sex was applied to
the total number of probationers in
local jails within the reference year
to estimate the number of males and
females with both correctional statuses.
In addition, the distribution of the
prison population by sex was applied
to the total number of probationers
in prison within the reference year
to estimate the number of males
and females with both correctional
statuses. The estimated number of male
probationers in prisons and local jails
was then subtracted from the total
number of males under correctional
supervision within the reference year,
and this same method was used to
adjust the number of females under
correctional supervision. This method
was also employed to account for
parolees in prisons or local jails, and
the totals, by sex, were excluded from
the number of males and females under
correctional supervision.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 11
Appendix Table 1
Estimated number and rate of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, by jurisdiction and correctional status, 2013
Community supervision Incarcerated
Jurisdiction
Total correctional
population,
12/31/2013a
Correctional
supervision rate per
100,000 adultsb
Number on
probation or parole,
12/31/2013c
Community
supervision rate per
100,000 adultsb
Number in prison
or local jail,
12/31/2013d
Incarceration
rate per
100,000 adultsb
U.S. totale 6,906,200 2,830 4,751,400 1,950 2,227,500 910
Federalf 347,000 140 131,900 50 215,100 90
State 6,559,200 2,690 4,619,400 1,900 2,012,400 830
Alabama 115,600 3,100 70,800 1,900 46,000 1,230
Alaska 14,600 2,670 9,500 1,730 5,100 940
Arizona 132,300 2,620 79,200 1,570 55,200 1,090
Arkansas 69,900 3,100 50,200 2,220 22,800 1,010
California 600,400 2,050 381,600 1,300 218,800 750
Colorado 120,700 2,970 89,700 2,210 32,100 790
Connecticut 62,900 2,230 45,400 1,610 17,600 620
Delaware 23,700 3,260 16,700 2,300 7,000 960
District of Columbia 13,700 2,540 12,600 2,330 2,400 450
Florida 389,400 2,490 237,800 1,520 154,500 990
Georgia 624,200 8,290 536,200 7,120 91,600 1,220
Hawaii 28,900 2,630 23,300 2,120 5,600 510
Idaho 45,500 3,820 35,200 2,960 10,200 860
Illinois 222,700 2,250 153,400 1,550 69,300 700
Indiana 179,400 3,580 134,000 2,680 45,400 910
Iowa 45,900 1,930 34,700 1,460 12,700 530
Kansas 37,100 1,710 20,500 940 16,600 760
Kentucky 97,600 2,880 65,900 1,940 32,100 950
Louisiana 115,700 3,280 70,700 2,010 50,100 1,420
Maine 10,500 980 6,700 630 3,800 350
Maryland 74,800 1,620 46,300 1,010 32,700 710
Massachusetts 91,100 1,710 70,000 1,310 21,400 400
Michigan 253,700 3,310 195,200 2,550 60,200 790
Minnesota 123,500 2,970 107,800 2,590 15,700 380
Mississippi 67,400 2,980 38,600 1,710 28,800 1,270
Missouri 114,900 2,460 70,400 1,510 44,500 950
Montana 14,800 1,870 9,500 1,190 6,000 760
Nebraska 23,200 1,640 14,800 1,050 8,500 600
Nevada 37,500 1,750 17,600 820 19,900 930
New Hampshire 11,100 1,050 6,300 590 4,800 460
New Jersey 164,100 2,380 128,100 1,860 37,600 540
New Mexico 34,200 2,170 18,700 1,180 15,500 980
New York 228,100 1,470 151,400 980 81,400 530
North Carolina 156,000 2,050 100,600 1,320 55,300 730
North Dakota 8,100 1,430 5,500 960 2,700 470
Ohio 335,500 3,750 267,400 2,990 69,800 780
Oklahomag 67,700 2,320 ** ** 37,900 1,300
Oregon 84,100 2,720 61,100 1,980 22,900 740
Pennsylvania 355,600 3,530 275,800 2,730 85,500 850
Rhode Island 24,600 2,930 23,400 2,790 3,400 400
South Carolina 73,500 1,980 40,900 1,100 32,600 880
South Dakota 14,800 2,310 9,500 1,490 5,300 820
Tennessee 122,500 2,440 77,900 1,550 48,100 960
Texas 711,900 3,640 508,000 2,600 221,800 1,130
Utah 25,200 1,250 14,500 720 12,500 620
Vermont 8,600 1,710 6,900 1,370 2,100 410
Virginia 114,600 1,780 55,800 870 58,800 910
Washington 139,200 2,570 111,100 2,060 29,700 550
Continued on next page
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 12
West Virginia 20,500 1,390 11,000 750 9,700 660
Wisconsin 98,100 2,200 65,300 1,470 34,800 780
Wyoming 9,700 2,180 6,000 1,340 3,800 840
Note: Counts were rounded to the nearest 100, and rates were rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and because offenders with multiple
correctional statuses were excluded from the totals. Counts include estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. See Methodology.
**Unknown.
aExcludes, by jurisdiction, an estimated 85,600 prisoners held in jail, 16,700 probationers in prison, 22,400 probationers in jail, 21,800 parolees in jail, 11,800 parolees in prison,
and 12,500 parolees on probation. See table 6.
bRates were computed using the U.S adult state resident population on January 1, 2014.
cExcludes, by jurisdiction, an estimated 12,500 parolees on probation.
dExcludes, by jurisdiction, an estimated 85,600 prisoners held in local jails. Local jail counts by jurisdiction are based on December 31, 2013. For this reason, the estimates in
this table differ from the local jail estimates in the other tables and figures of this report. See Methodology.
eTotal correctional population and total number in prison and jail include local jail counts that are based on December 31, 2013, to produce jurisdiction-level estimates. For this
reason, the estimates in this table differ from other estimates in this report. See Methodology.
f
Excludes about 11,900 inmates that were held in facilities that were operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and functioned as jails.
gThe Oklahoma state probation agency could not provide the December 31 probation population. The total correctional population includes an estimate of the community
supervision population in Oklahoma, including an estimate of the Oklahoma state agency’s probation population. See Methodology.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Deaths in Custody Reporting Program – Annual Summary on Inmates under Jail Jurisdiction, and
National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2013. The adult resident population estimates are based on unpublished U.S. adult state resident populations on January 1, 2014.
APPENDIX TABLE 1 (continued)
Estimated number and rate of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, by jurisdiction and correctional status, 2013
Community supervision Incarcerated
Jurisdiction
Total correctional
population,
12/31/2013a
Correctional
supervision rate per
100,000 adultsb
Number on
probation or parole,
12/31/2013c
Community
supervision rate per
100,000 adultsb
Number in prison
or local jail,
12/31/2013d
Incarceration
rate per
100,000 adultsb
Appendix Table 2
Inmates held in custody in state or federal prisons or in local jails, 2000 and 2012–2013
Inmates in custody
Number of inmates Average annual
change, 2000–2012
Percent change,
2000 2012 2013 2012–2013
Total 1,938,500 2,228,400 2,217,000 1.2% -0.5%
Federal prisonersa 140,100 216,900 215,000 3.6% -0.9%
Prisons 133,900 208,000 205,700 3.7 -1.1
Federal facilities 124,500 176,500 173,800 2.9 -1.5
Privately operated facilities 9,400 31,500 31,900 10.1 1.3
Community corrections centersb 6,100 8,900 9,300 3.1 4.5
State prisoners 1,177,200 1,267,000 1,270,800 0.6% 0.3%
State facilities 1,101,200 1,170,200 1,178,700 0.5 0.7
Privately operated facilities 76,100 96,800 92,100 2.0 -4.9
Local jails 621,100 744,500 731,200 1.5% -1.8%
Incarceration ratec 680 710 700 0.4% -1.4%
Adult incarceration rated 920 920 910 0.0 -1.1
Note: Estimates may not be comparable to previously published BJS reports due to updated information. Counts were rounded to the nearest 100 and include estimates for
nonresponding jurisdictions. Rates were rounded to the nearest 10. Details may not sum to total due to rounding. Prison counts are for December 31; jail counts are for the
last weekday in June. Total includes all inmates held in local jails, state or federal prisons, or privately operated facilities. It does not include inmates held in U.S. territories
(appendix table 3), military facilities (appendix table 3), in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, in jails in Indian country (appendix table 3), or in juvenile
facilities. See Methodology.
aAfter 2001, responsibility for sentenced prisoners from the District of Columbia was transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
bNonsecure, privately operated community corrections centers.
cThe total number in the custody of local jails, state or federal prisons, or privately operated facilities within the year per 100,000 U.S. residents. Resident population estimates
are from the U.S. Census Bureau for January 1 of the following year.
dThe total number in custody within the year per 100,000 U.S. residents age 18 or older. Adult resident population estimates are from the U.S. Census Bureau for January 1 of
the following year.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Survey of Jails, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000 and 2012–2013. The total and adult resident population estimates are
based on U.S. Census Bureau National Intercensal Estimates, 2001, and unpublished total and adult resident population estimates on January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2014.
CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 2013 | DECEMBER 2014 13
Appendix Table 3
Estimated number of inmates incarcerated by other adult correctional systems, 2000, 2005, and 2012–2013
Other adult correctional systems
Number of inmates Average annual
change, 2000–2012
Percent change,
2000 2005 2012 2013 2012–2013
Total 20,400 19,800 17,600 17,700 -1.2% 0.6%
Territorial prisonsa 16,200 15,800 13,800 14,000 -1.3 0.8
Military faciltiesb 2,400 2,300 1,400 1,400 -4.4 -1.0
Jails in Indian countryc 1,800 1,700 2,400 2,300 2.4 -3.3
Note: Estimates were rounded to the nearest 100 and are for December 31. Total excludes inmates held in local jails, under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons, in U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, or held in juvenile facilities.
aThe 2012 and 2013 totals include population counts that were estimated for some territories due to nonresponse. See Methodology.
bSee Prisoners in 2013, NCJ 247282, BJS web, September 2014.
cPopulation counts are for the last weekday in June of each year. The 2005 population was estimated as the 2004 population count because the Survey of Jails in Indian
Country was not conducted in 2005 or 2006. See Jails in Indian Country, 2013, NCJ 247017, BJS web, July 2014.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program, and Survey of Jails in Indian Country, 2000, 2005, and 2012–2013.
Appendix Table 4
Estimated standard errors for local jail
inmates, 2000 and 2010–2013
Year Total
Standard
error
Relative standard
error (%)*
2000 621,100 2,550 0.41%
2010 748,700 5,640 0.75
2011 735,600 6,170 0.84
2012 744,500 7,680 1.03
2013 731,200 8,040 1.10
Note: Population estimates were rounded to the
nearest 100. Standard errors were rounded to the
nearest 10.
*Calculated by dividing the standard error by the
survey estimate and multiplying by 100.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Survey of
Jails, 2000 and 2010–2013.
Appendix Table 5
Estimated number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, by correctional status, 2000–2013
Year
Total correctional
populationa
Community supervision Incarceratedb
Totala,c Probation Parole Totala Local jail Prison
2000 6,467,900 4,565,100 3,839,500 725,500 1,945,400 621,100 1,394,200
2001 6,585,000 4,665,900 3,934,700 731,100 1,962,800 631,200 1,404,000
2002 6,731,100 4,748,300 3,995,200 753,100 2,033,100 665,500 1,440,100
2003 6,887,000 4,847,500 4,074,000 773,500 2,086,500 691,300 1,468,600
2004 6,997,200 4,916,500 4,140,600 775,900 2,136,600 714,000 1,497,100
2005 7,055,800 4,946,800 4,162,500 784,400 2,200,400 747,500 1,525,900
2006 7,199,800 5,035,200 4,237,000 798,200 2,256,600 765,800 1,568,700
2007 7,339,900 5,119,300 4,293,200 826,100 2,296,400 780,200 1,596,800
2008 7,314,400 5,095,200 4,270,900 828,200 2,310,300 785,500 1,608,300
2009 7,237,100 5,017,900 4,198,200 824,100 2,297,700 767,400 1,615,500
2010 7,088,500 4,887,900 4,055,500 840,700 2,279,100 748,700 1,613,800
2011 6,990,400 4,814,200 3,971,300 853,900 2,252,500 735,600 1,599,000
2012 6,940,500 4,781,300 3,942,800 851,200 2,231,400 744,500 1,570,400
2013 6,899,000 4,751,400 3,910,600 853,200 2,220,300 731,200 1,574,700
Note: Estimates were rounded to the nearest 100 and may not be comparable to previously published BJS reports due to updated information or rounding. Counts include
estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. All probation, parole, and prison counts are for December 31; jail counts are for the last weekday in June. Detail may not sum to total
due to rounding and adjustments made to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
aTotal was adjusted to account for offenders with multiple correctional statuses. See Methodology.
bIncludes inmates held in local jails or under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons.
cIncludes some offenders held in a prison or jail but who remained under the jurisdiction of a probation or parole agency.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Annual Surveys of Probation and Parole, Annual Survey of Jails, Census of Jail Inmates, and National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2000–2013.
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyses, and disseminates statistical
information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the
operation of justice systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is
acting director.
Lauren E. Glaze and Danielle Kaeble wrote this report. Danielle Kaeble
and Lauren E. Glaze analyzed the data and prepared the tables and graphs.
Margaret Noonan, Tracy Snell, and Jennifer Bronson provided statistical
verification and review.
Irene Cooperman and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn
produced the report.
December 2014, NCJ 248479

                                                                                                                                  Order Now

Place Order

Order Custom Essay Papers from us and enjoy discounted prices!