U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 1995
December 1997, NCJ-164267
ascii version
By Thomas P. Bonczar
BJS Statistician
On December 31, 1996, State and local probation agencies
supervised more than 3 million adult U.S. residents or about 1
in every 62  persons age 18 or older.  Since 1985 the Nation's
probation population has grown an average of 3% per year.
Probationers account for the largest share of adults under
correctional supervision (58%), including persons held in jails
and prisons and those on parole.
----------------------------------------------------
****************
Highlights
****************
* In 1995 an estimated 1.5 million felons and 1 million
misdemeanants were under the supervision of State and local
probation agencies.
* Drug trafficking (15%) and possession (13%) were the most
common offenses among felons; driving while intoxicated (35%)
and assault (11%) among misdemeanants.
* Half of all probationers had a prior sentence to probation or
incarceration -- 30% to jail or prison and 42% to probation.
* Drug or alcohol treatment was a sentence condition for 41% of
adults on probation; 37% had received treatment.  Drug testing
was required of 32%.
* About three-quarters of the felons and two-thirds of the
misdemeanants had been contacted by a probation officer in the
last month.
* Since entering probation, nearly 1 in 5 had a formal
disciplinary hearing.  Of these, 38% had been arrested or
convicted for  a new offense, 41% had failed to report or
absconded, and 38% had failed to pay a fine or restitution.
                       Percent of adults on probation
                                            Misde-
                          All      Felony   meanor
Total                       100      100      100
Offense
Violent                    17.3     19.5     13.5
Property                   28.9     36.6     18.2
Drug                       21.4     30.7      7.6
Public order               31.1     12.1     59.6
Criminal history
None                       49.9     49.2     52.1
Priors                     50.1     50.8     47.9
   Juvenile                 9.0     10.3      5.6
    Adult                  45.1     45.1     44.3
Types of sentence
Probation only             49.8     45.7     54.8
Split                      50.2     54.3     45.2
   Jail                    37.3     36.5     38.3
   Prison                  15.3     20.6      9.0
Special conditions
Any                        98.6     98.4     98.9
Fees/fines/costs           84.3     84.2     85.1
Drug testing               32.5     43.0     17.1
Drug/alcohol
treatment                  41.0     37.5     45.7
Employment                 34.7     40.9     27.3
Community service          25.7     27.3     24.0
Contact in last 30 days
None                       28.3     23.8     34.8
Any/a                      71.7     76.2     65.2
  Office                   59.2     63.0     53.4
  Field                    11.9     15.3      6.8
  Telephone                18.1     18.0     18.1
Number of probationers/b 2620560  1491670   991161
/aMore than 1 type of contact possible.
/bExcludes persons supervised by a Federal probation
agency, those only on parole, persons on presentence
or pretrial diversion, and absconders.
See Methodology.
----------------------------------------------------
Results from the first national survey of adults on probation
under the supervision of State and local agencies indicate that
58% had been convicted of a felony; 38% of a misdemeanor, and 3%
of other infractions.  When the survey was conducted at the
beginning of 1995, more than 453,000 adults were on probation
for a violent offense; 757,000 for a property offense; 561,000
for a drug offense; and 815,000 for a public-order offense.
Using a nationally representative sample, a two-part survey was
conducted to collect detailed information on adults on
probation.  Results from a sample of 5,867 administrative
records are presented here.  Data from personal interviews with
probationers will be the subject of a future report.
***********************************
Survey of Adults on Probation, 1995
***********************************
The 1995 Survey of Adults on Probation, conducted by the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS), was the first national survey to
gather information on the individual characteristics of
probationers.  The first component of this survey consisted of a
review of the administrative records of 5,867 adult
probationers, providing detailed information on current offenses
and sentences, criminal histories, levels of supervision and
contacts, participation in treatment programs, and disciplinary
hearings and outcomes.
Administrative records were drawn from 167 State, county, and
municipal probation agencies nationwide.  Offices providing
direct supervision were selected from 16 strata defined by
government branch (executive or judicial), level (State or
local), and region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West).
Offices were selected with probabilities proportional to the
number under supervision.  (See Methodology for additional
detail.)
Only adults with a formal sentence to probation who were not
considered absconders were included in the records check.
Excluded were persons supervised by a Federal probation agency,
those only on parole,  persons on presentence or pretrial
diversion, juveniles, and absconders.
Systematic samples of probationers were drawn by BJS from
rosters prepared by each agency.  A probation officer or other
person familiar with the agency's records collected the data.  A
total of 5,867 records checks were completed, representing an
overall response rate of 87.4%.  Estimates for the entire
population were generated based on the original probabilities of
selection and a series of adjustments for nonresponse.
************************************
Nearly 2 of 5 probationers convicted
of a violent or drug offense
************************************
In 1995, 17% of the adults on probation had been sentenced for a
violent offense and 21% for a drug offense (table 1).
--------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.  Most serious offense of  adults on probation,
by severity of offense, 1995
Most                              Severity of offense/a
serious offense               Total/b  Felony Misdemeanor
Violent offenses               17.3     19.5     13.5
  Homicide                      0.7      1.0      0.2
  Sexual assault                3.6      5.6      0.4
  Robbery                       1.9      3.2        0
  Assault                       9.2      7.6     11.1
  Other violent                 2.0      2.1      1.7
Property offenses              28.9     36.6     18.2
  Burglary                      5.8      9.7      0.3
  Larceny/theft                 9.9     11.1      8.5
  Motor vehicle theft           1.4      2.0      0.4
  Fraud                         7.2      9.6      4.2
  Stolen property               1.7      2.3      0.9
  Other property                2.7      1.9      3.8
Drug offenses                  21.4     30.7      7.6
  Possession                    9.8     13.1      4.6
  Trafficking                   9.7     15.4      1.6
  Other/unspecified drug        1.9      2.3      1.4
Public order offenses          31.1     12.1     59.6
  Weapons                       2.3      2.5      2.1
  Obstruction of justice        2.2      1.3      3.3
  Traffic                       4.7      0.9     10.2
  Driving while intoxicated    16.7      5.2     35.2
  Drunkenness/morals            2.1      0.5      4.5
  Other public-order            3.0      1.7      4.3
Other                           1.3      1.0      1.2
Number of probationers      2595499  1479904   988033
/a Based on 2,543,925 probationers for whom information on most
serious offense and severity of offense is known.  Excludes 75,988
probationers sentenced for an offense other than a felony or a
misdemeanor.
/b Excludes 25,061 probationers (1% of all adults on probation
for whom information on the most serious offense was not reported.
--------------------------------------------------------
The remainder were nearly equally split between property offenders
(29%) and public-order offenders (31%).
The most frequent offense among probationers was driving while
intoxicated (17%).  Four other offenses -- including
larceny/theft (10%), drug possession (10%), drug trafficking
(10%), and assault (9%) -- accounted for an additional 39% of
the adult probation population.
************************************************
Felons more than half of all adults on probation
************************************************
Of the 2.6 million adults formally sentenced to probation in
1995, an estimated 1.5 million had been convicted of a felony
(58%).  Of these, half had been convicted of a violent (20%) or
drug offense (31%).  Drug trafficking was the single most
frequent offense among felons on probation (15%).  This was
closely followed by drug possession (13%), larceny/theft (11%),
and burglary (10%).
In contrast, 60% of the estimated 1 million misdemeanants on
probation had been convicted of a public-order offense --35% for
driving while intoxicated, 10% for another traffic offense, and
5% for drunkenness or morals offenses.  An estimated 14% of
probationers convicted of a misdemeanor had committed a violent
offense (nearly all of whom were convicted of assault); 18% a
property offense; and 8% a drug offense.
***************************************************
Women and non-Hispanic whites make up comparatively
high percentages of adult probationers
***************************************************
In 1995 women constituted 21% of the probation population, or
twice as large a share as among the jail and parole populations
(10% each), and more than 3 times the share of women in prison
(6%) (table 2).
                  Percent fe-
                  male, 1995
Probation              21%
Jail                   10
Prison                  6
Parole                 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.  Characteristics of adults on probation,
by severity of most serious offense, 1995
                                           Severity of offense
Characteristic             Total           Felony   Misdemeanor
Sex
Male                        79.1              79.1     78.4
Female                      20.9              20.9     21.6
Race/Hispanic origin
White non-Hispanic          58.3              55.4     61.8
Black non-Hispanic          27.9              30.8     24.5
Hispanic                    11.3              11.2     11.4
Other                        2.5               2.6      2.3
Age
17 or younger                0.5               0.5      0.5
18-24                       26.4              27.6     24.7
25-34                       36.8              36.6       37
35-44                       24.7              24.6     25.2
45-54                        8.4               8.2      8.7
55 or older                  3.2               2.6      3.9
Marital status
Married                     26.2              26.8     24.7
Widowed                      0.9               0.9      0.9
Separated                    7.0               6.9      7.8
Divorced                    14.5              14.6     13.4
Never married               51.4              50.8     53.2
Education completed
8th grade or less            7.5               8.0      7.0
Some high school            34.9              37.6     30.4
High school graduate/GED    39.9              37.6     43.2
Some college or more        17.7              16.8     19.5
Number of probationers     2620560           1491670   991161
Note:  Estimates are based on complete data for sex, race/Hispanic
origin and reported data on marital status (82%) and on education (81%).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the Nation's jail and prison population, a majority of
probationers were non-Hispanic whites (58%).
                      Percent of offenders
                   White     Black    Hispanic
Probation, 1995      58%       28%        11%
Jail*                37        41         18
State prison*        35        46         17
Federal prison*      38        30         28
*Based on surveys of jail inmates conducted
in 1995-96 and State and Federal inmates in 1991.
Non-Hispanic whites accounted for a larger share of
misdemeanants than felons (62% compared to 55%).  Non-Hispanic
blacks constituted 28% of all probationers (31% of felons and
25% of misdemeanants).  Hispanics, who may be of any race,
comprised 11% of both felons and misdemeanants.
Slightly more than half of all probationers never married (51%),
and 58% had completed at least high school or a GED.  Felons
(54%) were somewhat less likely than misdemeanants (63%) to have
completed high school or a GED.
***********************************************
Types of offenses vary among men and women
and blacks, whites, and Hispanics on probation
***********************************************
Men were more likely than women to be sentenced for a violent
offense (19% compared to 10%), but nearly  as likely to have
been sentenced for a drug offense (22% of men and 20% of women)
(table 3).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.  Most serious offense of adults on probation, by sex, race/Hispanic origin, and age, 1995
Most                                                             Age
serious offense                Sex               Race/Hispanic origin       24 or                      45 or
                               Male     Female   White    Black    Hispanic younger  25-34    35-44     older
Violent offenses               19.4      9.5     16.5     17.2     19.4     16.5     17.0     17.4     20.3
  Homicide                      0.6      0.9      1.0      0.3      0.3      0.4      0.6      0.9      1.1
  Sexual assault                4.3      0.6      4.9      1.2      2.4      1.8      3.0      3.8      9.1
  Robbery                       2.0      1.4      1.0      3.1      2.4      3.1      1.3      2.0      0.7
  Assault                      10.3      5.1      7.6     11.0     11.6      9.0     10.3      8.7      7.1
  Other violent                 2.2      1.5      2.0      1.6      2.7      2.2      1.8      2.0      2.3
Property offenses              25.3     42.6     29.9     28.6     23.8     38.7       27     22.9     24.7
  Burglary                      6.6      2.8      6.3      5.5      4.3     10.4      5.2      3.5      2.2
  Larceny/theft                 8.2     16.5     10.0     10.9      8.4     13.6      9.3      8.2      7.2
  Motor vehicle theft           1.5       .8      1.1      1.0      2.7      2.5      1.4      0.7      0.1
  Fraud                         3.7     20.8      7.4      7.4      5.6      4.6      7.9      7.7     10.3
  Stolen property               2.0       .8      2.0      1.3      1.5      3.0      1.4      1.3      1.0
  Other property                3.2       .9      3.2      2.5      1.3      4.6      1.8      1.6      3.8
Drug offenses                  21.7     20.1     17.0     30.9     23.1     19.7     23.9     23.2     13.4
  Possession                   10.3      8.0      8.1     13.4     10.9      8.0     10.7     11.2      8.1
  Trafficking                   9.7      9.7      7.8     14.2      9.7     10.2     10.8      9.8      4.7
  Other/unspecified             1.7      2.4      1.1      3.4      2.4      1.5      2.3      2.2      0.6
Public-order offense           32.3     26.5     35.6     22.2     30.4     22.1     31.5     35.7     40.7
  Weapons                       2.8       .7      1.8      3.2      2.5      3.9      2.3      0.9      1.8
  Obstruction of justice        2.3      1.7      2.1      2.4      2.1      2.6      2.7      1.3      1.4
  Traffic                       4.7      4.7      4.7      5.0      4.7      4.2      5.5      4.6      3.2
  Driving while intoxicated    17.4     14.2     21.2      7.7     17.3      7.1     16.4     22.7     27.7
  Drunkenness/morals            2.0      2.5      2.0      2.3      1.6      1.5      2.0      2.7      2.3
  Other public-order            3.1      2.8      3.9      1.6      2.2      2.7      2.6      3.5      4.3
Other                           1.3      1.3      1.0      1.2      3.2      3.1      0.6      0.7      0.8
Number of probationers      2057405   538094  1521161   717389   295243   700261   957412   641015   296811
Note: Excludes an estimated 25,061 probationers (1% of all adults
on probation) for whom information on type of offense was not reported.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among men, driving while intoxicated was the single
most frequent offense (17%), followed by assault (10%), drug
possession (10%), and drug trafficking (10%).  Women most
frequently were sentenced to probation for property offenses
(43%), particularly fraud (21%) and larceny/theft (17%).
Fourteen percent of women on probation were convicted of driving
while intoxicated, only slightly below the percentage for men.
Among non-Hispanic probationers, blacks (31%) were nearly twice
as likely as whites (17%) to be under supervision for a drug
offense.  Among Hispanic probationers nearly a quarter had been
convicted of a drug offense.  White (21%) and Hispanic (17%)
probationers were also more than twice as likely as black
probationers (8%) to be under supervision for DWI.  Nearly equal
percentages of whites and blacks were on probation for violent
and property offenses.
*******************************************
DWI accounts for more than a
quarter of probationers over age 44
*******************************************
Convictions for driving while intoxicated bore a strong
relationship to age, increasing steadily from 7% of those under
age 25, to 28% of those age 45 or older.  DWI was the single
most frequent offense among probationers in each age group 25 or
older.  Among those under age 25, larceny/ theft (14%), drug
trafficking (10%), and burglary (10%) were the most common
offenses.
The relative frequency of other types of offenses also varied by
age. Sexual assault increased from 2% of those under age 25 to
9% of those age 45  or older.  Drug trafficking steadily
declined with advancing age, from 10% of probationers under age
25 to 5% of those 45 or older.
****************************************
Half of all probationers have at least
one prior sentence
****************************************
Half of all adults formally sentenced to probation had a prior
sentence to probation or incarceration, 45% as an adult and 9%
as a juvenile (table 4).
--------------------------------------------------
Table 4.  Prior sentences of adults on
probation, by sex, race/Hispanic origin,
and severity of current offense, 1995
                   Severity of current offense
Prior offenseAll   Felony   Misdemeanor
Probation
  None            58.3     57.6     60.9
  Prior sentence* 41.7     42.4     39.1
    Juvenile       6.8      8.0      4.0
    Adult         36.8     36.7     35.6
Incarceration
  None            69.7     67.9     73.3
  Prior sentence  30.3     32.1     26.7
    Juvenile       3.7      4.7      1.7
    Adult         27.2     28.1     25.5
Probation or incarceration
  None            49.9     49.2     52.1
  Prior sentence  50.1     50.8     47.9
    Juvenile       9.0     10.3      5.6
    Adult         45.1     45.1     44.3
Number of
 probationers   2179214   1331995 746464
Note: Excludes 441,346 probationers (17% of all adults on
probation) whose prior conviction status was not known.
See Methodology and appendix table 3 for discussion of
coverage of criminal history data.
*Detail may add to more than total because some
probationers had prior sentences as both an adult
and a juvenile.
--------------------------------------------------
About 30% of probationers had previously been sentenced to
incarceration, while 42% had previously been sentenced to
probation.
Felons (32%) were more likely than misdemeanants (27%) to have a
prior criminal history which included incarceration.  The
percentage of felons having a juvenile record of incarceration
was more than double that of misdemeanants (5% to 2%).
****************************************
Violent offenders on probation the least
likely to have a prior sentence
****************************************
Violent offenders (45%) on probation were less likely than drug
(49%), property (51%), or public-order offenders (55%) to have
had a prior sentence to probation or incarceration (table 5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.   Most serious current offense, by prior sentences
of adults on probation, 1995
             Prior sentences
Most serious                             Any              Incar-
current offense        Total    None     type  Probation  ceration
Total                   100     49.9     50.1     41.7     30.3
Violent offense         100     55.3     44.7     36.8     28.5
  Sexual assault        100     63.6     36.4     31.8     22.7
  Assault               100     52.9     47.1     40.3     28.4
Other violent           100     44.5     55.5     41.8     40.3
Property offense        100     48.8     51.2     43.0     30.2
  Burglary              100     45.1     54.9     45.5     34.6
  Larceny/theft         100     53.5     46.5     38.1     26.6
  Fraud                 100     52.6     47.4     40.8     23.1
Drug offenses           100     51.3     48.7     40.6     28.4
  Possession            100     50.9     49.1     39.7     29.9
  Trafficking           100     52.8     47.2     40.0     27.0
Public-order offenses   100     45.1     54.9     45.4     34.1
  Traffic               100     33.5     66.5     54.2     45.4
  Driving while
    intoxicated         100     48.7     51.3     40.6     30.7
Note:  Excludes an estimated 458,704 probationers (18% of all adults
on probation) for whom information on current offense or prior
conviction status was not known.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly half of all drug offenders had a prior sentence.  Among
all probationers violent offenders had the lowest percentage
(37%) with a prior sentence to probation, and public-order
offenders, the highest  (45%).  Led by those with minor traffic
violations, public-order offenders also had the highest
percentage of persons with a prior sentence to prison or jail
(34%).
Sexual assault offenders (36%) were the least likely to have had
a prior sentence of any type.  The most likely to have had a
prior sentence were probationers convicted of minor traffic
offenses (67%), ahead of those convicted of driving while
intoxicated (51%).
****************************************
Presentence investigations focus
on the most serious offenders
****************************************
A large portion of probation officers' work is assisting the
courts by preparing presentence investigation reports (PSI's).
PSI's involve examining records that document the offense and
the defendant's criminal history.  Other information often comes
from consulting with the arresting officer and others who have
had contact with the defendant.
Among adults on probation, PSI's were completed more often for
felons (64%)  than misdemeanants (19%) (table 6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.  Presentence investigation reports and recommendations,
by current offense severity and prior sentences of adult probationers, 1995
                                                       Percent of probationers with
                                                Completed                   Presentence
                                                presentence                 report and
                                 Number of      investigation Probation     recommendation
                                 probationers/a report        recommended/b for probation/c
Total                                2496600          47.2         35.5          79.6
Severity of offense
Felony                               1429140          63.9         48.1          77.7
Misdemeanor                           941646          18.9         15.5          87.1
Most serious offense
Violent                               433565          57.3         38.9          72.4
Property                              715084          53.9         42.0          82.1
Drugs                                 528953          56.6         43.6          80.3
Public-order                          767873          29.2         22.9          83.0
Prior sentence
No prior sentence                    1063628          49.1         39.1          84.4
Probation or incarceration           1049878          54.1         38.8          75.4
Probation                             906544          53.0         37.1          73.9
Incarceration                         611951          58.7         42.5          74.6
/aExcludes 123,960 probationers (nearly 5% of all adults on probation)
for whom information on PSI completion was not provided.
/bBased on 2,377,850 probationers for whom PSI completion status
(recommended, not recommended, no recommendation) was known.
/cBased on 1,060,452 probationers for whom a PSI was completed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probationers whose most serious offense was a public-order offense
were the least likely to have had a PSI (29%).  Those with a past
sentence to prison or jail had a greater chance of having a PSI
(59%) than those with no prior sentence (49%).
****************************************
4 out of 5 probationers with a PSI
recommended for probation
****************************************
Among those probationers for whom a PSI was prepared, 80% had
received a recommendation for probation.  Although this
percentage is evidence that courts accept the PSI findings, this
survey does not contain data on persons sentenced to jail or
prison.  Those data are needed to accurately measure the extent
to which courts follow PSI recommendations.
Among probationers with a completed PSI, felons were less likely
than misdemeanants to have received a recommendation of
probation (78% compared with 87%).  In addition, a lower
percentage of those with a prior sentence to probation or
incarceration were recommended for probation (75%) than were
those without a prior sentence (84%).
****************************************
Half of sentences split between
incarceration and supervision
****************************************
Half of the probationers received a sentence that included
incarceration, sometimes called a "split sentence" (table 7).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.  Type and length of sentence for adult probationers,
by severity of current offense and prior sentence, 1995
                               Severity of offense                        Prior sentences
Type and  length
of sentence               Total   Felony   Misdemeanor          None   Any   Probation  Incarceration
Type of sentence
Probation only             49.8     45.7     54.8              58.9     40.4     40.8     32.2
Probation and
  incarceration/a          50.2     54.3     45.2              41.1     59.6     59.2     67.8
Jail                       37.3     36.5     38.3              28.4     44.5     44.5     52.8
Prison                     15.3     20.6      9.0              14.5     18.7     18.1     19.2
Number of probationers/b  2571605  1470814   974029           1073781  1081969   927085   632424
--Not calculated because of too few cases.
/aDetail may add to more than total because some probationers
were sentenced to both jail and prison.
/bExcludes 48,955 probationers (nearly 2% of all adults on probation)
for whom information on type of sentence was not reported.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felons were more likely to have received a split sentence (54%)
than misdemeanants (45%).  An estimated 1 in 5 felons on
probation had received a sentence to prison on the current
sentence.  (Information on average length of sentence to
probation is discussed in the Methodology).
*****************************
Repeat offenders more likely
to be incarcerated
*****************************
Among adults on probation, having a criminal record meant a
greater chance of being sentenced to incarceration -- 60% with a
prior sentence received a current sentence to incarceration
compared to 41% without any prior sentence.  Among those
probationers whose prior sentence specifically included jail or
prison, more than two-thirds were again sentenced to
incarceration.  A sentence to probation only, or "straight
probation," was the most likely outcome (59%) for those
probationers with no prior sentences.
***************************************
More than a third of probationers also
served jail or prison time
***************************************
While half of the probationers received a sentence that included
a period of incarceration, 36% had actually served time in jail
or prison.  The remainder had their sentence to incarceration
suspended.  An estimated 35% of felons, compared to 25% of
misdemeanants, had served time in a local jail; 9% of felons had
served time in a prison.
                         Percent of adults
Sentence                 on probation
served                 Total   Felony   Misdemeanor
Jail or prison*         36.8%   44.2%      26.1%
    Jail                31.2    35.2       25.0
    Prison               5.6     9.2         --
--Not calculated because of too few cases.
*Some probationers had served sentences to both jail and prison.
Probationers with a split sentence to jail had served an average
of 3 months.  The average time served in prison among
probationers receiving a split sentence was 20 months.
Sentence                       Time served
served                 Total  Felony  Misdemeanor
Jail                   3.1 mo  4.0 mo    1.1 mo
Prison                20.4    21.1        --
****************************************
82% of probationers given 3 or more
conditions on sentence
****************************************
Almost all probationers (99%) had one or more conditions to
their sentence required by the court or probation agency (table
8).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.  Conditions of sentences of adult probationers,
by severity of offense, 1995
                            Severity of offense
Condition of sentence       Total   Felony   Misdemeanor
Any condition                98.6     98.4     98.9
Fees, fines, court costs     84.3     84.2     85.1
Supervision fee              61.0     63.9     59.8
Fines                        55.8     47.4     67.9
Court costs                  54.5     56.4     54.5
Restitution to victim        30.3     39.7     17.6
Confinement/mon              10.1     12.9      6.3
Boot camp                     0.5      0.8      0.1
Electronic monitoring         2.9      3.2      2.0
House arrest without
  electronic monitoring       0.8      1.1      0.5
Curfew                        0.9      1.6        0
Restriction on movement       4.2      5.3      2.9
Restrictions                 21.1     24.0     16.0
No contact with              10.4     11.8      8.2
Driving restric               5.3      4.3      5.8
Community service            25.7     27.3     24.0
Substance abuse treatment    38.2     48.1     23.7
Mandatory drug               32.5     43.0     17.1
Remain alcohol/drug free      8.1     10.4      5.2
Substance abuse treatment    41.0     37.5     45.7
Alcohol                      29.2     21.3     41.0
Drug                         23.0     28.3     14.8
Other treatment              17.9     16.1     20.9
Sex offenders program         2.5      3.9      0.2
Psychiatric/psychological
  couseling                   7.1      8.9      4.7
Other counseling              9.2      4.4     16.4
Employment and training      40.3     45.4     34.4
Employment                   34.7     40.9     27.3
Education/training           15.0     15.5     15.1
Other special conditions     16.5     19.0     12.6
Number of probationers     2558981  1470696   982536
Note: Detail may not sum to total because probationers may have more than one
condition on their sentences, and totals may include items not shown in the
table. Excludes 61,579 probationers (2% of all adults on probation) for whom
information on conditions of probation were not reported.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among such conditions were fees, drug testing, employment,
and requirements for treatment.  Seventeen percent of
probationers had one or two conditions; 36% had three or four
conditions, and 46% had five or more.
                          Percent of
Number                    adults on
of conditions             probation
   Total                     100  %
None                           1.4
1                              5.7
2                             10.9
3 or 4                        36.1
5 or 6                        28.8
7 or more                     17.0
*****************************
Majority pay supervision fees
*****************************
A monetary requirement was the most common condition (84%) --
61% were required to pay supervision fees; 56% to pay a fine;
and 55% to pay court costs.  In addition, nearly a third were
required to pay restitution to the victim or victims of the
crime.  One in ten probationers were restricted from contacting
the victim or victims.
One of every four probationers were required to perform some
type of community service.  Two of every five probationers were
formally required to maintain employment or to enroll in some
type of educational or training program.
The sentences of 10% of all probationers included one or more
requirements intended to monitor or in some way restrict their
movement.  These probationers may have been required to stay
away from certain places like bars or particular businesses or
may have been under electronic monitoring, house arrest, or a
curfew.
Felons and misdemeanants were equally likely to be required to
pay a fee, fine, or court costs.  However, felons were much more
likely than misdemeanants to be required to pay victim
restitution (40% compared to 18%); to have special restrictions
on their movement (13% compared to 6%); and to be required to
maintain employment (41% compared to 27%).
***********************************************
More than 2 of 5 adults on probation required
to receive treatment for alcohol or drug abuse
***********************************************
More than 2 of every 5 probationers were required to enroll in
some form of substance abuse treatment.  An estimated 29% of
probationers were required to get treatment for alcohol abuse or
dependency and 23% for drug abuse.  Alcohol treatment was
required about twice as frequently among misdemeanants as felons
(41% compared to 21%), while drug treatment was required nearly
twice as frequently among felons as among misdemeanants (28%
compared to 15%).
Nearly a third of all probationers were subject to mandatory
drug testing -- 43% of felons and 17% of misdemeanants.
Nearly 1 in 5 probationers were required to participate in other
treatment programs, such as special psychiatric/ psychological
counseling, sex offenders program, or "other counseling" --
primarily counseling for domestic violence.
****************************************
Nearly three-quarters contacted by a
probation officer in last 30 days
****************************************
An estimated 72% of all probationers had some type of contact
with their probation officer in the 30 days prior to the survey;
61% had a face-to-face contact; 27% had been contacted by mail
or by telephone (table 9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table  9.  Level of supervision and type of contact by
probation officer in last month, by severity of offense, 1995
                            Severity of offense
                            Total    Felony   Misdemeanor
Total                        100      100      100
Contact with probationer
in last 30 days
None                        28.3     23.8     34.8
Any/a                       71.7     76.2     65.2
Personal                    60.7     65.0     54.1
Office                      59.2     63.0     53.4
Field                       11.9     15.3      6.8
Other contact               27.0     27.1     26.5
 Mail                       10.5     10.5     10.2
Telephone                   18.1     18.0     18.1
Collateral contact
in last 30 days/b
None                        72.8     69.0     77.8
One or more                 27.2     31.0     22.2
Level of supervision
High                        16.2     19.8      9.2
Medium                      26.7     29.3     24.1
Minimum                     39.0     37.5     41.5
Administrative               6.8      7.2      6.2
Unclassified                 9.9      4.4     17.8
Other                        1.5      1.8      1.2
Number of probationers/c  2451337  1449405   907654
/aMore than 1 type of contact was possible.
/bCase-related contacts that do not include contact with the probationer
such as verification of employment or attendance in treatment program.
/cExcludes 169,223 probationers (6% of all probationers) for whom
information on number of contacts were not reported.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most personal contacts occurred in the probation office (59%);
fewer in the field, at an offender's home or job, (12%).
In addition to face-to-face contacts and contacts by telephone
or by mail, probation agencies made "collateral" contacts with
other persons, such as the probationer's employers, teachers,
treatment providers, police, relatives or acquaintances to
gather information on those under their supervision.  Overall,
during the 30 days before the survey, probation agencies made
one or more collateral contacts for more than a quarter of all
probationers.
Felons were more likely than misdemeanants to have had an office
contact in the last 30 days (63% as compared with 53%), to have
had a field contact (15% compared with 7%), and  to have one or
more collateral contacts (31% compared to 22%).
Based on probation office classifications, nearly half of all
felons and a third of all misdemeanants were currently
supervised at a "medium" or "high" level.  Though agencies
differed in how they defined levels of supervision, a greater
number of personal contacts within 30 days of the survey
characterized both medium and high levels (table 10).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10.  Type of contact by probation officer in last month,
by level of supervision, 1995
                                       Level of supervision
                                                      Adminis-  Unclas-
Type of contact            High   Medium   Minimum    trative   sified
Total                       100      100      100       100      100
Contact with probationer
in last 30 days
None                        12.9     14.1     29.1      74.5     54.8
Any/a                        87.1     85.9     70.9      25.5     45.2
Personal contact            81.5     78.0     56.5       7.5     35.2
Office                      78.4     76.2     55.5       6.6     34.9
Field                       32.6     14.5      6.3       1.1      1.8
Other contact               30.5     25.9     29.6      18.8     19.9
Mail                         8.6      7.6     13.5      13.7      7.9
Telephone                   23.6     20.3     18.0       5.9     12.1
Collateral contact
in last 30 days/b
None                        55.1     69.7     76.8      91.4     81.5
One or more                 44.9     30.3     23.2       8.6     18.5
Number of probationers/c  383886   659393   987121    174340   182817
/aMore than 1 type of contact was possible.
/bCase-related contacts that do not include contact with the probationer
such as verification of employment or attendance in treatment program.
/cExcludes 200,062 probationers for whom information on number of contacts
was not reported, and an additional 32,941 probationers with other supervision
levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of probationers at a high level of supervision, 82% had a personal
contact, and at a medium level, 78%, compared to 57% of those at
a minimum supervision level, 35% of those unclassified, and 8%
of  probationers on administrative supervision.
*********************************
More than a third of probationers
in alcohol/drug treatment program
*********************************
At some time since entering probation supervision, more than 60%
of all probationers had participated in some type of special
supervision or other program (table 11).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11.  Participation in special supervision and other programs
since entering probation, by severity of offense, 1995
                                   Severity of offense
Program                   Total    Felony   Misdemeanor
Any special supervision
or program                    61.2     62.9     59.4
Intensive supervision         10.1     14.6      4.0
Other special supervision      5.2      6.5      3.2
Detention center/confineme     0.1      0.2      0.1
Boot camp                      0.7      1.2      0.1
Electronic monitoring          3.5      3.9      2.6
House arrest without electronic
   monitoring                  1.2      1.7      0.6
Community service              1.1      0.9      1.4
Drug testing                  32.3     43.9     16.6
Alcohol or drug treatment     37.1     33.4     41.9
Other treatment               11.4     15.7      5.2
Day                            5.3      7.2      2.7
Residential                    4.9      6.8      2.2
Sex offender                   2.7      4.2      0.6
Counseling                    11.6     11.6     12.6
Psychological/psychiatric      8.1      9.9      5.8
Family                         2.9      2.0      4.3
Life skills/parenting          1.4      1.5      1.3
Victim impact panel            0.4        0      1.0
Other counseling               0.6      0.2      1.3
Education                      7.0      9.1      4.0
Basic education/GED progra     5.2      7.0      2.6
Vocational/job training        2.5      3.0      1.9
Other                          0.4      0.3      0.6
Number of probationers*    2545594  1465521   973197
*Excludes an estimated 74,966 probationers (3% of all adults on probation)
for whom information on participation in special supervision or treatment
program was not reported.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The most common program was alcohol or drug treatment/counseling
-- 33% of felons and 42% of misdemeanants had received such
treatment while under their current sentence to probation.
Nearly a third of probationers had been tested for drugs at
least once since entering probation.  Drug testing was more
common among felons (44%) than misdemeanants (17%).
Felons were more likely than misdemeanants to have participated
in an intensive supervision program (15% compared to 4%).  Ten
percent of felons also received psychological or psychiatric
counseling, as compared with 6% of misdemeanants.
Not all of the probationers who had participated in the special
supervision or treatment programs were doing so at the time of
the survey.  When survey was conducted, an estimated 37% were
enrolled in a treatment program, being tested for drugs, under
intensive supervision, or in another type of program.  A quarter
of all probationers were being tested for drugs; a sixth were in
an alcohol or drug treatment program.  Fewer than 5% were under
intensive supervision.
                              Percent participating
                              in a program at time
                              of the survey
Any program                          36.8%
Intensive supervision                 4.9
Confinement/monitoring                 .6
Community service                      .5
Drug testing                         24.5
Alcohol/drug treatment               16.0
Other treatment                       4.3
Counseling                            5.2
Education                             3.2
****************************************
18% faced a disciplinary hearing
after entering probation
****************************************
Probationers who violate a condition of their probation, or who
are arrested for a new offense, may be called before the court
to review the circumstances of their violation.  Such
disciplinary hearings may result in the issuance of an arrest
warrant for a probationer who has absconded, a sentence to
incarceration, or reinstatement of probation with or without new
conditions.
At the time of the survey, an estimated 18% of all adults on
probation had one or more formal disciplinary hearings after
entering probation supervision.  Probationers included in the
survey who had served longer on a probation sentence also had
more experience with disciplinary hearings.  Of those who had
served 36 months or more and who were still on probation (or who
had returned to probation following a period of incarceration),
38% had at least one formal hearing, compared with 5% of those
who had served less than 6 months.
                               Percent of
                               probationers
                               who had at least
Months served  Number of       one disciplinary
on probation   probationers*   hearing
All probationers 2,553,052           18.4%
Less than 6 months 557,238            4.8
6 to 11            594,726           11.0
12 to 23           697,545           21.8
24 to 35           344,361           26.1
36 or more         359,183           37.6
*Excludes 67,508 probationers (3% of all adults  on probation)
for whom information on formal disciplinary hearings or time
served on probation was not available.
The records check survey underestimates the percentage of all
persons sentenced to probation who have disciplinary hearings
over the course of their sentence.  Probationers who had a
disciplinary hearing which resulted in revocation of their
probation and who were currently incarcerated were excluded from
the survey.  In addition, some probationers who had no
disciplinary hearing may have had a hearing after the survey but
before completing their sentence.  Consequently, the percentage
of all persons initially placed on probation and subsequently
having a disciplinary hearing is likely to have been higher than
18%.
The records-check survey underestimates the percentage of
probationers who have disciplinary hearings.  Some probationers
who might have participated in the survey were returned to
incarceration before the survey; others who did participate and
who had no disciplinary hearing subsequently violated the
conditions of their supervision. Therefore, the percentage of
all persons initially placed on probation and appearing at a
disciplinary hearing is likely to be higher than 18%.
****************************************
Disciplinary hearings more common among
unemployed and those with prior sentences
****************************************
Among probationers included in the survey, those who were
unemployed were more likely to have had a disciplinary hearing
(23%) than those who were employed (16%).  Probationers who had
a prior sentence to probation or incarceration were also more
likely to have had a hearing than probationers with no prior
sentence (23% compared to 15%).
                               Percent of adults
                               on probation with
                               disciplinary hearing
Employment
  Employed                            15.9%
  Not employed                        22.9
Severity of offense
  Felony                              21.1%
  Misdemeanor                         14.8
Prior sentence
  No prior sentence                   14.9%
  Probation or incarceration          23.2
****************************************
Failure to maintain contact the most
frequent reason for hearing
****************************************
Of those probationers who had experienced a disciplinary
hearing, the most frequent reason was absconding or failure
to contact the probation officer (41%) (table 12).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12.  Reasons for disciplinary hearings of adult probationers,
by  severity of most serious offense, 1995
                                         Severity of offense
Reason for disciplinary hearing/a      Total   Felony   Misdemeanor
 Absconded/failed to maintain contact   41.1     43.3      37.6
New offense                             38.4     43.2      31.0
Arrested                                30.4     34.9      23.5
Convicted                               13.9     15.8      10.5
Failure to pay fines or restitution     37.9     34.1      43.0
Drug/alcohol violation
Failure to attend/complete
  treatment program                     22.5     17.5      33.0
Positive drug test                      11.2     14.3       5.6
Alcohol abuse                            2.7      2.9       2.7
Violation of  confinement restrictions
Failure to do jail time/return
  from furlough                          2.5      2.5       2.8
Violation of home confinement            1.3      1.6       0.6
Other violations
Failure to complete community service    8.5      9.5       6.7
Other                                    6.8      6.9       6.7
Number of probationers/b                457279  297,481  144,550
/aDetail adds to more than  totals because some probationers have had more
than one disciplinary hearing, while others have had a single hearing
with more than one reason.
/bExcludes probationers who never had a disciplinary hearing, or for whom
information on disciplinary hearings was not reported.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was followed by arrest or conviction for a new offense
(38%), failure to pay fines or restitution (38%), and failure
to attend or complete an alcohol or drug treatment program
(22%).  An estimated 11% of probationers had a hearing because
of a positive drug test; 8% had failed to complete a community
service requirement.
Overall, 43% of felons and 38% of misdemeanants with at least
one disciplinary hearing failed to maintain contact with a
probation officer.  Arrest or conviction for a new offense was
somewhat more likely among felons  than misdemeanants (43%
compared to 31%).  Failure to attend or complete a substance
abuse treatment program, however, was more frequent among
misdemeanants (33%) than felons (18%).  Forty-three of
misdemeanants and 34% of felons with a disciplinary hearing
failed to pay fines or restitution.
**********************************
Over 40% receive new conditions of
supervision; 29% incarcerated
**********************************
Among persons under probation supervision who had experienced
one or more disciplinary hearings, 42% were permitted to
continue their sentence, but only with the imposition of
additional conditions; 29% were incarcerated in jail or prison;
and 29% had their supervision reinstated without any new
conditions (table 13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 13.  Outcome of disciplinary hearings of adult probationers,
by severity of most serious offense, 1995
                                     Severity of offense
Outcome of disciplinary
 hearing                    Total/a  Felony  Misdemeanor
Charges not sustained        3.5       3.7      3.5
Supervision reinstated
With new conditions         41.9      46.0     33.9
Without  new conditions     28.6      26.8     30.5
Incarcerated                29.1      34.4     18.9
Other outcomes
Bench warrant issued/
  declared absconder         2.7       1.7      4.7
Residential treatment/
  diversion order            1.6       2.1      0.7
Supervision level reduced    1.6       1.7      1.7
Other                        1.6       2.3      0.3
Hearing not completed       10.5       9.2     13.7
Number of probationers/b   455221    299941   141075
/aDetail adds to more than total because some probationers have had
more than one disciplinary hearing, while others have had a single
hearing with more than one outcome.
/bExcludes probationers who never had a disciplinary hearing or
for whom information on disciplinary hearings was missing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 1 in 4 probationers had not completed a hearing. Four
percent had charges that were not sustained.*
**Note**The percentages for hearing outcomes add to a total
larger than 100% because some probationers reported more than
one hearing or outcome. ****
Among probationers who had a disciplinary hearing, felons were
more likely than misdemeanants to have been incarcerated (34%
compared to 19%) or to have had their supervision reinstated
with new conditions (46% compared to 34%).
************
Methodology
************
The 1995 Survey of Adults on Probation (SAP) was conducted for
the  Bureau of Justice Statistics by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census.  It was the first nationally representative survey to
collect information on the individual characteristics of adult
probationers.
The SAP was a two-part survey, consisting of a records check
based on the probationers' administrative records and a personal
interview.  Only information from the records check
componen--collected during December 1994 through September
1995--are included in this report.
**************
Sample design
**************
The sample for the 1995 SAP records check sample was selected
from a universe of 2,627 State, county, and municipal probation
agencies with a total of 2,618,132 formally sentenced
probationers (appendix table 1).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 1.  Summary of the sample for the 1995
Survey of Adults on Probation
                                Census universe                           Sample selections
Type of agency            Number of       Number of     Number of     Number of          Number  of
and region                field officer   probationers  field officer offices/sites/a    probationers/b
Total                          2627          2618132            165          167              5867
Executive branch, State        1448          1176429             67           85              2744
Northeast                       94             39759              2            2                86
Midwest                        321            153469              9            8               319
South                          803            873858             50           70              2199
West                           230            109343              6            5               140
Executive branch, State        198            411825             24           24               910
Northeast                      86             134819              8            8               267
Midwest                        52              67781              4            4                94
South                           7              19584              1            1                22
West                           53             189641             11           11               527
Judicial branch, State        370             462020             27           28              1107
Northeast                      41             203294             12           13               504
Midwest                       188             127418              7            7               321
South                          63              86152              5            6               220
West                           78              45156              3            2                62
Judicial branch, State        611             567858             47           30              1106
Northeast                      78              78124              7            6               258
Midwest                       347             223831             19           10               371
South                          42              49120              5            3                88
West                          144             216783             16           11               389
Note: The universe file for the 1995 Survey of Adults on Probation was
based on the 1991 Census of Probation and Parole Agencies.  In this census
agencies reported the address of their field offices and the number of adults
under supervision in each office.  Field offices were categorized based on the
characteristics of their agencies by type (executive or judicial branch) and
level of government (State or local).
/aOf 165 offices selected, 19 were out of scope, not currently supervising
adult probationers, and 19 would not participate.  Twenty-four selected field
offices reported having additional suboffices.  Of the 110 suboffices, 40 were
sampled.  One office represented an entire State (Massachusetts), from which
a systematic sample of 210 probationers were selected.
/bOf 5,922 eligible probationers selected within 167 offices/sites, completed
record check forms were received for 5,867 (or 99.1%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe came from the 1991 Census of Probation and Parole
Agencies.  The sample design was a stratified two-stage selection.
In the first stage, probation agencies were stratified into 16
strata defined by government branch (executive or judicial) and
level (State or local), and census region (Northeast, Midwest,
South, or West).  The largest 43 probation agencies were made
self-representing and were selected into the sample with
certainty.  The remaining 2,584 non-selfrepresenting probation
agencies were grouped within strata into 122 roughly equal size
clusters.  One agency was selected from each of the 122
clusters, with probability of selection proportional to size.
Twenty-four agencies had a total of 110 additional subagencies
that were not included among the 2,627 probation agencies.  A
total of 41 subagencies were selected, and were included in the
cluster of their parent agency, resulting in an overall total of
206 agencies.  Excluding 19 agencies subsequently determined to
be out of scope and 20 which refused to participate resulted in
a final total of 167 agencies selected.
In the second stage, Bureau of the Census field representatives
visited each selected agency and systematically selected a
sample of probationers using predetermined procedures.  Only
persons age 18 and older, who were formally sentenced to
probation, who were not absconders were included in the records
check.  Excluded were persons supervised by a Federal probation
agency, those only on parole,  persons on presentence or
pretrial diversion, and juveniles.  As a result, approximately 1
of every 442 probationers were selected.  A total of 5,867
records checks were completed by a probation officer or other
probation agency representative.  The overall response rate of
87.4% represents the combination of an agency response rate of
88.3% and a records check completion rate of 99.1%.
Based on the completed records checks, estimates for the entire
population were generated using weighting factors derived from
the original probability of selection in the sample.  These
factors were adjusted for variable rates of non-response across
strata.  A further adjustment was made to the 1994 yearend
counts of the number of adults formally sentenced to probation.
*************************
Accuracy of the estimates
*************************
The accuracy of the estimates presented in this report depends
on two types of error: sampling and nonsampling.  Sampling error
is the variation that may occur by chance because a sample
rather than a complete enumeration of the population was
conducted.  Nonsampling error can be attributed to many sources
such as the inability to obtain information about all cases in
the sample, inability to obtain complete and correct information
from the administrative records, and processing errors.  In any
survey the full extent of the nonsampling error is never known.
The sampling error, as measured by an estimated standard error,
varies by the size of the estimate and the size of the base
population.  Estimates of the standard errors have been
calculated for the 1995 survey (appendix table 2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 2.  Standard errors of the estimated
percentages for adults on probation, 1995
Base of                   Estimated percentages
the estimate  98 or 2 95 or 5   90 or 10   80 or 20   70 or 30     50
   75000         2.3     3.5      4.9        6.5         7.5      8.1
  100000         2.0     3.1      4.2        5.6         6.5      7.0
  200000         1.4     2.2      3.0        4.0         4.6      5.0
  300000         1.1     1.8      2.4        3.3         3.7      4.1
  400000         1.0     1.5      2.1        2.8         3.2      3.5
  500000         0.9     1.4      1.9        2.5         2.9      3.1
  750000         0.7     1.1      1.5        2.1         2.4      2.6
 1000000         0.6     1.0      1.3        1.8         2.0      2.2
 1500000         0.5     0.8      1.1        1.5         1.7      1.8
 2500000         0.4     0.6      0.8        1.1         1.3      1.4
 2620650         0.4     0.6      0.8        1.1         1.3      1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These estimates may be used to construct confidence intervals
around percentages in this report.  For example, the 95-percent
confidence interval around the percent of adults on probation
for a drug offense is approximately 21.4% plus or minus 1.96
times 1.1% (or 19.2% to 23.6%).
These standard errors may also be used to test the significance
of the difference between two sample statistics by pooling the
standard errors of the two sample estimates.  For example, the
standard error of the difference between white and black adults
on probation for drug offenses would be 2.8% (or the square root
of the sum of the squared standard errors for each group).  The
95-percent confidence interval around the difference would be
1.96 times 2.8% (or 5.5%).  Since the difference of 13.9% (30.9%
minus 17.0%) is greater than 5.5%, the difference would be
considered statistically significant.
The standard errors reported should be used only for tests on
all probationers.  Comparisons of male and female probationers
require different standard errors.
************************
Data on prior sentences
************************
The availability of criminal history data in probation office
administrative records was more limited than other types of
information collected on the SAP records check form.  Complete
information on whether a probationer had a prior sentence to
probation or incarceration, and whether any prior sentences were
as a juvenile or as an adult, was available for 74% of the
estimated 2,620,560 adult probationers covered by the survey.
Partial information was available for 15% of probationers.  No
data were available for the remaining 12%.
                      Percent of records,
                      by amount of data
                      reported on prior
                      sentences
Complete                    73.6
Partial                     14.6
No data                     11.8
Overall, data on prior sentences to probation or incarceration
in a jail or prison were missing for 17% of probationers
(appendix table 3).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 3.  Missing data for prior sentences,
by severity of offense, completion of presentence
investigation, and level of supervision, 1995
                            Prior sentences, percent missing data
                           Any     Proba-   Incarce-
                           type    tion     ration   Adult    Juvenile
Total missing              16.8     14.3     19.7     18.9     24.8
Severity of offense
Felony                     10.7      7.5     12.6     12.7     16.3
Misdemeanor                24.7     23.3     29.4     26.5     35.4
Presentence investigation
Completed                   7.6      6.4      8.6      9.7     13.4
Not completed              22.3     18.0     27.0     24.4     31.1
Level of supervision
High/medium                11.7      8.8     14.7     14.6     19.8
Minimum/administrative     16.0     14.8     17.7     17.4     23.0
Unclassified               41.3     33.4     48.6     43.4     53.1
Note:  The reported statistics are in tables 4, 5, 6, and 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is higher than the 12% of probationers for whom no information
was available because partial data could only be used when they
indicated a prior sentence.  Partial data did not allow the existence
of a prior sentence to be ruled out.
The amount of missing criminal history data varied for each type
of prior sentence status.  Differing percentages of missing data
occurred for the status of having or not having a prior
sentence.  Twenty percent of records were missing information on
prior sentence to incarceration, compared to 14% of records missing
data on prior sentence to probation. Twenty-five percent of all
records were missing whether a probationer had a prior juvenile
sentence, and 19% were missing whether there was a prior adult sentence.
The amount of missing data also varied by severity of offense,
with misdemeanants registering twice as much missing data as
felons for any type of prior sentences (25% compared with 11%).
Large differences between misdemeanants and felons were found
for each type or prior sentence.  Data were missing for more
than a third of misdemeanants regarding a prior juvenile
sentence -- nearly 20% greater than for the prior sentence
status of juvenile felons (16%).
More information on prior sentences was available for
probationers with a completed PSI (8% missing data compared with
22% missing data).  Not having a PSI completed was strongly
related to having more missing data for each type of prior
sentence.  Nearly a third of the data on prior juvenile
sentences was missing for probationers without a completed PSI.
Less highly supervised probationers were more likely to have
incomplete prior sentence information available than were those
on higher levels of supervision -- 41% of data were missing for
unclassified probationers, 16% for those on minimum or
administrative supervision, and 12% for those on a high or
medium level. The amount of missing data by level of supervision
varied for each type of prior sentence.  Data on prior juvenile
sentence status were missing for about half of probationers
whose level of supervision was unclassified.
****************
Sentence lengths
****************
Felons included in the SAP had an average sentence to probation
of 51 months (appendix table 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 4.  Felony sentences of adults who entered probation, 1994,
compared to sentences of adults who were on probation in 1995
                                                                                       Survey of Adults on Probation, 1995
                            National Judicial                                                                  Felons
                            Reporting Program,
                            1994, felons sentenced
                            to probation only or to                                                      Admitted
                            probation and incarceration    All probationers           All felons         last 12 months      Misdemeanants
                                        Mean                      Mean                       Mean           Mean                      Mean
Most serious                            sentence                  sentence                   sentence       sentence                  sentence
current offense             Percent     length           Percent  length            Percent  length         length          Percent   length
Total                         100         40 mo            100      39 mo              100     51 mo         42 mo           100         21 mo
Violent offenses              14          45 mo           17.3      48 mo             19.5     62 mo         51 mo           13.5        21
  Murder                      **          54                .2       **                 .1     **            **                .2        **
  Rape                         2          56                .3       **                 .5     **            **                **        **
  Robbery                      3          48               1.9       60                3.2     60            **                **        **
  Assault                      7          41               9.2       36                7.6     55            48              11.1        19
Property offenses             32          41 mo           28.9       42 mo            36.6     50 mo         42 mo           18.2        20  mo
  Burglary                    10          44               5.8       51                9.7     52            46                .3        **
  Larceny/theft               13          39               9.9       39               11.1     49            38               8.5        20
  Fraud                        9          41               7.2       43                9.6     50            43               4.2        22
Drug offenses                 34       39 mo              21.4       43 mo            30.7     47 mo         39 mo            7.6        22 mo
  Possession                  16          38               9.8       38               13.1     42            34               4.6        19
  Trafficking                 18          41               9.7       49               15.4     50            42               1.6        **
Public-order offenses         --          --             31.1        27 mo            12.1     48 mo         39 mo           59.6        20 mo
  Traffic                     --          --               4.7       18                 .9     **            **              10.2        17
  Driving while intoxicated   --         --              16.7       28                 5.2     54            50              35.2        23
Number of probationers     429694     429694           2595499  2543831             1479904      1461774    500931           988033   956871
Note:  Persons on probation in 1995 may have started their sentence at any time prior to the survey.
--Not available.
**Too few cases to provide an estimate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the SAP sampling
design, this is longer than the average sentence to probation of
felons in State courts in 1994 (40 months), as estimated by BJS'
National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP).  Persons who entered
probation with shorter sentences left probation more quickly,
resulting in a longer average sentence length among persons
remaining to be sampled for the SAP.
Among sampled felons admitted to probation within the 12 months
prior to the SAP, the average probation sentence was 42 months,
or about the same as the NJRP estimate of average sentence
imposed in 1994.  Few felons sentenced in the last year left
probation supervision prior to the survey date.
Overall, probationers included in the SAP had received an
average sentence to probation of 39 months.  The average
sentence among misdemeanants (21 months) was 2 1/2 years shorter
than that for felons.
---------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice.
Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director.
BJS Special Reports address a specific topic in depth from one
or more datasets that cover many topics.
Thomas P. Bonczar wrote this report under the supervision of
Allen J. Beck.   Christopher J. Mumola, Bonita A. Reynolds,
Coliece R. Rice, Jennifer L. McGihon, and Tracy L. Snell
provided statistical assistance.  Tom Hester edited the report,
assisted by Priscilla Middleton.  Marilyn Marbrook, assisted by
Yvonne Boston and Jayne Robinson, prepared the report for
publication.
Allen Beck and Tom Bonczar designed the survey, developed the
questionnaire and monitored data collection, production of
weights, and variance estimates.
LaTerri D. Bynum, Kenneth B. Dawson, and Marita K. Perez,
Demographic Surveys Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, carried
out data collection and processing under the supervision of
Kathy Creighton, N. Gail Hoff, and Gertrude B. Odom.  Larry
Altmayer, under the supervision of Stephen T. Phillips, provided
programming assistance.  Denise Lewis, under the supervision of
Michael Roebuck and Thomas Moore, designed the sample and
weighting specifications.  Cynthia Eurich, Field Division,
coordinated the field operations, under the supervision of
Michael McMahon.
December 1997, NCJ-164267
-----------------------------------------------------------------
End of ascii version