Chapter 8
Probation and Parole

Most of the correctional population of the United States—those under the supervision of correctional authorities—are walking about freely. They are people on probation or parole. According to Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005 (November 2006, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus05.pdf), 4.2 million people were on probation, 784,000 were on parole, and 2.2 million were in jail or prison in 2005. For every person behind bars, more than two people convicted of crimes were on the street. Probationers and parolees, however, were still under official supervision, and most had to satisfy requirements placed on them as a condition of freedom or of early release from correctional facilities.

A probationer is someone who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced—but the person's sentence has been suspended on condition that he or she behaves in the manner ordered by the court. Probation sometimes follows a brief period of incarceration; more often it is granted by the court immediately.

A parolee is an individual who has served a part of his or her sentence in jail and prison but, because of good behavior or legislative mandate, has been granted freedom before the sentence is fully served. The sentence remains in effect, however, and the parolee continues to be under the jurisdiction of a parole board. If the person fails to live up to the conditions of the release, the parolee may be confined again.

Glaze and Bonczar indicate that since 1995 the number of people on probation has grown by 35.2%, with an average annual increase of 2.5%. The increase from 2004 to 2005 was 0.5%, less than half the average growth rate. Between 1995 and 2005 the number of people on parole increased from 679,000 to 784,000; this is an increase of 15.4%, with an annual average increase of 1.4%.

PROBATION

Characteristics of Probationers

Glaze and Bonczar report that those released by the courts for probation are deemed to be the least dangerous among those arrested and the most likely to stay clear of the justice system in the future, even though only 59% of those on probation appeared to succeed in 2005. (See Table 8.1.) Whereas all people in prison serve sentences for felonies, only 50% of probationers were felons in 2005; 49% had been sentenced for misdemeanors and the remainder for other infractions. In 1995, 54% had felony sentences and 44% had misdemeanors.

According to Glaze and Bonczar, 76% of those entering probation in 2005 did so without any incarceration; 59% of those leaving probation had completed their probation successfully—a far higher percentage than those leaving parole (45%). Among those leaving probation in 2005, whether or not they completed probation successfully, 16% returned to incarceration or were incarcerated for the first time. In contrast, 38% of those leaving parole were put behind bars again for failure to live up to the rules or committing a new offense. The single largest category of serious offense committed by probationers was a drug violation (28%), followed by driving while intoxicated (15%).

In comparing Glaze and Bonczar's data to that in Prisoners in 2005 (November 2006, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf) by Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck of the BJS, a larger proportion of probationers were female (23% versus 7% of state and federal prisoners) and white (55% versus 34.6% of those in prison) in 2005. A smaller proportion of probationers were African-American (30% of probationers versus 39.5% of prisoners) and Hispanic (13% of probationers versus 20.2% of prisoners).

Geographical Distribution

Glaze and Bonczar note that, nationally, 1,858 per 100,000 adults were under probation in 2005, but rates varied considerably from state to state and from region to region. In broad terms populations of probationers paralleled the general population with some differences. The South and Midwest had proportionally more probationers. In the South 2,067 per 100,000 adults were on probation, and in the Midwest the rate was 1,950 per 100,000. (See Table 8.2.) The West (1,546 per 100,000) and Northeast (1,658 per 100,000) had proportionately fewer probationers.

Table 8.2 shows these data for all fifty states and the District of Columbia in 2005. Texas had the highest number of probationers of any state at the end of 2005 (430,312), followed by Georgia (422,848), California (388,260), Florida (277,831), and Ohio (239,036). Mississippi (17.1%), West Virginia (9.6%), Wyoming (9.2%), and Kentucky (8%) had the greatest increases in probationers in 2005. Rhode Island (3,091 per 100,000 population), Minnesota (2,988), Delaware (2,828), and Texas (2,580) had the highest rates of probationers to population. The states with the fewest probationers per 100,000 adult U.S. residents were New Hampshire (457), West Virginia (533), Utah (578), and Nevada (709).

Federal Probation Violations

The BJS reports in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2004 (December 2006, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cfjs04.pdf) that probation can be a successful sentencing approach. In fiscal year (FY) 2004, 82.3% of federal probationers successfully completed the terms of their probation. (See Table 8.3.) Of the 15.9% who did violate probation, most had either committed a new crime (5.4% of all probationers) or used drugs (3.1%). Those convicted of violent, weapon, and immigration offenses were more likely to end probation by committing new crimes (8.8%, 8.5%, and 7.7%, respectively) than probationers convicted of property (4.6%) or drug (3.9%) offenses.

Probation Officers

Community corrections has a cost to the community—although it is lower than the cost of housing and feeding prisoners and providing them with health care. A major part of that cost is the employment of skilled probation officers to supervise probationers.

According to Ann L. Pastore and Kathleen Maguire of the Utilization of Criminal Justice Statistics Project, in the Source-book of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003 (2005, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/), in 1975 the U.S. government employed 1,377 probation officers to supervise 64,261 federal probationers, a ratio of 1 officer per 47 probationers. (See Table 8.4.) By 2005, 4,585 officers supervised 112,931 probationers, yielding a ratio of almost 25 per officer. The federal government has been expending resources to lower the ratio of probationers to officers. Between 2000 and 2005 the number of probationers increased by 12%, whereas the number of officers increased by 15%.

SUPERVISED RELEASE

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created an alternative to parole and probation for federal offenders—supervised release—which occurs after an offender's term of imprisonment is completed. Following his or her release, an offender is sentenced to a period of supervision in the community. The act calls for supervised release to follow any term of imprisonment that exceeds one year or if required by a specific statute. The court may also order supervised release to follow imprisonment in any other case. Offenders on supervised release are supervised by probation officers. The BJS notes in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2004 that in FY 2004, 77,332 (or 70%) of federal offenders under community supervision were serving a term of supervised release. Most offenders sentenced to supervised release (41,681, or 54%) were convicted for drug offenses. Only 4,805 (or 6%) had been convicted of violent offenses.

Table 8.5 shows that in FY 2004, 32,930 offenders terminated their supervised release. Most (62.1%) had not violated the terms of their release and successfully completed their sentence. Some 13.7% had violated their supervised release by committing a new crime and 7.2% had used drugs.

In the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2004, the BJS reports that in FY 2004 men were more likely to violate the terms of their supervised release than women; only 60% of men successfully completed their supervised release, compared with 74% of women. Of those sentenced to supervised release, the youngest (nineteen- and twenty-year-olds) and the least educated (less than high school) were the most likely to violate the terms of their sentence.

PAROLE

Trends in Parole

Discretionary parole is administered by parole boards. Their members examine prisoners' criminal histories and prison records and decide whether to release prisoners from incarceration. Since the mid-1990s several states have abolished discretionary parole in favor of mandatory parole. Mandatory parole is legislatively imposed at the state level and, with some exceptions, takes away parole boards' discretion. Mandatory parole provisions ensure that sentences for the same crime require incarceration for the same length of time. The prisoner can shorten his or her sentence only by good behavior—but time off for good behavior is also prohibited in some states. In some jurisdictions parole can only begin after prisoners have served 100% of their minimum sentences. Jeremy Travis and Sarah Lawrence of the Urban Institute report in Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America (November 2002, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310583_Beyond_prison_gates.pdf) that the share of discretionary prison releases decreased from 65% in 1976 to 24% by 1999.

Travis and Lawrence indicate that even though states rely more and more on mandatory release dates to decide when to release prisoners, states have different prison release methods. Some states have cut back on parole supervision, releasing more prisoners directly to the community. Other states have aggressively enforced the conditions of parole, leading to the identification of more parole violations. In these states more parolees are being sent back to prison. States handle different types of offenses differently. Some allow victims or prosecutors to participate in release decisions; others do not. Many states still rely heavily on parole boards to make release decisions, whereas others no longer use parole boards and have mandatory release policies for all their prisoners.

According to Travis and Lawrence, most parole agencies now use drug testing to determine whether a parolee has kept his or her promise to remain drug free. In a number of states parole officers are being permitted to carry weapons. Furthermore, parolees in several jurisdictions are required to wear electronic bracelets so that officials can monitor their movement.

Glaze and Bonczar note that in 1995, 50% of adults who entered parole did so under discretionary parole; by 2005 discretionary paroles made up only 31% of the total. In 1995 mandatory parole accounted for 45% of all paroles; by 2005, 51% of those paroled were under a mandatory parole.