United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

August 1997 FEDERAL

OFFENDERS

Trends in Community

Supervision

GAO/GGD-97-110

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-274290 

August 13, 1997

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the

 Courts

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard Coble

Chairman

The Honorable Barney Frank

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

This report discusses trends in the number of federal offenders serving

terms of community supervision during fiscal years 1990 through 1996.1

 At

the end of fiscal year 1996, there were almost as many convicted offenders

serving terms of community supervision as there were inmates in federal

prisons. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) has asserted

that offenders serving terms of postprison supervision pose more

problems for probation officers and present a greater risk to the

community than those serving terms of probation. According to AOUSC,

inmates released from prison face transitional problems and have more

social, psychological, or medical problems than offenders placed on

probation.

This report is intended to assist your committees in their oversight of

community supervision programs. Our overall objective in this

self-initiated review was to identify changes in the federal community

supervision population that could affect probation officers’ workload. This

report discusses trends in (1) the growth of the total supervision

population and any changes in the composition of that population by type

of supervision; (2) the number of offenders who had special conditions

imposed on their terms of supervision, such as home confinement or drug

treatment; and (3) the number of persons who were removed from

supervision for violating the terms of their supervision.

1

Community supervision includes offenders sentenced to a term of probation and offenders who are

serving a term of supervision in the community, either parole or supervised release, after release from

prison. For further explanation of the types of community supervision, see glossary.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

To accomplish our objective, we obtained and analyzed relevant data from

AOUSC and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on the numbers of offenders in the

supervision programs, those who had special conditions imposed on them,

and the number of offenders removed from the programs. Our scope and

methodology are discussed in more detail in appendix I.

We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from September 1996 to

June 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the

Director, AOUSC. These comments are discussed at the end of this letter.

Background The Sentencing Reform Act of 19842

 (1) created the U.S. Sentencing

Commission to develop a set of federal sentencing guidelines,3

(2) replaced parole with supervised release for postprison supervision,

and (3) made probation a separate sentence. Prior to these changes,

federal offenders could be sentenced to a term of probation as part of a

suspended prison sentence, meaning that they were released from custody

but had to routinely report to officers of the court (probation officers), or

be sentenced to prison terms. Offenders who exhibited good behavior

while in prison could be released on parole after serving as little as

one-third of their prison terms. The United States Parole Commission

(USPC) determined whether and when an offender was granted parole.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 made probation a separate sentence

and restricted an offender’s eligibility for probation. The sentencing

guidelines, in implementing the provisions of the act, are more detailed

and provide judges less sentencing discretion than the system they

replaced.

The implementation of the sentencing guidelines, laws providing

mandatory minimum sentences4

 for certain offenses (mostly drug and

violent offenses), and laws broadening federal criminal jurisdiction have

2

Public Law 98-473 (chapter II of title II).

3

The guidelines apply to all crimes committed on or after November 1, 1987. Persons may still be

sentenced under the preguidelines system if their crimes were committed prior to November 1, 1987.

The guidelines were not implemented nationally until the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their

constitutionality in January 1989 in Mistretta v. U.S., 488 U.S. 361.

4

Mandatory minimum sentence refers to a statutory provision requiring the imposition of at least a

specified minimum sentence when the statutorily specified criteria have been met.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

together resulted in a steadily growing federal prison population.5 From

fiscal years 1990 through 1996, the number of inmates in federal prisons

grew from 58,021 to 94,695. Under the sentencing guidelines, offenders

sentenced to a prison term of 1 year or more usually also receive a term of

postprison supervision (about 1 to 5 years) called supervised release.

Offenders must serve at least 85 percent of their prison terms before they

are eligible for supervised release.6

The primary goals of community supervision are to control risk to the

community, enforce conditions of supervision, and provide for

correctional treatment. Appendix II includes flowcharts of the supervision

process that depict how offenders under each type of supervision enter

and proceed through the community supervision program.

Probation officers are responsible for supervising offenders on community

supervision. They are to evaluate each offender’s needs and prepare a

supervision plan, enforce any conditions of release, monitor offender

behavior, and report violations to the courts. According to AOUSC officials,

the higher the perceived risk to the community, the more intensive the

supervision, including more frequent contacts with the offender. Further,

AOUSC has also indicated that risk is associated with several factors. These

factors include the extent to which offenders had serious criminal

histories, had special conditions imposed on their supervision, or had

violated the terms of their supervision. As noted earlier, AOUSC also

believes that postprison offenders generally require more intensive

supervision because these risk factors are more prevalent among this

population.

Some offenders under community supervision may have special

conditions placed on them. For example, offenders may be placed on

home confinement with or without electronic monitoring7

; be required to

participate in drug, alcohol, or mental health treatment or counseling

programs; be required to provide community service; or receive any

combination of these conditions. These special conditions may be

imposed by the judge at sentencing, or the probation officer may

determine that such special conditions are required when preparing the

5

For further discussion of inmate prison trends, see Federal and State Prisons: Inmate Populations,

Costs, and Projection Models (GAO/GGD-97-15, Nov. 25, 1996).

6

Offenders sentenced under the guidelines are eligible for a maximum reduction in their prison terms

of 54 days per year for satisfactory behavior.

7

Electronic monitoring is the use of any electronic equipment to provide information about the

location of the offender.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

supervision plan8 or when monitoring the offender’s behavior while on

community supervision.9

 If the probation officer determines that such

conditions are necessary, the probation officer may petition the court to

impose special conditions during the course of the offender’s supervision.

According to AOUSC, offenders are removed from supervision because they

violate the terms of their supervision or their term (1) expires,

(2) terminates early, or (3) terminates for various noncriminal-related

reasons, such as death or medical conditions.10 AOUSC classifies violations

of supervision as technical, minor, or major. A technical violation is a

violation of the conditions of supervision other than the conviction for a

new offense. A minor violation is a conviction for a minor offense, such as

disorderly conduct or drunken driving, for which the sentence is

imprisonment for 90 days or less, probation for 1 year or less, or a fine. A

major violation is the involvement in or conviction for a new major

offense, including absconding from custody, having been arrested on

another charge, or convicted and sentenced to more than 90 days of

imprisonment or more than 1 year of probation. Offenders who violate

their release conditions may be imprisoned, particularly if they have been

convicted of a new offense, or may be sanctioned in other ways, such as

having more restrictive conditions placed on their release.

Violations generally create additional work for probation officers. First,

when an offender violates one or more of his or her release conditions, the

probation officer may petition the court to impose more restrictive release

conditions, such as more frequent drug testing, which the probation

officer must monitor. The probation officer may, at his or her option,

choose to file a violation report with the court and petition the court to

have the violator removed from community supervision and incarcerated.

If the officer chooses to petition the court for removal (through the local

U.S. Attorney’s office), the officer must prepare a violation report and

usually must appear at a court hearing to consider the probation officer’s

request.

8

Other conditions, such as the frequency of offender meetings with the probation officer, imposed by

the probation officer may be in addition to those imposed at sentencing.

9

For offenders serving a term of parole, however, USPC determines when special conditions are

required.

10According to AOUSC, other reasons may include deportation, release to the military (probation

officers also supervise those released on parole from military prisons), or release from supervision

during an appeal.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Results in Brief The total population of federal offenders under community supervision

rose 10 percent during fiscal years 1990 through 1996.11 The most notable

change in the mix of this population occurred in the percentage of

offenders serving a term of community supervision following a prison

term. Specifically, the probation population decreased about 35 percent,

while those on postprison supervision— i.e, parole and supervised

release—rose 94 percent. The increase in the postprison supervision

population is entirely due to the large increase in the number of offenders

on supervised release.

During fiscal years 1991 through 1995, the number of offenders sentenced

with serious criminal histories grew at a significantly greater rate than did

those with less serious criminal histories. Further, available data suggest

that inmates released from BOP prisons in fiscal years 1997 through 2001

may include a greater number of high-risk offenders than did the

population released through fiscal year 1996.

The total number of offenders with special conditions remained relatively

stable between fiscal years 1992 and 1996. In addition, the total number of

offenders removed from supervision for violating their terms of

supervision increased by about 21 percent between fiscal years 1990 and

1996.

To the extent that the trends continue in (1) the mix of offenders under

federal supervision, (2) the number of offenders sentenced with more

serious criminal histories, and (3) the number of offenders removed from

supervision due to violations, the workload of probation officers would

likely increase. If the trend in the number of offenders with special

conditions remains stable, it would not likely affect the workload of

probation officers.12

11We used 1990 as our base year because this was the first full fiscal year the guidelines were

implemented nationally. Although the guidelines applied to crimes committed after October 31, 1987,

they were not implemented nationally until January 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their

constitutionality. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, more than 200 district court judges had

invalidated the guidelines in whole or in part. This delay in national implementation, combined with

the requirement that those sentenced to prison must serve 85 percent of their prison terms before

being released, limited the number of persons on supervised release in fiscal year 1990. Generally, only

those sentenced to short prison terms (about 2 years or less) could have been released from prison to

begin their supervised release terms by fiscal year 1990, which began on October 1, 1989.

12This assumes that probation officers would continue to devote about the same amount of time to

offenders with special conditions as they have in the past.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Fewer Federal

Offenders Have Been

Sentenced Directly to

Community

Supervision

Although the total federal population on community supervision grew only

10 percent from fiscal years 1990 through 1996 (compared to a 63 percent

growth in the federal prison population),13 two noteworthy changes

occurred in that population, both caused by the implementation of the

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. First, the percentage of offenders

sentenced directly to community supervision (probation) decreased, and

the percentage of offenders sentenced to prison terms with required

supervised release increased. Second, the percentage of offenders released

from prison to parole also decreased, reflecting the decrease in the

number of offenders who were sentenced under the preguidelines system.

BOP estimates project that these trends will continue and that a larger

proportion of offenders who could pose a higher risk of recidivism are

scheduled to be released to community supervision over the next 5 years.

As shown in figure 1, during fiscal years 1990 through 1996, the total

federal population under community supervision grew by about

10 percent, from 80,592 to 88,966.14 During this period, the probation

population decreased by about 35 percent; the parole population declined

about 59 percent; and the supervised release population increased about

648 percent. Overall, the parole and supervised release—i.e.,

postprison—population rose 94 percent in the period.15

13See table III.1 for actual numbers.

14According to AOUSC, the number of probation officers increased about 46 percent during fiscal years

1990 through 1996.

15See table III.2 for actual numbers.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Figure 1: Trends in the Federal

Community Supervision Population,

Fiscal Years 1990-1996

Number of offenders

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Fiscal year

Offenders under probation

Offenders under supervised release

Offenders under parolea

All offenders under community supervision

aIncluded in the category of parole are mandatory release, military parole, and special parole.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Additionally, as figure 2 shows, the distribution of this population for the

three major types of supervision—probation, parole, and supervised

release—changed considerably.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Figure 2: Distribution of the

Community Supervision Population

Among the Three Types of

Supervision, Fiscal Years 1990 and

1996

Percent of offenders serving a term of community supervision

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Probation

Parole

Supervised release

Probation

Parole

Supervised release

64.8

27.5

7.6

38.1

10.3

51.6

FY 1990 FY 1996

Trend in community supervision showing the

increased use of supervised release.

Type of supervision

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Despite the growth in the community supervision population, figure 3

shows that the distribution of offenders on supervision for the major crime

types—violent, white collar, drugs, and all other—did not change

significantly.16

16Using AOUSC criminal offense classifications, we categorized offense types into violent, white collar,

drugs, and all other. Violent offenses include homicide, robbery, assault, and weapons and firearms.

White collar offenses include embezzlement and fraud. All other offenses include burglary, larceny,

auto theft, forgery and counterfeiting, immigration, liquor/tax, postal, traffic, and other related

offenses.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Figure 3: Distribution of the

Community Supervision Population by

Type of Offense Committed, Fiscal

Years 1992-1996

Percentage of offenders

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Fiscal year

Drugs

Violent

White collar

All other

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Between fiscal years 1992 and 1996,17 the largest group of convicted

offenders on supervision were drug offenders. These offenders increased

moderately from about 32 percent of the total supervision population in

fiscal year 1992 to over 38 percent in fiscal year 1996.18 Offenders

convicted of white collar crimes remained relatively unchanged at

between 27 and 28 percent of the supervision population. Together,

offenders in these two crime categories accounted for more than

60 percent of all offenders on supervision for each year during this

period.19

17Fiscal year 1992 was the earliest year for which complete data were available.

18BOP reported that, between fiscal years 1992 and 1996, drug offenders comprised about 60 percent of

all federal offenders in BOP prisons.

19See table III.3 for actual numbers.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

BOP Projections of Trends

in Community Supervision

BOP provided us with estimates of the number of offenders serving prison

terms as of September 30, 1996, who are scheduled to be released from

prison to community supervision between fiscal years 1997 and 2001.

These estimates include those offenders sentenced prior to the sentencing

guidelines who are scheduled to enter the parole program and those

offenders who were sentenced under the sentencing guidelines and are to

enter the supervised release program. BOP provided its estimates of release

by the major offense category for which the offender was originally

convicted and sentenced—drugs, violent, homicide, white collar, and all

others.

As shown in table 1, BOP estimates that the number of offenders released

on parole will continue to decline, while the number of offenders released

to the supervised release program will continue to increase. In fiscal years

1997 through 2001, BOP expects that about 55,700 of the offenders who

were inmates as of September 30, 1996, will be released to a term of

supervised release and about 5,200 released on parole. Over 70 percent of

these approximately 61,000 offenders were convicted of violent or

drug-related crimes.

Table 1: Estimated Number of BOP Inmates Serving Prison Terms as of September 30, 1996, by Offense Committed, to Be

Released in Fiscal Years 1997-2001

Preguidelines offendersa Sentencing guidelines offendersb

Offense 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total

Violent 865 408 272 185 135 1,865 2,971 2,207 1,702 1,411 917 9,208

Homicide 48 30 26 18 27 149 56 37 32 27 25 177

White collar 306 126 69 31 17 549 3,474 1,167 480 222 122 5,465

Drugs 846 362 259 143 125 1,735 10,242 7,139 5,756 4,891 3,811 31,839

Other 386 195 106 100 69 856 5,004 1,894 971 673 445 8,987

Total 2,451 1,121 732 477 373 5,154 21,747 12,444 8,941 7,224 5,320 55,676

Note: The actual number of offenders who may be released to postprison supervision during

fiscal years 1997-2001 would include those shown in the table above plus the total number of

offenders who will be sentenced to and will complete their prison terms during these years. BOP

could provide release estimates only for those offenders in BOP custody as of September 30,

1996.

aOffenders to be released to parole.

bOffenders to be released to supervised release.

Source: BOP.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Offenders With More

Serious Criminal

Histories May Have

Higher Risk of

Recidivism

As previously noted, AOUSC has indicated that workload can be affected by

the extent to which offenders had serious criminal histories. A 1993 BOP

report on a sample of inmates released from BOP prisons suggests that an

offender’s criminal history score is related to the risk of recidivism.20 The

higher the criminal history category the greater the risk of recidivism.

Criminal history is also one of the variables in the risk-assessment scale

probation officers use to determine the level of supervision an offender on

community supervision may require.21 The inmates released from BOP

prisons in fiscal years 1997 through 2001 may include a greater number of

higher risk offenders than the population released through fiscal year

1996.

Since the sentencing guidelines apply to all offenses committed on or after

November 1, 1987, only a very small percentage of offenders have been

sentenced under the preguidelines system in the 1990s. Offenders

sentenced under the preguidelines system may apply for release on parole

after serving one-third of their sentence.22 Thus, offenders remaining in

prison in fiscal year 1996 or later under the preguidelines system are likely

to be those who have received long sentences, which are usually

associated with more serious crimes; have been denied parole because of

behavioral problems in prison that may heighten the risk they pose to the

community once released; or both. According to AOUSC officials, such

offenders may pose a higher risk of recidivism than offenders with shorter

sentences who were released after serving one-third of their sentences.

Offenders sentenced under the guidelines and released after fiscal year

1996 are likely to include more offenders with extensive criminal histories

who have received longer sentences and who thus may pose a higher risk

of recidivism than those released before fiscal year 1996. Under the

guidelines, offenders are assigned a criminal history category based on the

extent of their prior criminal behavior. The categories range from I, for

those with virtually no prior criminal history, to VI, for those with the most

serious criminal history. Offenders with more serious criminal histories

20Miles D. Harer, Recidivism Among Federal Inmates in 1987: A Preliminary Report, Bureau of Prisons,

1993, in U.S. Department of Justice, An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders With Minimal Criminal

Histories, February 1994.

21In their comments on a draft of this report, AOUSC officials noted that they were implementing a

new risk-assessment scale developed by the Federal Judicial Center. The purpose of the new scale,

which retains criminal history as one of its variables, is to improve officers’ ability to determine the

appropriate level of offender supervision.

22For example, an offender who began serving a 10-year prison term in January 1993 would be eligible

to apply for parole in April 1996.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

generally receive longer sentences for the same offense than those with

less extensive criminal histories.23

Figure 4 shows that, in fiscal years 1991 through 1995,24 the number of

offenders sentenced in the three most serious criminal history

categories—IV, V, and VI—grew at greater rates than did the number of

offenders with less serious criminal histories.25

Figure 4: Percent Change in the

Number of Offenders Sentenced, by

Criminal History Category, Fiscal

Years 1991-1995

Percent change, fiscal years 1991-1995

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

I II III IV V VI

Criminal history category

12.3 12.1

29.0

44.2

49.3

76.7

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission data.

23For example, in fiscal year 1993, the average sentence for an offender convicted of a firearms offense

who was in the least serious criminal history category (I) was 39.2 months. For an offender in the most

serious category (VI), the average sentence for the same offense was 139.3 months.

24Fiscal year 1996 data were not available.

25See table III.4 for actual numbers.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Number of Offenders

on Community

Supervision With

Special Conditions

Remained Relatively

Stable

Offenders with special conditions may be placed on home confinement

with or without electronic monitoring; be required to participate in drug,

alcohol, or mental health treatment or counseling programs; be required to

perform community service; or receive any combination of these

conditions. As discussed earlier, AOUSC has indicated that workload can be

affected by the extent to which offenders had special conditions imposed

on their terms of supervision. Figure 5 shows that, between fiscal years

1992 and 1996, the number of offenders with special conditions remained

relatively stable.

Figure 5: Trends in the Number of

Offenders Under Community

Supervision With Special Conditions,

Fiscal Years 1992-1996

Number of offenders with special conditions

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Fiscal year

All offenders under community supervision

Offenders under probation

Offenders under postprison supervision

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

In addition, as shown in greater detail in table 2, the proportion of the total

supervision population with special conditions remained relatively stable

within a range of 42 to 46 percent during the same period.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Table 2: Federal Offenders Under Community Supervision With Special Conditions, by Type of Special Condition, Fiscal

Years 1990-1996

Special conditions

Fiscal year

Drug

treatment

Substance

abuse

treatment

Mental

health

treatment

Home

confinement

Community

service Totala

Percent of

total

supervision

population

with

special

conditions

1992 18,574 4,447 3,307 1,715 7,588 35,631 41.5%

1993 20,418 4,715 3,808 2,363 8,910 40,214 46.3

1994 21,338 4,831 4,288 2,349 8,025 40,831 45.8

1995 18,291 3,864 4,681 2,451 7,428 36,715 42.8

1996 19,246 3,607 5,163 2,592 7,315 37,923 42.6

aAn offender may be counted in more than one special condition category.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

For each year in this 5-year period, the data showed that about 60 percent

or more of the offenders with special conditions received treatment for

drug or substance abuse.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

As shown in table 3, the proportion of the total supervision population

with special conditions varied within the three major types of supervision.

Specifically, probation offenders with special conditions increased from

about 39 to 50 percent. The percentage on parole decreased from about 44

to 41 percent, while those on supervised release declined from 45 to about

37 percent. The percentage of the parole and supervised release—i.e.,

postprison—population with special conditions decreased from about 45

to 38 percent.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Table 3: Federal Offenders Under

Community Supervision With Special

Conditions, by Type of Supervision,

Fiscal Years 1992-1996 Probation

Fiscal year

Number of

offenders with

special conditions

Percent of total on

probation

Total offenders on

probation

1992 18,277 38.7% 47,208

1993 21,354 48.7 43,810

1994 19,539 47.3 41,300

1995 17,257 48.4 35,679

1996 16,955 50.0 33,902

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Parole

Supervised release

Postprisona

Number of

offenders

with special

conditions

Percent of

total on

parole

Total

offenders

on parole

Number of

offenders

with special

conditions

Percent of

total on

supervised

release

Total

offenders

on

supervised

release

Number of

offenders

with special

conditions

Percent of

total on

postprison

supervision

Total

offenders on

postprison

supervision

8,572 44.3% 19,350 8,782 45.4% 19,362 17,354 44.8% 38,712

6,930 41.7 16,629 11,930 45.2 26,384 18,860 43.8 43,013

6,016 42.0 14,310 15,276 45.6 33,493 21,292 44.5 47,803

4,329 40.6 10,664 15,129 38.3 39,479 19,458 38.8 50,143

3,784 41.3 9,153 17,184 37.4 45,911 20,968 38.1 55,064

aThe numbers in this category include parole and supervised release.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Number of Offenders

on Community

Supervision Who

Were Removed for

Violating Their Terms

of Supervision

Increased

Offenders can be removed from supervision because (1) they violate the

terms of their supervision; or because (2) their term expires, they

terminate early, or they terminate for noncriminal-related reasons. As

noted earlier, AOUSC has indicated that workload can be affected by the

extent to which offenders violate their terms of supervision. Figure 6

shows that, between fiscal years 1990 and 1996, the number of offenders

removed from supervision for violating the terms of their supervision

increased from 7,360 to 8,922 (about 21 percent).

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Figure 6: Trends in the Number of

Offenders Removed From Supervision

for Violating Their Terms, Fiscal Years

1990-1996

Number of offenders

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Fiscal year

All offenders under community supervision

Offenders under probation

Offenders under postprison supervision

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

As shown in more detail in table 4, in fiscal years 1990 through 1996, from

9 to 10 percent of the total federal supervision population were removed

from their supervision annually because they had violated their terms.

During the same period, from about 28 to 31 percent of the total

population were removed from supervision without a violation.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Table 4: Federal Offenders Removed

From Supervision, Fiscal Years

1990-1996

Offenders removed with a

violation

Offenders removed

without a violation

Fiscal year Number

Percent of total

on supervision Number

Percent of total

on supervision

Total offenders

on supervision

1990 7,360 9.1% 23,926 29.7% 80,592

1991 7,638 9.2 24,574 29.6 83,012

1992 8,433 9.8 26,338 30.7 85,920

1993 8,297 9.6 25,493 29.4 86,823

1994 8,199 9.2 24,848 27.9 89,103

1995 8,797 10.3 25,937 30.2 85,822

1996 8,922 10.0 27,202 30.6 88,966

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table 5 shows that, in fiscal years 1990 through 1996, violation rates26

remained relatively constant for probation and parole offenders, from 6 to

7 and 14 to 18 percent, respectively. After an initial jump from over 5 to

nearly 12 percent from fiscal year 1990 to 1992, the violation rate for

supervised release offenders remained relatively unchanged at about

11 percent.27 Parole and supervised release—i.e., postprison—offenders

had violation rates over 60 percent higher than that for offenders on

probation.

26For each category of supervision—probation, parole, or supervised release—the violation rate is

defined as the percentage of all offenders on supervision during the fiscal year who were removed for

a violation of the terms of their supervision.

27For the reasons noted in footnote 11, the number of persons on supervised release was relatively

small in 1990, and those on supervised release were likely to be offenders sentenced to short prison

terms.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Table 5: Federal Offenders Removed

From Supervision With a Violation, by

Type of Supervision, Fiscal Years

1990-1996

Probation offenders

Fiscal year Number removed

Percent of total on

probation Total probation

1990 3,186 6.1% 52,266

1991 3,005 6.1 49,399

1992 2,873 6.1 47,208

1993 2,733 6.2 43,810

1994 2,569 6.2 41,300

1995 2,586 7.3 35,679

1996 2,488 7.3 33,902

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

Parole offenders

Supervised release offenders Postprison offendersa

Number

removed

Percent of total

on parole

Total

parole

Number

removed

Percent of total

on supervised

release

Total

supervised

release

Number

removed

Percent of total

on postprison

supervision

Total

postprison

3,836 17.3% 22,188 338 5.5% 6,138 4,174 14.7% 28,326

3,348 15.5 21,664 1,285 10.8 11,949 4,633 13.8 33,613

3,254 16.8 19,350 2,306 11.9 19,362 5,560 14.4 38,712

2,642 15.9 16,629 2,922 11.1 26,384 5,564 12.9 43,013

2,055 14.4 14,310 3,575 10.7 33,493 5,630 11.8 47,803

1,925 18.1 10,664 4,286 10.9 39,479 6,211 12.4 51,143

1,513 16.5 9,153 4,921 10.7 45,911 6,434 11.7 55,064

aThe numbers in this category include offenders on parole and supervised release.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Offenders can be removed from supervision for committing one of three

types of violations: major, minor, or technical. In fiscal years 1990 through

1996, a higher percentage of postprison—i.e, parole and supervised

release—offenders were removed for major violations (from 23 to

29 percent) than were offenders on probation (from 16 to 18 percent).

Overall, technical violations accounted for an average of about 70 percent

of all offenders removed for violations annually in fiscal years 1990

through 1996. During the same period, an average of about 8 percent were

removed for committing a minor violation, while an average of 23 percent

were removed for committing a major violation.

Agency Comments On July 17, 1997, AOUSC provided us with written technical comments and

clarifications on a draft of this report, which we incorporated into the

report where appropriate. AOUSC generally agreed with the contents of the

draft report.

We are providing copies of this report to the Director of AOUSC and other

interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
B-274290 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Please

contact me on (202) 512-3610 if you or your staff have any questions.

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration

 of Justice Issues

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

26

Appendix II 

Description of the

Federal Community

Supervision Process

28

Appendix III 

Changes in the

Federal Community

Supervision

Population

35

Appendix IV 

List of Major

Contributors to This

Report

38

Glossary 39

Tables Table 1: Estimated Number of BOP Inmates Serving Prison Terms

as of September 30, 1996, by Offense Committed, to Be Released

in Fiscal Years 1997-2001

10

Table 2: Federal Offenders Under Community Supervision With

Special Conditions, by Type of Special Condition, Fiscal Years

1990-1996

14

Table 3: Federal Offenders Under Community Supervision With

Special Conditions, by Type of Supervision, Fiscal Years

1992-1996

16

Table 4: Federal Offenders Removed From Supervision, Fiscal

Years 1990-1996

19

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Contents

Table 5: Federal Offenders Removed From Supervision With a

Violation, by Type of Supervision, Fiscal Years 1990-1996

20

Table III.1: Federal Prison and Community Supervision

Populations, Fiscal Years 1990-1996

35

Table III.2: Trends in the Federal Community Supervision

Population, by Type of Supervision, Fiscal Years 1990-1996

36

Table III.3: Trends in the Community Supervision Population, by

Type of Offense Committed, Fiscal Years 1992-1996

36

Table III.4: Number of Offenders Sentenced Each Year, by

Criminal History Category, Fiscal Years 1991-1995

37

Figures Figure 1: Trends in the Federal Community Supervision

Population, Fiscal Years 1990-1996

7

Figure 2: Distribution of the Community Supervision Population

Among the Three Types of Supervision, Fiscal Years 1990 and

1996

8

Figure 3: Distribution of the Community Supervision Population

by Type of Offense Committed, Fiscal Years 1992-1996

9

Figure 4: Percent Change in the Number of Offenders Sentenced,

by Criminal History Category, Fiscal Years 1991-1995

12

Figure 5: Trends in the Number of Offenders Under Community

Supervision With Special Conditions, Fiscal Years 1992-1996

13

Figure 6: Trends in the Number of Offenders Removed From

Supervision for Violating Their Terms, Fiscal Years 1990-1996

18

Figure II.1: The Community Supervision Process for Offenders on

Probation

29

Figure II.2: The Community Supervision Process for Offenders on

Parole

31

Figure II.3: The Community Supervision Process for Offenders on

Supervised Release

33

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

BOP Bureau of Prisons

USPC United States Parole Commission

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We initiated this assignment to provide Congress with information on the

size and growth of the community supervision population as a result of the

implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Our overall

objective was to identify changes in the federal community supervision

population that could affect probation officers’ workload. Specifically, we

determined trends in (1) the growth of the total supervision population

and any changes in the composition of that population by type of

supervision; (2) the number of offenders who had special conditions

imposed on their term of supervision, such as home confinement or drug

treatment; and (3) the number of persons who were removed from

supervision for violating the terms of their supervision.

To develop information on the growth trends in the supervision

population, we obtained AOUSC annual reports for fiscal years 1990 through

1996 and other documents. The data for these reports were derived from

AOUSC’s Federal Probation Supervision Information System. We also

analyzed AOUSC statistics on the number of individuals currently under

supervision, the number removed from supervision—with and without a

violation—and the principal reasons for their removal, for fiscal years 1990

through 1996. We chose fiscal year 1990 as our base year because it was

the first full year in which the federal sentencing guidelines were

implemented on a national basis.

To obtain some data on potential future trends in the postprison

community supervision population, we reviewed BOP’s estimates of the

number of inmates who were expected to be released to community

supervision in fiscal years 1997 through 2001. BOP estimated release dates

for inmates in its prisons as of September 30, 1996. BOP provided these

estimates by major offense for inmates sentenced under the preguidelines

(parole) and guidelines (supervised release) sentencing rules. These data

did not include estimates of the number of inmates who may be sentenced

to prison and subsequently released in the years 1997 through 2001. BOP

could not provide estimates of this population until its revision of its

prison population projection model is complete. BOP said that these data

were derived from its management information system, SENTRY. In

addition, we analyzed data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s annual

reports for fiscal years 1991 through 1995 on the average length of

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

imprisonment for offenders sentenced, by criminal history category.1

These data were derived from the Commission’s MONFY data file, which

contains sentencing information on offenders sentenced under the

guidelines.

To describe the special conditions that may be imposed on supervisees,

we analyzed information provided by AOUSC on special conditions for fiscal

years 1992 through 1996, as well as the per diem cost of administering

each condition. This information included the number of offenders who

had received each type of treatment or who had been placed on electronic

monitoring or community service in each of these years. It is possible for

an offender to be counted in more than one of these categories, but the

data AOUSC provided did not identify how many offenders had more than

one special condition or the duration for which a special condition was

imposed.

To obtain information on the number of offenders removed from

supervision with and without violations, we obtained and analyzed AOUSC

annual reports on removals.

We did not conduct an independent assessment of the databases or of the

policies and procedures used to assess and ensure their reliability and

validity.

1

Some offenders in criminal history category VI are classified as “career offenders.” The 1990 annual

report did not report separately the number of category VI offenders who were classified as career

offenders or their average sentences. The annual reports for fiscal years 1991 through 1995 do provide

separate data on category VI offenders who were classified as career offenders. Thus, for comparative

purposes, we excluded from our analysis fiscal year 1990. In addition, at the time of our analysis, fiscal

year 1996 data were not available.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix II 

Description of the Federal Community

Supervision Process

Community supervision consists of three major programs: probation,

parole, and supervised release. Persons on probation have usually been

sentenced directly to probation at sentencing and may begin their term of

probation immediately after sentencing. Persons on parole and supervised

release enter community supervision after serving a term of imprisonment.

The following sections describe how individual offenders proceed through

the community supervision program.

Probation Prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a term of probation operated

as a suspended sentence. Under the terms of the act, as reflected in the

federal sentencing guidelines, probation is a separate sentence that may

have elements of punishment, incapacitation, deterrence, and correctional

treatment.

Special conditions that may be imposed as part of a sentence of probation

include home confinement with or without electronic monitoring;

participation in drug, alcohol, or mental health treatment or counseling

programs; community service; or any combination of these conditions.

The judge may impose some special conditions as part of the sentence,

and the probation officer may impose additional conditions as part of the

supervision plan prepared for each offender. In addition to special

conditions, there are mandatory conditions of supervision that apply to all

offenders. These include prohibitions on (1) committing another federal,

state, or local crime during the term of probation; (2) possessing a firearm;

and (3) possessing controlled substances. In addition, the judge may order

the offender to pay a fine and/or restitution as part of the sentence.

As figure II.1 indicates, if the offender does not violate the conditions set

by the court or imposed by the probation officer during his or her term of

probation, the offender is to be released at the end of the term.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix II 

Description of the Federal Community

Supervision Process

Figure II.1: The Community

Supervision Process for Offenders on

Probation

No Yes

Offender

completes

probation

Probation

revoked by

court

Conditions

modified by

probation

officer

Offender

sentenced

Court sets term of probation 

and conditions of supervision

 Violation

1. Minor

2. Major

3. Technical

Offender

released

Offender

enters BOP

facility

Offender

violates

conditions?

Conditions

modified 

by

courts

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

If, however, the offender violates a condition or a set of conditions, the

probation officer may report the offense to the court and recommend that

probation be revoked and the offender be incarcerated. The court then

determines whether the offender will be incarcerated. In the case of a new

felony or misdemeanor, the offender may be tried for a new crime.

Not all violations lead to court hearings. For example, instances of

noncompliance may be addressed initially through an administrative case

conference involving the deputy chief probation officer or supervising

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix II 

Description of the Federal Community

Supervision Process

probation officer, the probation officer, and the offender. The conference

is to involve a complete review of the case and consideration of possible

interventions or sanctions, including community service, drug or alcohol

in-patient treatment, and electronically monitored home confinement. For

these sanctions to be imposed, the offender must waive his or her right to

counsel and a hearing.

Parole Figure II.2 shows that offenders imprisoned under the presentencing

guidelines system can be released on parole after serving a portion of their

prison terms. These offenders committed crimes prior to November 1,

1987. Offenders who exhibit good behavior while in prison may be

released on parole after serving as little as one-third of their prison terms.

The United States Parole Commission (USPC) determines whether and

when an offender will be granted parole.

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix II 

Description of the Federal Community

Supervision Process

Figure II.2: The Community

Supervision Process for Offenders on

Parole Court imposes prison term 

and any conditions of release

Completes at least 1/3 sentence

Offender paroled?

No

No Yes

Yes

USPC sets conditions

Remains in prison Released after serving 

full prison term

 Violation

1. Minor 

2. Major 

3. Technical

Offender released

Parole revoked by USPC Conditions modified by USPC

Offender returned to prison

Offender completes parole

Offender enters BOP

Offender sentenced

Offender

violates conditions?

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

As is the case with probation, mandatory and special conditions may be

imposed on parolees. Offenders convicted of crimes committed before

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix II 

Description of the Federal Community

Supervision Process

November 1, 1987, may receive a sentence of incarceration followed by a

period of parole. Offenders receiving prison terms must complete a

minimum of one-third of the sentence before they are eligible for parole to

the community. Some offenders are not paroled to the community because

the USPC deems them to be a risk to the community. These offenders are to

remain in prison until they have served their entire sentence, less a

minimum period for community supervision. They are then released to the

community under mandatory release.1

After an offender has served one-third of the sentence, USPC may approve

parole and impose special and mandatory conditions. If the offender does

not violate any of the conditions, he or she completes supervision. If,

however, the offender violates a condition or a set of conditions, USPC can

either modify the conditions of supervision by making them more

restrictive or revoke parole and have the offender reincarcerated. In the

event the offender has committed a new crime, he or she may be

prosecuted for the offense.

Supervised Release Offenders who committed offenses on or after November 1, 1987, may be

given both a term of imprisonment and a term of supervised release by the

sentencing judge. The offender serves his or her entire prison sentence,

less a maximum reduction of 54 days per year for satisfactory behavior. As

in the cases of probation and parole, the supervised release offender is

also assigned mandatory and, if needed, special conditions. Figure II.3

shows that mandatory and special conditions may be imposed by the

sentencing judge, as well as by the probation officer, in cases where the

need for a special condition has arisen after sentencing. The conditions

imposed by the probation officer may have been specified in the

prerelease plan developed by BOP prior to the offender’s release from

prison. The probation officer may also determine that special conditions

are required when preparing the supervision plan or when monitoring the

offender’s behavior while on supervised release.

1

As a form of release from prison mandated by statute, and which has been phased out under the

Sentencing Reform Act, mandatory release can be distinguished from either probation or parole in that

mandatory releasees essentially are denied regular parole because they are dangerous offenders or

committed serious acts. The statute provided for release 180 days prior to the expiration of the

prisoner’s sentence to allow for a minimal period of supervision.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix II 

Description of the Federal Community

Supervision Process

Figure II.3: The Community Supervision Process for Offenders on Supervised Release

Offender

violates conditions?

Offender sentenced Court sets term of supervised

release and conditions of supervision

Preguidelines Postguidelines

Offender serves term of supervised release

Offender

completes at

least 1/3

sentence

BOP prepares

prerelease 

plan

for offender

No Yes

Offender

released

Conditions modified 

by court

Supervised release term revoked by court

Offender completes

supervised release

No Yes Offender

charged with 

violation?

Conditions modified 

by probation officer

Hearing held

Offender returns to prison

Probation officer 

prepares a 

supervision plan 

for the offender a

Offender

assigned 

conditions

Offender 

completes

full sentence

 Violation

1. Minor 

2. Major 

3. Technical

aThe conditions imposed by the probation officer may have been specified in the prerelease plan

developed by BOP prior to the offender’s release from prison. The probation officer may also

determine that special conditions are required when preparing the supervision plan or when

monitoring the offender’s behavior while on supervised release.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix II 

Description of the Federal Community

Supervision Process

If the offender does not violate any of the conditions, he or she can

complete supervision as planned. If, however, he or she violates the

conditions, the probation officer can exercise some discretion in either

modifying the special conditions or referring the case to the court for

disposition. Unlike parole, where revocation and reincarceration decisions

can be made by USPC, in the case of supervised release, these decisions are

made by the district court. In the event the offender has committed a new

crime, he or she may be prosecuted for the offense.

As previously outlined in the discussion of probation, not all infractions

are reported to the courts or result in revocation of supervision. The

probation officer has some discretion in deciding whether to refer a case

to the court or to an administrative case conference.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix III 

Changes in the Federal Community

Supervision Population

As shown in table III.1, the federal community supervision population rose

by about 10 percent between fiscal years 1990 and 1996. The

corresponding population growth in the federal prison system1

 was about

63 percent, from 58,021 in fiscal year 1990 to 94,695 in fiscal year 1996.2

Table III.1: Federal Prison and

Community Supervision Populations,

Fiscal Years 1990-1996 Fiscal year

Total federal prison

population

Total federal community

supervision population

1990 58,021 80,592

1991 64,131 83,012

1992 70,670 85,920

1993 79,799 86,823

1994 85,850 89,103

1995 90,159 85,822

1996 94,695 88,966

Percent change, fiscal years

1990-1996 63.2% 10.4%

Source: GAO analysis of BOP and AOUSC data.

Table III.2 shows that, from fiscal years 1990 to 1996, the probation and

parole populations decreased about 35 and 59 percent, respectively; while

the supervised release population increased 648 percent. Overall, the

postprison population increased 94 percent during the same period.

1

Includes only inmates in BOP facilities. BOP also supervises inmates in community corrections

centers, contract detention centers, other contract facilities, and home confinement.

2

The disparity between the growth in the prison population and the slower growth in the supervision

population reflects the effect of the sentencing guidelines on sentences. Longer sentences combined

with the requirement that inmates serve at least 85 percent of their sentences have resulted in a

growing BOP population of older inmates.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix III 

Changes in the Federal Community

Supervision Population

Table III.2: Trends in the Federal

Community Supervision Population,

by Type of Supervision, Fiscal Years

1990-1996

Fiscal year Probation Parole

Supervised

release Postprisona

1990 52,266 22,188 6,138 28,326

1991 49,399 21,664 11,949 33,613

1992 47,208 19,350 19,362 38,712

1993 43,810 16,629 26,384 43,013

1994 41,300 14,310 33,493 47,803

1995 35,679 10,664 39,479 50,143

1996 33,902 9,153 45,911 55,064

Percent change,

fiscal years 1990-1996 (35.1)% (58.7)% 648.0% 94.4%

aThe numbers in this category include offenders on parole and supervised release.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table III.3 shows the distribution of offenders on community supervision

for the major crime types. As shown, drug offenders, who accounted for

the largest number of offenders on community supervision, increased from

nearly 32 percent of the total community supervision population in fiscal

year 1992 to about 38 percent in fiscal year 1996.

Table III.3: Trends in the Community Supervision Population, by Type of Offense Committed, Fiscal Years 1992-1996

Drugs Violent White collar All othera

Type of offense committed

Fiscal year

Number of

offenders

Percent of

total on

supervision

Number of

offenders

Percent of

total on

supervision

Number of

offenders

Percent of

total on

supervision

Number of

offenders

Percent of

total on

supervision

1992 27,346 31.8% 8,138 9.5% 24,324 28.3% 26,112 30.4%

1993 28,677 33.0 8,422 9.7 24,630 28.4 25,094 28.9

1994 30,586 34.3 8,630 9.7 25,136 28.2 24,751 27.8

1995 31,193 36.4 8,315 9.7 23,870 27.8 22,444 26.2

1996 34,046 38.3 8,728 9.8 23,838 26.8 22,354 25.1

aThis category includes burglary, larceny, auto theft, forgery and counterfeiting, immigration,

liquor/tax, postal, traffic, and other related offenses.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table III.4 shows the number of offenders sentenced each year, by

criminal history category, in fiscal years 1991 through 1995. As shown, the

number of offenders sentenced each year in the three most serious

Page 36 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix III 

Changes in the Federal Community

Supervision Population

criminal history categories (IV, V, and VI) grew at greater rates than those

for offenders with lesser criminal histories.

Table III.4: Number of Offenders

Sentenced Each Year, by Criminal

History Category, Fiscal Years

1991-1995

Number of offenders sentenced by criminal history category

Year sentenced

I

(0 or 1)a

II

(2 or 3)a

III

(4-6)a

IV

(7-9)a

V

(10-12)a

VI

(13 or more)b

1991 13,194 3,014 3,257 1,721 1,007 1,350

1992 15,101 3,451 3,714 1,956 1,236 1,584

1993 17,070 3,693 4,187 2,303 1,378 2,005

1994 15,457 3,616 4,278 2,374 1,373 2,338

1995 14,818 3,379 4,202 2,482 1,503 2,385

Percent change,

fiscal years

1991-1995

12.3% 12.1% 29.0% 44.2% 49.3% 76.7%

aNumbers in parenthesis are the range of criminal history points for each category.

bNumbers in category VI exclude offenders classified as career criminals, whose average

sentence in each year exceeded 193 months.

Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission annual reports.

Page 37 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Appendix IV 

List of Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division

William O. Jenkins, Jr., Assistant Director, Administration of

 Justice Issues

Anthony L. Hill, Evaluator-in-Charge

Brenda I. Rabinowitz, Evaluator

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst

Katherine M. Wheeler, Publishing Advisor

Michelle D. Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant

Office of the General

Counsel

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

Page 38 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Glossary

Mandatory Release A form of release from prison mandated by statute, which has been phased

out by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Mandatory release can be

distinguished from either probation or parole in that mandatory releasees

essentially are denied regular parole because they are dangerous offenders

or have committed serious acts. The statute provided for release 180 days

prior to the expiration of the prisoner’s sentence to allow for a minimal

period of supervision.

Military Parole A form of early release from a military prison through the exercise of

discretion by the United States Parole Commission (USPC) and the

operation of the good-time laws that were in effect before the Sentencing

Reform Act of 1984.

Parole A form of early release from prison through the exercise of discretion by

the USPC and the operation of the good-time laws that were in effect before

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Parole can be distinguished from

either probation or supervised release in that parolees are released from

custody early but remain in the legal custody of the Attorney General

while in the community. If parole is revoked, the parolee may be returned

to custody to continue serving the sentence. Prisoners can be released

again to parole and reincarcerated until the maximum sentence imposed

has been served.

Probation A sentence to supervision in the community by a probation officer. In

addition to some mandatory conditions, other conditions may apply. The

maximum term of probation supervision varies by offense class.

Special Parole An additional term of supervision, which has been phased out by the

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. A term of special parole begins upon

completion of any period on parole or mandatory release supervision from

the regular sentence. If the prisoner is released by expiration of good time

without any supervision, the special parole term begins upon such release.

Supervised Release Following completion of the offender’s term of imprisonment, a period of

supervision in the community imposed by a judge at the time of

sentencing. In addition to some mandatory conditions, other conditions

may apply. Under the sentencing guidelines, the court must order

Page 39 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Glossary

supervised release to follow any term of imprisonment that exceeds 1 year

or if required by a specific statute. The court may order supervised release

to follow imprisonment in any other case. The maximum term of

supervised release varies by offense class. Offenders on supervised release

are supervised by probation officers.

(188627) Page 40 GAO/GGD-97-110 Trends in Community Supervision of Federal Offenders
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100