U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Reconciling Federal Criminal Case Processing Statistics
Federal Justice Statistics Program Methodology Report

September 1999, NCJ 171680

Revised 10/01/99 th

By John Scalia, BJS Statistician
and William J. Sabol, Ph.D., The Urban Institute

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director

This report is the product of the extensive work and analysis of
the Interagency Working Group on Federal Criminal Case
Processing Statistics.  The Working Group was convened in 1995
at the request of the Attorney General to study, identify, and
reconcile the differences in official statistics describing the
Federal criminal justice system.  

The following people participated in the Working Group: Steven
R. Schlesinger, Ph.D.; Catherine Whitaker, Ph.D.; and Pragati
Patrick of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; Louis
DeFalaise, Barbara Tone, Eileen Menton, and Vern Bryant of the
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Louis Reedt, Elizabeth
McGrath, and Susan Katzenelson of the U.S. Sentencing
Commission; Julie Samuels and Steven Shandy of the Department of
Justice Criminal Division; Gerry Gaes, Ph.D. of the Bureau of
Prisons; William Adams, Harvey Meyerson, and Yan Yuan of the
Urban Institute, and Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. (chair) and Steven K.
Smith, Ph.D. of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  John Scalia
of BJS and William J. Sabol of the Urban Institute wrote this
report.  Yvonne Boston edited the report and produced the camera
copy under the supervision of Marilyn Marbrook.  

Data presented in this report may be obtained from the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan,
1-800-999-0960 and the BJS Clearinghouse, 1-800-732-3277.  The
report and data are also available on the Internet at --
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Contents

Federal criminal justice agencies and their statistics   

Primary differences in agency reports of Federal criminal
statistics   

   Definitions of case and defendant   
   Reporting and data collection periods   
   Offenses and case type   
   Classifying the case or defendant substantive offense   
   Offense hierarchy   
   Effects on reported statistics: the case of Project Triggerlock 

Disposition and sentence imposed   
   Disposition   
   Sentences imposed   

Reconciling published case processing statistics   

Tracking offenders through the Federal criminal justice process 
   Identifying offenders and offender/cases   
   Assigning a Federal offender/case tracking number   
   Implementing an offender/case tracking system   

Recommendations for improving the collection 
of Federal criminal data   
   Standardization of court docket number   
   Standardization of defendant name   
   Adoption of an offender case tracking number  

Appendix   
   Summary of statistical concepts operationalized 
     by Federal criminal justice agencies   
   Appendix tables   

Federal criminal case processing statistics help to inform and
shape Federal criminal justice policy.  They reflect the
performance of Federal criminal justice agencies, inform debates
about law enforcement and sentencing policy, and allocate
budgets.  Congress uses statistics describing the number of
Federal prosecutions to evaluate the Attorney General's law
enforcement priorities.  The public uses statistics describing
the average sentences imposed on Federal offenders to assess
Federal sentencing policy.  Federal criminal justice agencies
routinely use Federal criminal statistics to make plans, develop
budget requests, and allocate resources across Federal judicial
districts.   The Bureau of Prisons uses data describing the flow
of offenders through the Federal criminal justice process to
develop forecasts of the Federal prison population.

Federal criminal statistics are reported annually by four
agencies:

* the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

* the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

* the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

* the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  

These agencies, however, often report different numbers of
offenders.  For example, during 1997 the U.S. attorneys reported
that 45,375 defendants were convicted and sentenced while the
Federal judiciary reported 55,648 and the U.S. Sentencing
Commission reported 48,681.  For policymakers, this lack of
convergence among seemingly similar statistics reported by these
four Federal agencies can be problematic.

At the request of the Attorney General, during 1995, the
Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Administrative
Office of United States Courts, the United States Sentencing
Commission, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics convened a working group -- the interagency working
group on Federal criminal case processing statistics (hereafter
working group) -- to study, identify, and reconcile the
differences in the reported statistics.  This report summarizes
the technical work that underlies the working group's
conclusions.  

The working group, chaired by the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
identified four goals:

* to identify and statistically reconcile differences in the
manner in which the agencies report criminal case processing
statistics;

* to develop definitions of commonly used terminology to explain
differences in statistical concepts and reports;

* to determine whether commonly collected information can be
shared across agencies; and

*to determine whether a unique defendant/case tracking number
can be developed and implemented to track individual defendants
through the Federal criminal justice process.

In 1996 the working group issued a report, Comparing Case
Processing Statistics, that described the primary reasons for
the differences in the agencies' reported statistics (see
Appendix).  In this report the working group concluded that the
differences are attributable to (1) the differing ways the
agencies define defendants in key case processing events, (2)
the time periods for reported events, (3) the methods used to
classify offenses and case types, and (4) the methods used to
classify disposition and sentences imposed.  Since its
publication, each agency has taken steps to incorporate the
report, or its conclusions, into its annual statistical report.  

While the agencies may report on similar concepts such as the
number of cases filed, the number of defendants in cases, and
average sentences imposed, the statistics reported differ for
many legitimate reasons such as those related to defining
case-processing events, to the scope of events in the criminal
justice system covered, and to the periods for which events are
reported.  Consequently, the working group concluded that it may
be impractical for the agencies to adopt common methods for
reporting case processing statistics.  Further, given the
ability of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to reconcile the
reported statistics and to present each agency's statistics in
their appropriate context, the working group concluded that it
was unnecessary for the agencies to adopt a common reporting
methodology.

To reconcile the differences in the reported statistics, the
working group concluded that the agencies' data must be
reanalyzed to take into account the known sources of disparity. 
The working group set in place a procedure to annually reconcile
the agencies' official statistics.  The Bureau of Justice
Statistics, as part of its Federal Justice Statistics Program,
assumed responsibility for reconciling several key, commonly
used case processing statistics reported by the various
agencies.  Following the procedures established for its Federal
Justice Statistics Program, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
would --

* continue to obtain from each agency annual data extracts as
well as any additional extracts needed to identify case
processing events during the reporting period

* standardize the data in terms of the reporting period and
defendants included, the definitions of defendants, the offense
categories, and the disposition and any sanctions imposed

* annually publish by the end of June following the end of the
Federal fiscal year a report that details these reconciled
statistics. 

The working group concluded that despite each agency's reporting
differences, it is possible for the agencies to share commonly
collected information.  Information such as the specific charges
filed against the defendant, dates of key events, and disposition
is collected in a similar manner.   Provided that the agencies
were able to electronically share information, this sharing
would minimize discrepancies in the agencies' data and could
reduce or eliminate redundant collection.

Finally, the working group concluded that a first step in
sharing information across agencies would be for the Federal
criminal justice agencies -- including Federal law enforcement
agencies  -- to adopt an offender/case tracking number.  Such a 
number would be used to positively identify offender/cases and
link records of case processing events across agencies. The
methods currently used by BJS to link data, while generating
relatively high match rates between agencies, have little
utility to the agencies and are fraught with difficulties and
possible error.  By tracking offenders as they are processed
rather than after the fact, an offender/case tracking system
would make it possible for the agencies to share information as
well as ensure complete and timely updates to Federal criminal 
history records.  In addition, an offender/case tracking system 
would facilitate future efforts to reconcile case processing 
statistics.

Federal criminal justice agencies and their statistics

Each agency reports workload or caseload statistics describing
the volume of cases or defendants handled during a given
reporting period.  Collectively, the statistical reports of four
Federal criminal justice agencies describe the processing of
defendants through the Federal criminal justice system.  The
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys reports on the workload of
U.S. Attorney Offices (table 1).  The Administrative Office of
U.S. Courts describes the caseload of the Federal judiciary. 
The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports on sentences imposed
pursuant to the Federal sentencing guidelines.  The Federal
Bureau of Prisons reports on Federal prisoners under their
jurisdiction.  Each report describes distinct but overlapping
segments of the Federal criminal justice system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.  Federal criminal justice agencies and primary
area(s) of responsibility
 
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
         United States attorneys offices
         Investigating suspects and prosecuting defendants in Federal courts
 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
         U.S. district courts, U.S. appellate courts
             Pretrial service agencies, Federal probation service 
         Adjudicating defendants charged with Federal crimes, adjudicating
              Federal criminal appeals, administering pretrial services
              and supervision service for offenders on probation, parole, and 
              supervised release
 
U.S. Sentencing Commission
         N/A
         Promulgating Federal sentencing guidelines
 
Federal Bureau of Prisons
         Federal correctional institutions and metropolitan detention facilities
         Housing defendants sentenced to imprisonment and other criminal justice
               detainees

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its report United States Attorneys: Annual Statistical
Report, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (hereafter, U.S.
attorneys) presents a statistical summary of matters and cases
handled by the United States Attorneys from the time they are
referred to the U.S. attorneys by an investigative agency, such
as the FBI, through disposition and appellate action, where
applicable.  The U.S. attorneys report on "matters" and criminal
cases.  A matter is a criminal referral to a U.S. attorney. 
Matters may be declined immediately, investigated further and
subsequently declined, prosecuted before a U.S. magistrate, or
referred for prosecution before a U.S. district court judge.  A
case is a matter involving a felony or Class A misdemeanor that
has been referred for prosecution before a U.S. district court
judge.  The scope of the U.S. attorneys' statistical report is
limited to felony and Class A misdemeanor offenses filed before
a U.S. district court judge. All other matters such as Class B
and C misdemeanor offenses and proceedings before U.S. magistrates 
are excluded from the U.S. attorneys' counts of cases and 
defendants in cases.

In its report Judicial Business of the United States Courts:
Annual Report of the Director, the Administrative Office of U.S.
Courts' (hereafter, Federal judiciary) presents a statistical
summary of the workload of the Federal judiciary (trial and
appellate courts), the Federal pretrial services agencies, and 
the Federal probation agencies.  The Federal judiciary's 
statistical report includes all proceedings commenced by U.S. 
district court judges and, in the case of Class A misdemeanors, 
by U.S. magistrates.

In its report the Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics
(formerly U.S. Sentencing Commission, Annual Report), the U.S.
Sentencing Commission (hereafter, Sentencing Commission)
presents statistics describing characteristics of defendants
sentenced pursuant to the Federal sentencing guidelines and the
application of the guidelines. 

In its reports of "Key Indicators," the Federal Bureau of
Prisons reports on offenders committed to its custody: 
those awaiting trial or sentencing, those sentenced to a term of
imprisonment, Immigration and Naturalization Service detainees,
and boarders from the District of Columbia.

Primary differences in agency reports of Federal criminal
statistics

Each Federal criminal justice agency reports statistics that
reflect their handling of criminal cases and defendants.  In
theory the statistics reported by each agency should be
comparable, but in practice the reported statistics differ
across agencies.  For instance, for fiscal year 1997, the U.S.
attorneys' statistical report showed that the 93 U.S. attorneys
filed criminal charges in U.S. district court against 58,906
defendants.  By contrast, the Federal judiciary's report showed
that criminal cases were commenced against 69,437 defendants
(table 2).  A difference of 10,531 defendants comparing
defendants in cases filed by U.S. attorneys and defendants in
cases commenced by the Federal judiciary.  Similarly, the U.S.
attorneys reported that 45,375 defendants were convicted during
1997, while the Federal judiciary reported 55,648 convictions,
and the Sentencing Commission reported 48,681.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.  Comparison of the number of defendants processed as reported
by Federal criminal justice agencies, for the Federal fiscal year 1997
 
                           Executive  Administra-
                           Office     tive Office   U.S.         Federal
                           for U.S.   of the U.S.   Sentencing   Bureau
Defendants                 Attorneys  Courts        Commission   of Prisons
 
Cases filed/commenced       58,906      69,437        --           --
Cases terminated            51,492      63,148        --           --
Convicted and sentenced     45,375      55,648       48,681        --
Imprisoned                  34,044      43,791       38,388      38,293

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, the primary differences in reported statistics arise
from differences in the scope of the agencies' reports and in
the way the agencies define key concepts in case processing. 
For example, because the U.S. attorneys exclude defendants in
cases filed before U.S. magistrates from their counts while the
Federal judiciary includes them, the U.S. attorneys consistently
report fewer defendants than the Federal judiciary.  Similarly,
because the Federal judiciary reports on all defendants
convicted and sentenced while the Sentencing Commission reports
on only those sentenced pursuant to the Federal sentencing
guidelines, the sentencing commission has consistently reported
fewer defendants sentenced than the Federal judiciary.  Other
factors that contribute to the disparity include differences in
the reporting period, in the methods for classifying offenses
and reporting dispositions, and in the sentences imposed.   

Definitions of case and defendant

The number of cases and defendants in cases reported by the
agencies are based on agency-specific definitions of "case." 
The definition of case varies according to specific actions
taken by the U.S. attorneys and the Federal judiciary and the
severity of the offense (table 3).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.  Scope of coverage of agency statistical reports
 
                               Executive  
                               Office                Administrative             U.S.
                               for U.S.              Office of the              Sentencing           Federal Bureau
Universe                       Attorney              U.S. Courts                Commission           of prisons    
 
Suspects
Investigated                      #
Declined for prosecution          #
In matters disposed of by
U.S. magistrates and --
    Convicted  and sentenced      #                       #                            #              Imprisoned only
    Not convicted                 #                       

Defendants
In cases filed with U.S.
district court judges             #                       #

In cases terminated by U.S. 
district court judges and --
    Convicted and sentenced       #                       #                            #              Imprisoned only
    Not convicted                 #                       #

Offense severity
Felony                            #                       #                            #              #
Misdemeanor
    Class A                       By U.S. district 
                                  court judges only       #                            #              Imprisoned only
    Class B & C                                          By U.S. district 
                                                         court judges only                             Imprisoned only
 
Note: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reports on Class B and C misdemeanors
handled by U.S. magistrate judges in a separate series of tables that are included in their
annual report.  The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports on only those defendants who
were sentenced pursuant to the Federal sentencing guidelines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both the U.S. attorneys and Federal judiciary report on case
initiations and case terminations.  While both agencies use the
same event(s) to tabulate case terminations (disposition by the
court), they differ with regard to case initiations.

U.S. attorneys, a case is initiated when a U.S. attorney files
an indictment (or information) before a U.S. district court
judge.  Proceedings before U.S. magistrates, however, are not
considered cases by the U.S. attorneys.  

By contrast, for the Federal judiciary, a case is initiated when
a U.S. district court judge or magistrate takes an action to
initiate or commence proceedings against a defendant. 
Therefore, while both agencies often use the same terminology to
report cases and defendants in cases initiated, the reported
statistics are based on different case processing events.  

The impact of basing reported statistics on the filing date as
opposed to the commencement date can be substantial.  During
1996, for instance, about 14% of the 69,700 defendants in cases
commenced by the Federal judiciary were filed by the U.S.
attorneys at least 1 month prior to commencement.  A few (2%)
were filed more than a year prior to commencement.

The U.S. attorneys, the Federal judiciary, and the Sentencing
Commission -- to varying degrees -- report on defendants
convicted and sentenced in Federal court.  While the U.S.
attorneys and the Federal judiciary report the sentence imposed
on each defendant in each case, the Sentencing Commission
reports on the sentence imposed during a sentencing event. 
Defendants convicted of multiple offenses in multiple cases may
have those cases consolidated for sentencing.***Footnote 1.  
See, Fed. R. Crim. P. 20.*** When two or more cases are
consolidated for sentencing, the defendant receives one
sentence.  During 1997, 2.2% of defendants sentenced were
convicted in multiple judicial proceedings but sentenced on one
occasion.

Unlike the other agencies, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does
not track cases or person/cases (defendants).  It tracks the
movement of offenders (persons) through the Federal prison
system.  The Bureau of Prisons' statistics are divorced from the
U.S. attorneys' and Federal judiciary's concept of "case."

For example, an offender may be charged in multiple Federal
criminal cases concurrently or during a single reporting period.
 While the U.S. attorneys and the Federal judiciary would count
each defendant/case separately, the Bureau of Prisons would
count only the person committed to its custody.  The Bureau,
however, would separately record each sentence imposed. 

Reporting and data collection periods

Each agency uses the Federal fiscal year -- the 12-month period
ending September 30 -- as their official reporting
period.****Footnote 2.   While the Bureau of Prisons produces
reports such as its Key Indicators and Monday Morning Highlights
for periods covering the Federal fiscal year, the Bureau does
not release an annual statistical report of the type released by
the other agencies.**** Except for the U.S. attorneys, the
agencies report on events that occurred during a reporting
period.  The U.S. attorneys, by contrast, report on events that
were posted, or record-ed, to their data system during the
reporting period.  

Because the U.S. attorneys report events posted to their data
system, records posted late -- the events that occurred during
one reporting period but not posted until a later reporting
period -- can affect reported statistics.  Late postings can
arise for several reasons: the clerks of courts may not return
the indictment to the U.S. attorneys;  assistant U.S. attorneys
may not complete the paperwork associated with case filings; and
efforts to clean up pending cases can cause large increases in
the number of records posted during a reporting period; and
reporting practices may differ among U.S. attorney offices.  

As part of a detailed audit of cases processed in four Federal
judicial districts (Central California, Southern California,
Southern Florida, and Eastern Virginia), the Bureau of Justice
Statistics found that nearly a quarter (23.2%) of the records
reported by the U.S. attorneys as disposed of during fiscal year
1994 were actually disposed of and reported by the Federal
judiciary during fiscal year 1993.  

The proportion of records posted late by the U.S. attorneys has
been fairly constant over time.  Between 1992 and 1996,
approximately 6% to 8% of records of defendants in cases filed
as reported by the U.S. attorney were posted late. 
Consequently, the relationship between actual case processing
events and events posted has remained relatively stable.  For
example, during 1992, the U.S. attorneys reported 59,198
defendants in cases filed.  A review of 6 years of data by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics indicated that 59,070 defendants in
cases were actually filed with the Federal judiciary by the
U.S. attorneys during 1992.  Similar patterns persisted for
subsequent years.  

Posting lags are not unique to the U.S. attorneys.  The
Sentencing Commission excludes records of sentencing events that
occurred during the reporting period but not received until
after the end of its data collection period (approximately 3
months following the end of the reporting period).  A relatively
small proportion (1% to 2%) of such sentencing events are
"reported late" to the Sentencing Commission and excluded from
its published statistics.****Footnote 3.  Unlike the U.S.
attorneys, the Sentencing Commission does not include these
records in reports for subsequent fiscal years or in its
public-use datasets.****

In addition, because the Sentencing Commission relies on the
district courts to submit documentation in hard copy, the
Sentencing Commission's reported statistics experience a certain
degree of nonreporting by the district courts.  Beginning in fiscal
year 1997, the Sentencing Commission -- with the assistance of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics -- undertook an effort to
identify cases for which the district courts failed to submit
documentation.  The Sentencing Commission identified more than
4,000 cases for which the district courts did not provide court
documents during the fiscal year.

Offenses and case type

A third major source of disparity relates to the methods used to
categorize offenses investigated, charged, and/or adjudicated. 
The Federal code defines hundreds of laws for which persons can
be criminally prosecuted.  Each agency except for the Bureau of
Prisons collects some, if not all, of the statutory offenses for
which the defendant was charged and/or adjudicated.

Classifying the case or defendant substantive offense

The Federal judiciary and Sentencing Commission consolidate and
categorize the titles and sections of the criminal code
according to likeness of the offenses (table 4).  While they
generally follow the same method to consolidate and categorize
statutory offenses, the categories used are not identical.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.  Categorizing offenses

                                 Executive Office      Administrative Office       U.S. Sentencing               Federal
                                 for U.S. Attorneys    of the U.S. Courts          Commission                    Bureau of Prisons
 
Number of offense categories          97                   254                         201                           348
 
Number of categories reported         54                    61                          41                            15
 
Basis for offense categorization   DOJ law enforcement  Statutory citation         Statutory citation             Statutory citation
                                     initiative         Likeness of offenses       Likeness of offenses           Likeness of offenses

Determination of most              U.S. attorney        Statutory penalties        Statutory penalties            Sentence imposed           
     serious offense                 discretion         Harm involved/a             Harm involved/a               Harm involved/a 
 
Offense category assigned at--     Case-level           Defendant-level/b          Defendant-level                Defendant-level
 
Offense reported                   Offense              Offense charged            Offense of conviction          Offense of conviction
                                     investigated       Offense adjudicated        
 
a/In instances where multiple offenses have the same statutory penalties, the most serious
offense  is selected according to the particular harm -- involved  violent, drugs, firearms,
property, moral, other.
b/The Administrative Office reports case-level statistics.  The case-level offense is selected
using the offense of the first defendant charged in the case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal judiciary currently uses 254 offense categories to
classify cases and defendants; these offense categories are
consolidated into 61 categories for reporting purposes.  The
offense category is assigned at the defendant level at both
commencement and termination of the case.  Offenses at com-
mencement represent the offenses charged.  By contrast, offenses
at termination reflect the offenses for which defendants were
adjudicated.  The offenses may differ because of additional
charges added by the U.S. attorney or the reduction of charges
as a result of judicial action or plea or charge bargaining.  

Tabulations of cases and defendants commenced use the offense
charged; tabulations of cases and defendants terminated and
sentenced use the offenses adjudicated.  In multidefendant
cases, a case-level offense is selected based on the offense of
the first defendant charged in a case.  Thus, multiple
defendants in the same case may appear on different offense
lines in reports of the offenses of defendants, and some
defendants' offenses will not be used to determine or classify
the offense of a case.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission currently uses 201 offense
categories; these categories are consolidated into 41 categories
for reporting purposes.  The Sentencing Commission's categories
are similar to those reported by the judiciary.  The offense
category is assigned at the defendant-level, and reflects the
offense of conviction.

The U.S. attorneys categorize offenses according to Department
of Justice and U.S. attorney law enforcement initiatives, in
contrast to the other agencies, who categorize offenses more
generically.  The U.S. attorneys currently use 97 program
categories to classify cases and defendants.  These program
categories are consolidated into 54 categories for reporting
purposes.  By contrast to the Federal judiciary, program
categories are assigned at the case rather than at the defendant
level.  Consequently, in multidefendant cases, all defendants
are assigned the same program category even though their
statutory offenses might vary.  For example, a case identified
as a public corruption case might comprise defendants charged
with very different substantive offenses such as embezzlement,
soliciting or receiving a gratuity, fraud, and/or tax evasion. 
In addition, U.S. attorneys do not report separate offenses
charged or adjudicated: the program category reported reflects
the offense originally investigated by the U.S. attorney.

The Bureau of Prisons does not collect statute-specific offense
data.  Instead, the offense of conviction is classified directly
into offense categories.  For many offenses, however, the
Bureau's offense categories closely correspond to a particular
statutory offense.  For others, the offense categories
correspond to an otherwise closely-knit group of offenses.  The
Bureau's coding scheme contains 348 offense categories.  The
offense category is assigned at the inmate level and it reflects
the offense of conviction.

Offense hierarchy

For defendants charged with or convicted of more than one
offense, the agencies use different methods to identify and
report the most significant, or serious, offense.  The Federal
judiciary and the U.S. Sentencing Commission base the most
serious offense on the severity of statutory penalties
(imprisonment and fine) associated with the offenses. 
Defendants charged with multiple violations are classified into
a single offense category based on maximum statutory penalties. 
If two offenses have the same statutory penalties, the most 
serious offense is chosen by rank-ordering the offenses according 
to the particular type involved -- violent, drugs, firearms, 
property, moral, and other. ****Footnote 4. In the Federal 
judiciary's classification of the most serious offense 
terminated, the hierarchy also includes the method of
disposition.  This aspect is described in the section
Disposition and Sentence Imposed.**** For instance, since bank
robbery is considered a violent offense, a bank robbery offense
with a statutory maximum of 10 years imprisonment would take
precedence over a drug offense with the same statutory maximum
penalty.  

By contrast, the U.S. attorneys' program category is based on an
assistant U.S. attorney's assessment of the offenses charged. 
The program category most accurately describing the overall
offense conduct and the law enforcement initiative is selected
and used for reporting purposes.

For the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the most serious offense is
based on the offense of conviction carrying the longest sentence
imposed by the court.

Effects on reported statistics: the case of Project Triggerlock

Differences in offense classification methods can affect
comparisons of reported statistics across agencies.  In
addition, changes in a particular agency's classification
methods may prevent direct comparisons over time.  The use of
program categories by the U.S. attorneys substantially affects
their case processing statistics.  

Prior to 1992, the U.S. attorneys used statutory offense-based
categories.  During this time, the U.S. attorneys and the
Federal judiciary reported approximately equal numbers of drug
defendants in cases filed or commenced (table 5).  However,
beginning in 1992, the U.S. attorneys began to classify
defendants according to program categories.  At the same time
the U.S. attorneys initiated Project Triggerlock.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.  Drug defendants in criminal cases filed or commenced  as reports
 
                                     U.S. attorneys
                 Federal                             Drug              Project
Year             judiciary         Total             offenses          Triggerlock
      1990       22,075            21,937            21,937              --
      1991       23,578            23,587            23,587              --
      1992       25,033            24,991            22,259             2,732
      1993       23,114            22,597            20,953             1,644
      1994       21,922            20,399            18,832             1,567
      1995       22,929            22,736            21,109             1,627
      1996       23,861            22,650            21,525             1,125
      1997       25,885            24,356            23,542               814
 
Notes: Project Triggerlock includes those defendants  charged with a weapons
offense or another violent offense in conjunction with a drug offense.
Project Triggerlock was implemented in April 1992.
 
Data sources: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys,  Annual Statistical Report, annual;
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Judicial Business of the United States Courts, annual.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project Triggerlock identifies cases in which defendants use a
weapon during the commission of a violent or drug offense. 
Because of the overlap and the U.S. attorney's rules for
selecting the most appropriate category, defendants who would
have previously been counted as drug defendants were counted as
Project Triggerlock defendants under the new system. 
Consequently, in 1992, the number of drug defendants that U.S.
attorneys reported as drug offenders began to diverge from the
number reported by the Federal judiciary. 

For 1992, the U.S. attorneys reported 22,259 drug defendants
while the Federal judiciary reported 25,033.  If the Project
Triggerlock defendants concurrently charged with a drug offenses
had been included, the agencies would have reported more
comparable statistics -- 24,991 by the U.S. attorneys and 25,033
by the Federal judiciary.

Disposition and sentence imposed

Disposition

Generally, the agencies use similar methods to identify the
outcome of the judicial proceeding and the method of
adjudication.  The categorization of the disposition and the
method of adjudication for a defendant follows the same
hierarchy across all agencies: conviction takes precedence over
acquittal and dismissal; jury trial takes precedence over bench
trial; guilty plea takes precedence over nolo contendere.

The agencies vary, however, in their scope of coverage.  The
U.S. attorneys and the Federal judiciary report on the
disposition of both defendants convicted and not convicted.  
The Sentencing Commission, on the other hand, reports on only
those defendants who were convicted.

In classifying the most serious offense at termination, the
Federal judiciary -- in addition to considering the hierarchy of
the statutory penalties -- considers the method of disposition. 
Offenses resulting in a conviction take precedence over offenses
resulting in an acquittal or dismissal.  For example, a
defendant charged with both a drug trafficking offense (with a
statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment) and a money
laundering offense (with a statutory maximum of 20 years
imprisonment)  would, be classified as a drug defendant in cases
filed but a money laundering defendant in cases adjudicated if
the defendant was not convicted of the drug offense.  By
contrast, the U.S. attorneys retain the same program category
when tabulating statistics describing cases terminated that was
recorded when the matter was initiated.

Sentences imposed

Each agency records the sentence imposed in a similar manner:
the type of sentence imposed (imprisonment, probation, fine
and/or restitution), the total months of imprisonment and/or
probation imposed, and the total amount of fines and/or
restitution to be paid.  However, the agencies vary according to
the amount of information collected describing the sentence
imposed:

* The Federal judiciary collects sentencing information for each
of up to five counts of conviction.  

* The Sentencing Commission -- while it does not disaggregate
sentences according to counts of conviction -- disaggregates
sentences of incarceration into time to be served in Federal
prisons, community confinement, intermittent confinement, and
home detention, where applicable.  

* The Federal Bureau of Prisons distinguishes the prison
sentence imposed from the time the defendant is obligated to
serve.  Some defendants may receive credit toward their sentence
for the time they were incarcerated pending adjudication of the
charges, their cooperation with prosecutors in the investigation 
of another, and/or good conduct while incarcerated.

Reconciling published case processing statistics

Each statistical agency reports data using definitions of case
processing events that reflect the mission and workload of a
particular agency.  Data collection methods and reporting
requirements are organized according to agencies' administrative
needs and/or legislative mandate.  As a result, each agency's
statistical reports narrowly describe Federal criminal case
processing and are not directly comparable to the statistical
reports of the other agencies.  When the agencies have modified
their data collection and/or reporting methods, the statistics
reported may not be comparable with previously published
statistics by the same agencies.

While reported statistics may not be comparable, the agencies
collect much of the same core information.  They all collect the
Federal statutes charged and adjudicated, the disposition for
each charge recorded, and key case processing dates.  These core
data can provide the basis for reconciling the reported
statistics.  

Since 1982 the Bureau of Justice Statistics has recognized the
importance of reconciling the differences between agency
statistics. ****Footnote 5.  See Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Federal Justice Statistics (March 1982, NCJ 80814).**** By
reanalyzing agency data and applying a set of standard
definitions to criminal justice system events, units of count
(defendants and cases), offense classifications, and reporting
periods, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is able to present
data that more completely and consistently describes case
processing in the entire Federal criminal justice system.  As
part of its Federal Justice Statistics Program, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics re-analyzes the agencies' data using the
following method:

* A common unit of count or unit of analysis is used across all
statistics. In tables describing the processing of defendants in
cases, the unit of analysis adopted was the defendant-case,
while in tables describing offenders under correctional
supervision, the unit of analysis adopted was the individual
offender.

* Person/cases are counted once, so that suspects or defendants
in matters or cases opened, disposed, or terminated, by transfer
are excluded.

* Events occurring during a reporting period are tabulated. 
Multiple years of data are used in order to obtain information
about case processing events posted late; statistics are
reported for the Federal fiscal year. 

* Uniform offense classification methods are used: Using the
Federal statutes charged and adjudicated, where available,
defendants are classified into common offense categories.  

* The most serious offense charged -- based on statutory maximum
penalties -- is used to describe defendants in cases
commencement and adjudicated.

* Sentences imposed upon defendants are distributed among a most
serious offense of conviction -- based on the most serious
disposition. 

* Offenders under Federal supervision or under the jurisdiction
of the Bureau of Prisons are classified according to the offense
with the single longest sentence.

Using this method the Bureau of Justice Statistics substantially
reduced -- although not completely eliminated -- disparity in
the reported case processing statistics.  For example, for
fiscal year 1997, the Federal judiciary reported 63,148
defendants in cases terminated; the U.S. attorneys reported
51,492 defendants -- a difference of 11,656 defendants in cases
terminated (table 2).  After reconciling the agencies' 1997 case
processing data, the number of defendants in cases terminated
was 64,956 using the Federal judiciary's data and 63,765 using
the U.S. attorneys (53,758 in cases terminated before U.S.
district court judges and 10,007 concluded by U.S. magistrate
judges); a difference of 1,191 defendants in cases terminated
and a 90% reduction in the disparity in the official statistics
(table 6).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.  Reconciled number of defendants in matters or cases 
terminated in Federal courts, 1997

                               Number of matters or cases terminated
                      Reported by             Reported by U.S. attorneys 
                      Federal                      By U.S. district   By U.S.
 Most serious offense judiciary          Total     court judges       magistrates
 
Total                  64,956            63,765       53,758            10,007
Violent offenses        3,482             3,881        3,529               352
Property offenses      17,521            15,737       13,818             1,919
    Fraudulent         12,808            13,634       11,999             1,635
    Other               4,713             2,103        1,819               284
Drug offenses          23,528            22,773       20,870             1,903
Public-order           20,361            20,379       14,830             5,549
   Regulatory           1,696             1,494        1,228               266
   Other               18,665            18,885       13,602             5,283
Missing or indetermin      64               995          711               284

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The working group agreed that the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
as part of its Federal Justice Statistics Program, would
annually publish these reconciled statistics.  These statistics
form the basis of the report: Federal Criminal Case Processing
Statistics.  In this report, statistics describing
suspects/defendants processed at key stages of the Federal
criminal justice system are tabulated:  suspects in matters
investigated and concluded, defendants in cases filed and
terminated, offenders sentenced and their types and lengths of
sentences, offenders under Federal supervision, and offenders
entering, released from, or in Federal prison.  At each stage
the data were disaggregated according to the most serious
offense and, where possible, distinctions between felonies and
misdemeanor offenses were maintained.  (See Appendix.)

Tracking offenders through the Federal criminal justice process

The working group approached the task of reconciling differences
in reported statistics primarily by applying standard
definitions to key events and concepts in criminal case
processing.  This method assumes that records of events recorded
in one agency's case management system will eventually appear in
other systems unless an event is outside a specific agency's
scope of coverage.  Another approach used by the working group
involved linking records of defendants across agencies and
tracking the defendants' progress through the various stages of
the Federal criminal justice system. 

In a detailed audit of the U.S. attorney, Federal judiciary, and
Sentencing Commission data in four judicial districts, BJS was
able to demonstrate the degree to which differences in reported
statistics was due to differences in definitions, scope of
coverage, and cohorts of defendants.  Linking records and
tracking defendants across agencies and through the criminal
justice process are useful methods for reconciling discrepancies
in case processing statistics.  However, because defendants in
the Federal criminal justice system are not assigned unique
tracking numbers, it is a very complicated and time consuming
process that is often incomplete and sometimes results in
mismatches.

Tracking defendants through the criminal justice process, as
they are processed, can benefit both the operation of the
Federal criminal justice system and the reporting of case
processing statistics.  By tracking defendants across agencies
and sharing information on offenders and offender/cases that is
concurrently collected, agencies could eliminate or
substantially reduce the amount of duplicative data collection;
and by combining information collected at arrest, such as
fingerprints, with the court disposition, the completeness and
timeliness of Federal criminal history records maintained by the
FBI Criminal Justice Information Service could be substantially
improved.  In addition, comprehensive information describing the
processing of Federal offenders can assist the agencies in
forecasting their workload and, in the case of the Bureau of
Prisons, the Federal prison population.

Tracking defendants and sharing information across agencies
could improve reported statistics by --

* providing real-time updates to each agency's data system as
events are recorded by the source agency 

* increasing the amount of information available about
defendants such as defendant characteristics or changes in the
charges levied

* describing the processing of specific cohorts of defendants
from investigation through disposition, sentencing, and
corrections -- imprisonment and/or community supervision.

Despite its advantages, tracking offenders through the Federal
criminal justice process is currently not possible.  Information
describing the processing of Federal offenders is scattered
across each agency processing offenders.  Each agency collects
its own information describing offenders processed.  Further,
because the agencies do not share a common number identifying a
particular offender charged in a particular case, it is
difficult to link records of offender cases processed by
multiple agencies -- linking 100% of the records is virtually
impossible.

Identifying offenders and offender/cases

Over the course of an offender's criminal career, he or she may
come into contact with the criminal justice system many times. 
At each arrest, the offender is fingerprinted.  The FBI uses
fingerprints to positively identify the offender.  To each
unique set of fingerprints at their first submission, the FBI
Criminal Justice Information Service assigns an FBI number. 
This number is a permanent identifier for the offender each
subsequent time his or her fingerprints are submitted. 
Similarly, the U.S. Marshals Service assigns a U.S. marshals
number to identify and track offenders in their custody.  The
U.S. marshals number is assigned when the offender is first
taken into custody.   This number is also a permanent identifier
used by the service to identify an offender each time he or she
is processed.****Footnote 6.  The Bureau of Prisons adopts the
U.S. marshals number as its register number when the offender
enters the Federal prison system following adjudication.**** 

By contrast, an offender/case represents a combination of the
offender and a criminal proceeding involving the offender. 
While a personal identification number such as the FBI number or
U.S. marshals number is adequate for tracking an offender, it is
not sufficient for tracking offender/cases.  Because offenders
may have committed multiple offenses and may face multiple sets
of charges, relying on a personal identification number would
not permit the tracking of two or more concurrent cases
involving a single defendant using only a personal
identification number -- multiple cases involving a particular
offender could not be distinguished.  

Tracking offender/cases requires the assignment of a unique
number to each offender/case.  The offender/case tracking
number, however, would be linked with the personal
identification number.  This method is used by many States to
track criminal defendants. ****Footnote 7.  See Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information
Systems, 1997, NCJ 175041, April 1999.**** In the Federal
criminal justice system, the identifier most closely
approximating an offender/case tracking number is the Federal 
Judiciary's court docket number.  The court docket number is 
assigned by the Federal judiciary when the case is filed with 
the clerk of the court by the U.S. attorney.  For each case 
in which a Federal offender is charged, a new court
docket number is assigned.  (The U.S. attorneys and the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, while they have their own internal
numbering systems, routinely record the judiciary's court docket
number in their data systems. ***Footnote 8. While the U.S.
attorneys and the U.S. Sentencing Commission record the court
docket number, the working group identified problems in how this
number is recorded by these agencies.**** In multidefendant
cases, the defendant number component of the court docket number
distinguishes the co-defendants. 

Assigning a Federal offender/case tracking number

Because the Federal judiciary's court docket number is assigned
when the offender/case is presented to the Federal judiciary, it
cannot be used to track offender/cases prior to the involvement
of the judiciary.  The offender/case tracking number needs to be
assigned when the offender first comes into contact with the
Federal criminal justice system -- in most cases at the time of
arrest, or, alternatively, at booking. 

While practices may vary across districts, most Federal
offenders are eventually booked -- photographs made, 
fingerprints taken and submitted to the FBI for identification,
and a criminal history record established.  ****Footnote 9. 
Pursuant to Federal regulation, criminal history records need
not be established when the offender has been charged with
nonserious charges such as drunkenness, vagrancy, and
trafficking offenses.  28 C.F.R. 20.32(b)****

Defendants who are arrested are booked immediately following
arrest either by the arresting agency or the U.S. Marshals
Service.  For offenders who are not arrested but are summoned to
appear following indictment or issuance of criminal information
by a U.S. attorney, the U.S. Marshals Service books the offender
following the initial court appearance.

If an offender/case tracking number were assigned at booking,
each agency subsequently processing the offender would record
the tracking number on all documents related to the
offender/case.  The tracking number, therefore, would follow the
offender/case from arrest through disposition and correctional
treatment.

Another important consideration relates to ensuring that the
offender/case tracking number is linked with the offender's FBI
number.  Because the FBI number is the key to the offender's
criminal history record maintained by the FBI Criminal Justice
Information Service, linking the offender/case tracking number
with the FBI number is paramount for ensuring that the
offender's criminal history record can be easily updated.  The
FBI number is required for identifying the particular offender
in the FBI's criminal history database while the
offender-tracking number is required for identifying the
particular incident (or offense) on the offender's Record of
Arrests and Prosecutions, or RAP sheet.

Implementing an offender/case tracking system

The working group identified the Department of Justice's Joint
Automated Booking System (JABS) as a feasible vehicle for
implementing an offender/case tracking system.  JABS was
originally conceived as a means to standardize booking
procedures for Federal arrestees, to provide Federal law 
enforcement agencies with a central repository for information --
including digitized fingerprints and photographs -- to be shared
by all Federal law enforcement agencies.  The working group
concluded that JABS could also serve as the primary conduit for
electronically submitting the disposition of criminal charges
filed against a defendant to the FBI. ****Footnote 10.  U.S.
Department of Justice, Joint Automated Booking System Concept of
Operations (June 1998).****

The Bureau of Justice Statistics recognized the potential of
JABS to facilitate  the implementation of an offender/case
tracking system and approached JABS Board of Directors regarding
the possibility of expanding the JABS concept to include
offender/case tracking. ****Footnote 11.  The JABS Board of
Directors is comprised of representatives from each Department
of Justice law enforcement agency; it is chaired by the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for Information Resource
Management.****  The JABS board agreed that -- with the
cooperation of the FBI Criminal Justice Information Service, the
U.S. attorneys, and the Federal judiciary -- JABS could be
expanded to track offender/cases.  It was further agreed that
once an offender's case was adjudicated, JABS could serve as the
vehicle for electronically submitting the court disposition to
the FBI Criminal Justice Information Service.  This electronic
submission of the court disposition would ensure that Federal
criminal history records are complete and updated in a timely
manner -- within hours of adjudication.

As an additional benefit, the expansion of JABS could also
potentially ease the workload of the Federal criminal justice
agencies.  By electronically sharing information on offenders
that is concurrently collected, redundant data collection can be
reduced substantially or eliminated altogether.  For example, at
booking, the U.S. marshals collect much of the information used
by Federal pretrial services officers to prepare pretrial
investigation reports.  To the extent that this information is
currently shared with pretrial services, it is not shared
electronically.

Recommendations for improving the collection of Federal criminal
data

As part of its effort to reconcile case processing statistics,
the working group identified three particular areas where the
the Federal criminal justice agencies could improve their data
collection techniques.  The working group concluded that future
efforts to reconcile case processing statistics would be greatly
facilitated if the agencies would standardize the way in which
they capture information describing the court docket number, and
the defendant name.  The working group concluded that the
Federal criminal justice agencies -- including Federal law
enforcement -- should adopt a unique defendant/case tracking
number that would be used to track defendants from arrest
through adjudication.

Standardization of court docket number

Currently, the court docket number is the primary data element
available to link records across agencies.  As established by
the Federal judiciary, the court docket number is a 15-digit
alpha-numeric field where --

* positions 1 through 4 represent the judicial circuit and
district in which the case is processed

* position 5 represents the court location, or office, within
the district

* positions 6 and 7 represent the year in which the case was
filed with the court

* positions 8 through 12 represent the sequential number of the
case within that particular district

* positions 13 through 15 identify an individual defendant
within a particular case.

The court docket number, however, is not consistently coded by
each of the agencies.  The U.S. attorneys and the Bureau of
Prisons enter the docket number as a freeform field including
extraneous characters such as the judge's or magistrate's
initials.  According to the U.S. attorneys, individual courts
have varying requirements for the presentation of the docket
number on court filings.  These variations include the
incorporation of judges' initials, the letters "CR" (to
distinguish criminal and civil filings) or the letter "M" (to
identify magistrate judge filings) into the docket number.  As a
result of the U.S. attorney's compliance with these judicial
requirements, the working group observed more than 400 different
variations in the court docket numbers recorded in the U.S.
attorneys' database.  Additionally, the U.S. attorneys do not
consistently record the defendant number component of the court
docket number.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission generally follows the pattern
established by the judiciary.  However, in the positions
representing the court or office location, the Sentencing
Commission records the location of the Federal probation office
transmitting the case documents to the Commission. 
Additionally, the Sentencing Commission does not consistently
record the defendant number.

Recommendation:  The working group recommends that the agencies
record the court docket number in the format established by the
Federal judiciary.  To ensure that the docket number is entered
correctly in the field, the agencies might consider recording
each component in a separate field.  Alternatively, the Federal
judiciary might consider "bar coding" the docket number on case
documents.  The bar coded docket number could be scanned by the
other agencies thereby ensuring compliance with the established
format and the accurate recording of the information.  Provided
the agencies adopt some measure to ensure that the docket number
is recorded in its intended format, future efforts to reconcile
case processing statistics by comparing individual records would
be greatly simplified.

Standardization of defendant name

Given the incompleteness of the court docket number in many
agencies' databases, the Bureau of Justice Statistics often uses
the defendant's name as a proxy for the defendant number part of
the court docket number.  Despite perceptions that recording a
defendant's name is straightforward, there are variations across
and within the agencies:

* For the most part, the agencies record the defendant name in
the last name/first name/middle name or initial format or they
are maintained in separate fields for each part of the name;
however, in the U.S. attorney's and Federal judiciary's data,
defendant names were recorded in both the last name/first name
format and the first name/last name format

* Generational suffixes are not consistently coded

* Hyphenated names -- particularly Hispanic surnames -- are
problematic: some agencies record both parts of hyphenated
surnames other agencies record only the first part

* The use of commas and hyphens to separate parts of names is
also inconsistent: when using the last name/first name format,
some agencies separate the two names with a comma while others
do not.

Recommendation:  The working group recommends that the agencies
adopt a standard format for recording defendant names.  The
adopted format should include the use of generational suffixes,
where applicable, and hyphenated parts of names.  Preferably,
the agencies should adopt the practice of recording each part 
of the defendant's name in a separate field.

Adoption of an offender case tracking number

In an effort to resolve some of the differences in the
information collected by the agencies, the working group
discussed the need for an universal system to track Federal
offenders through the Federal criminal justice process.  While
the court docket number is an adequate tracking number for
criminal defendants within the court system and for users of the
court system such as the U.S. attorneys, the docket number has
little utility for Federal law enforcement agencies such as the
FBI or the Drug Enforcement Administration.  Consequently, the
working group recommends the adoption of a tracking number that
would be used by all Federal agencies involved in the criminal
justice process to identify offenders at any stage of the
Federal criminal justice process.

The working group identified the Joint Automated Booking System
(JABS) project as a viable starting point for implementing the
defendant case tracking number recommended by the working group.
JABS was conceived as a means to standardize booking procedures
for Federal arrestees and to provide a central repository for
information -- including digitized fingerprints and photographs--
describing Federal arrestees, to be shared by all Federal law
enforcement agencies.  JABS project management, upon the
recommendation of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, has agreed
to expand the JABS concept to include offender/case tracking.  

As a result of this expansion, the benefits of JABS to the
Federal criminal justice system will be greatly increased:

* The JABS record will eventually contain complete information
on the processing of the offender.  The record will cover
information from the time of arrest through disposition,
including any declinations by the U.S. attorney, and information
on sentences imposed and on correctional supervision.

* JABS will serve as the conduit for initiating and updating
criminal history records maintained by the FBI's Criminal
Justice Information Service, including the electronic submission
of fingerprints and court disposition.

The expansion of JABS could also ease the workload of the
Federal criminal justice agencies.  By electronically sharing
information, redundant data collection can be substantially
reduced or eliminated.  Much of the information used by Federal
pretrial services officers to prepare pretrial investigation
reports is collected at booking.  Any of this information 
shared by the U.S. marshals with the pretrial services
officers is nonelectronic.

Recommendation:  The working group supports the expansion of the
Joint Automated Booking System project to include the U.S.
attorneys and the Federal judiciary.  The agencies, through
JABS, should adopt and incorporate into their existing data
systems a new offender/case tracking number that would be used
by all Federal criminal justice agencies.  To the extent
practicable, the tracking number should be bar coded on all
relevant documents to reduce the likelihood of key-punch error. 
Additionally, the agencies should --

* work with JABS to establish a mechanism for electronically
sharing concurrently collected data across agencies 

* ensure that court dispositions and U.S. attorney declination
decisions are electronically transmitted through JABS to the FBI
Criminal Justice Information Service.

Appendix: Summary of statistical concepts operationalized 
by Federal criminal justice agencies

Summary of statistical concepts operationalized by Federal criminal justice agencies

Concept

Universe of cases and scope of coverage
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
Suspects in matters investigated, declined for prosecution, disposed  of by U.S. magistrates, and 
  defendants in cases filed in U.S. district courts.  Limited to defendants investigated by Class A 
  misdemeanors or felonies. 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
All defendants charged with Class A misdemeanor and felonies.  Additionally, includes defendants
  charged with Class B & C misdemeanor who were proceeded against before U.S. district court judges.
United States Sentencing Commission
All defendants charged with Class A misdemeanor and felonies.  Additionally, includes defendants
  charged with Class B & C misdemeanor who were proceeded against before U.S. district court judges.
Bureau of Prisons
All defendants committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to serve a term of imprisonment.   
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
Suspects in matters investigated, declined for prosecution, disposed of by U.S. magistrates, and
  defendants in cases filed in U.S. district courts.  Generally limited to suspects or defendants 
  investigated for, or charged with, a Class A misdemeanor or a felony.  Includes however, defendants 
  charged with Class B & C misdemeanor who were adjudicated by U.S. district court judges. 

Activity reported
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
Events posted during the reporting period. 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Events that occurred during the reporting period
United States Sentencing Commission
Events that occurred during the reporting period
Bureau of Prisons
Events that occurred during the reporting period 
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
Events that occurred during the reporting period

Unit of count
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
Each defendant in each matter or case investigated and/or proceeded against before a U.S. district court judge or magistrate. 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Each defendant in each case proceeded against before a U.S. district court judge or magistrate. 
United States Sentencing Commission
Each defendant sentenced on a particular date by a U.S. district court judge or magistrate.
Bureau of Prisons
Each defendant committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. 
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
Each defendant in each matter investigated or proceeded against before a U.S. district court judge 
  or magistrate.  Counts of inmates reflect movements in or out of Federal prison. 

Criminal matters
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
A criminal matter is an investigation handled by a U.S. attorney for at least one hour.  Matters are 
  considered concluded when the matter is declined for prosecution, a case is filed in U.S. district court, 
  or the matter is disposed  of by a U.S. magistrate. 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Not applicable.
United States Sentencing Commission
Not applicable.
Bureau of Prisons
Not applicable.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
A criminal matter is an investigation handled by a U.S. attorney for at least one hour.  Matters are
  considered concluded when the matter is declined for prosecution, a significant paper is filed in U.S. 
  district court, or the matter is disposed of by a U.S. magistrate.  

Criminal cases
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
A criminal case is a proceeding to be adjudicated by a U.S. district court judge for which a significant 
  paper such as an indictment or information has been filed.  Cases are considered terminated when 
  proceedings against all defendants in a case are completed. 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
A criminal case is a proceeding commenced by a U.S. district court judge  or magistrate.  Cases are
  considered terminated when proceedings against  all defendants in a case are completed.
United States Sentencing Commission
Not applicable.
Bureau of Prisons
Not applicable.       
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
Not applicable.

Disposition  of defendants  in cases  terminated
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
The disposition associated with each charge included in the indictment or information is collected.  
  Collected dispositions include: guilty, nolo contendere, acquitted, and dismissed. 
Administrative Office  of the U.S. Courts
A disposition associated with up to five offenses adjudicated is collected.  Collected dispositions 
  include: guilty by jury trial, guilty by bench trial, guilty  by plea, acquitted, and dismissed.
United States Sentencing Commission
An overall disposition is collected.  Collected dispositions include: guilty by jury trial, guilty by bench trial, guilty by plea.
Bureau of Prisons
Disposition is not collected.    
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
An overall disposition is reported.  Reported dispositions include guilty by jury trial, guilty  by bench 
  trial, guilty by plea (including nolo contendere).  

Sentences  imposed
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
The term of incarceration and/or probation as well as the amount of fine and restitution payable is 
  collected.  Time to be served in community correctional facilities (including home detention) as part 
  sentence to either prison or probation is collected. 
Administrative Office  of the U.S. Courts
The term of imprisonment and/or probation as well as the amount of fine and restitution payable is 
  collected.  Information describing confinement within the community as part of a sentence to prison or 
  probation is not collected. 
United States Sentencing Commission
The term of imprisonment imposed as well as the amount of time the defendant is obligated to serve 
  are collected.  The amount of time the defendant is obligated to serve reflects adjustments for any 
  time served in jail pending adjudication of the charges and credit for cooperating with prosecutors 
  and/or good conduct. 
Bureau of Prisons
The term of imprisonment imposed as well as the amount of time the defendant is obligated to serve
  is collected.  The amount of time the defendant is obligated ed to serve reflects adjustments for any time 
  served in jail pending adjudication  of the charges and credit for cooperating with prosecutors and/or 
  good conduct.  
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
The terms of imprisonment and/or probation are reported. 

Offense classifications
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
A program category is assigned by the U.S. attorney based on the nature of the offenses 
  investigated and the priorities of the U.S. attorney's office or the Department of Justice.  The program 
  category may not directly correspond to the "lead charged" identified by the U.S. attorney.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Offense categories are assigned based on the statutory offenses charged and adjudicated.  Up to
  ten offense categories are collected for each defendant: five describing the offenses charged and . 
  five describing the offenses adjudicated.  Where the defendant was charged with or adjudicated of 
  more than one offense, the most serious reflect the offense with the greatest statutory penalties. 
United States Sentencing Commission
Offense categories are assigned based on the statutory offenses for which the defendant was 
  convicted.  Four offense categories are collected for each defendant.  Where the defendant was 
  convicted of multiple offenses, the most serious offense reflects the offense with the greatest statutory 
  penalties.
Bureau of Prisons
The offense category is assigned based on the statutory offenses of which the defendant was 
  convicted.  Where the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, the offense reported reflects 
  offense with the greatest single sentence imposed.    
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
The offense category is assigned based on the statutory offenses for which the defendant was charged and/or adjudicated. 

Demographic information
Executive Office  for U.S. Attorneys
Not collected.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Not collected as part of the criminal docket.  Demographic characteristics are collected and maintained by Federal pretrial services and Federal 
  probation.   
United States Sentencing Commission
Collected.
Bureau of Prisons
Collected. 
Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics Program
Demographic characteristics are compiled from files maintained by Federal Pretrial Services, 
Federal Probation, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Bureau of Prisons.  These files are 
linked with the U.S. attorneys' and criminal docket data. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix table 1.  Suspects in matters investigated by U.S. attorneys, 
October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997
 
Most serious offense             Number            Percent

          All offenses          110,034             100  %
Violent offenses                  7,354               6.7
Property offenses                29,916              27.2
     Fraudulent                  25,854              23.5
     Other                        4,062               3.7
Drug offenses                    34,027              30.9
Public-order offenses            37,093              33.7
      Regulatory                  5,423               4.9
      Other                      31,670              28.8
            Weapons               4,870               4.4
            Immigration           9,366               8.5
            Taxation              1,403               1.3
            Other                 6,031              14.6
Unknown or indeterminable 
  offenses                        6,441               1.5
 
Data source:  Executive Office for the U.S. attorneys, Central System data file.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix table 2.  Disposition of suspects in matters concluded by U.S. attorneys,  
October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997

                                                               Disposition of suspects
                                                          Prosecuted 
                                                          before a      Concluded
                                         Percent  of      US district   by a U.S.     Declined  for
Most serious offense            Total    suspects         court         magistrate    prosecution
          All offenses           99,459    100.0 %          60,383         10,007            29,069
Violent offenses                  6,570      6.6             4,153            352             2,065
Property offenses                28,633     28.8            14,544          1,919            12,170
     Fraudulent                  25,157     25.3            12,663          1,635            10,859
     Other                        3,476      3.5             1,881            284             1,311
Drug offenses                    32,072     32.2            24,400          1,903             5,769
Public-order offenses            30,882     31.0            16,744          5,549             8,589
   Regulatory                     4,582      4.6             1,332            266             2,984
   Other                         26,300     26.4            15,412          5,283             5,605
      Weapons                     4,646      4.7             3,192            153             1,301
      Immigration                 8,774      8.8             7,243          1,229               302
      Taxation                    1,349      1.4               897             37               415
      Other                      11,531     11.6             4,080          3,864             3,587
Unknown or indeterminable 
   offenses                       1,302      1.3               542            284               476
 
Data source:  Executive Office for the U.S. attorneys, Central System data file.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix table 3.   Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district courts, 
October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997
 
Most serious offense             Number    Percent
          All offenses           69,351    100  %
Felony offenses                  57,022     82.3
   Violent offenses               3,603      5.2
   Property offenses             13,890     20.0
      Fraudulent                 11,371     16.4
      Other                       2,519      3.6
Drug offenses                    24,693     35.6
   Public-order offenses         14,836     21.4
      Regulatory                  1,117      1.6
      Other                      13,719     19.8
         Weapons                  3,837      5.5
         Immigration              6,726      9.7
         Taxation                   788      1.1
         Other                    2,368      3.4
Misdemeanor offenses             12,267     17.7
Unknown or indeterminable offenses   62       --
 
Data source:  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master file.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix table 4.  Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district courts, October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997

                                                           Convicted                   Not convicted
                                           Percent                                              Dis-       Ac-
 Most serious offense           Number     convicted       Total     Plea     Trial    Total    missed     quitted
            All offenses         64,956     87.1            56,570   52,789    3,781    8,368    7,411      975
Felony offenses                  53,097     89.8            47,689   47,689    3,339    5,408    4,734      674
   Violent offenses               3,241     89.9             2,915    2,628      287      326      248       78
   Property offenses             13,725     89.7            12,311   11,581      730    1,414    1,219      195
      Fraudulent                 11,152     89.8            10,013    9,458      555      139    1,987      152
      Other                       2,573     89.3             2,298    2,123      175      275      232       43
   Drug offenses                 22,374     89.3            19,973   18,427    1,546    2,401    2,168      233
   Public-order offenses         13,757     90.8            12,490   11,714      776    1,267    1,099      168
      Regulatory                  1,069     85.7               916      854       62      153      122       31
      Other                      12,688     91.2            11,574   10,860      714      114    1,977      137
         Weapons                  3,485     87.6             3,052    2,688      264      433      376       57
         Immigration              6,165     95.9             5,912    5,854       58      253      240       13
         Taxation                   727     93.7               681      633       48       46       34       12
         Other                    2,311     83.5             1,929    1,685      344      382      327       55
Misdemeanor offenses             11,795     74.8             8,828    8,388      440    2,967    2,667      300
Unknown or indeterminable offenses   64     82.8                53       51        2       11       10        1
 
Data source:  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master file.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix table 5.  Sanctions imposed on defendants convicted in U.S. district courts,  October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997
 
                                                Type of sentence
                                                Imprisonment    Split                           Fine      Imprisonment imposed
 Most serious offense                Total      only            sentences     Probation         only          Mean      Median
            All offenses             56,570       38,671           755         11,999          3,184          58.9 mo    30 mo
Felony offenses                      46,878       37,071           676          7,387            280          61.2       34
   Violent offenses                   2,876        2,568            51            223              4          85.7       60
   Property offenses                 12,010        6,955           155          4,275            131          24.4       15
      Fraudulent                      9,919        5,738           133          3,475            128          22.0       15
      Other                           2,091        1,217            22            800              3          35.5       18
   Drug offenses                     19,115       17,354           283          1,054             39          80.6       57
   Public-order offenses             12,877       10,194           187          1,835            106          47.5       24
      Regulatory                      1,211          590            13            522             56          26.6       15
      Other                          11,666        9,604           174          1,313             50          48.8       24
         Weapons                      2,871        2,617            46            182              1         101.8       60
         Immigration                  6,044        5,166            96            310             12          23.0       22
         Taxation                       715          304            13            379             15          20.9       15
         Other                        2,036        1,517            19            442             12          51.9       30
Misdemeanor offenses                  9,636        1,600            79          4,612          2,904           9.9        3
Unknown or indeterminable offenses       56            5             0             47             --            --       --
Data source:  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master file.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix table 6.  Offenders under Federal community supervision,  October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997
 
Most serious offense              Total            Number              Percent         Number          Percent          Number     Percent
            All offenses         90,751            32,739             100   %           6,872             100   %          51,140    100 %
Felony offenses                  79,804            22,442              68.9             6,864              99.9            50,498     98.9
   Violent offenses               5,270               711               2.2             1,690              24.6             2,869      5.6
   Property offenses             27,585            12,774              39.2               777              11.3            14,034     27.5
      Fraudulent                 22,621            10,360              31.8               479               7.0            11,782     23.1
      Other                       4,964             2,414               7.4               298               4.3             2,252      4.4
   Drug offenses                 33,743             3,655              11.2             3,723              54.2            26,365     51.7
   Public-order offenses         12,942             5,138              15.8               670               9.8             7,134     14.0
      Regulatory                  2,187             1,278               3.9                49               0.7               860      1.7
      Other                      10,755             3,860              11.8               621               9.0             6,274     12.3
         Weapons                  3,908               612               1.9               202               2.9             3,094      6.1
         Immigration              1,405               637               2.0                14               0.2               754      1.5
         Taxation                 1,890             1,251               3.8                65               0.9               574      1.1
         Other                    3,552             1,360               4.2               340               5.0             1,852      3.6
Misdemeanor offenses             10,947            10,297              31.6                 8               0.1               642      1.3
Unknown or indeterminable offenses  264               164               --                  4                --                96       --
 
Data source:  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal supervision information system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix table 7.  Federal prison admissions and releases, October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997
 
                               Population        District       All         District   All        Population         Net 
                               at start of year  court          other       court      other      at end of year     change
            All offenses           92,379          38,375       13,217       31,894    13,133        98,944          6,565
   Violent offenses                11,287           2,250        2,430        1,793     2,516        11,658            371
   Property offenses                7,876           6,379        3,513        6,050     3,567         8,151            275
      Fraudulent                    5,907           5,185        2,114        4,833     2,225         6,148            241
      Other                         1,969           1,194        1,399        1,217     1,342         2,003             34
   Drug offenses                   54,742          17,021        4,382       13,292     4,243        58,610          6,868
   Public-order offenses           17,313          12,280        2,652       10,457     2,591        19,197          1,884
      Regulatory                       912            699          222          584       236         1,013            101
      Other                         16,401          11,581       2,430        9,873     2,355        18,184          1,783
         Weapons                     7,765           2,071         772        1,741       785         8,082            317
         Immigration                 4,509           6,927         373        6,029       326         5,454            945  
         Taxation                      340             324         115          312       109           358             18
         Other                       3,787           2,259       1,170        1,791     1,135         4,290            503
Unknown or indeterminable offenses   1,161             445          240         302       216         1,328            167
 
Note:  Represents sentenced prisoners only. Data source: Federal Bureau of Prisons, SENTRY data file.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program Methodology Report 
Reconciling Federal Criminal Case Processing Statistics

9/21/99 th pm
revised 10/01/99 th