U.S. Parole Commission: Number of Offenders under Its Jurisdiction Has Declined; Transferring Its Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Pose Challenges
Published: 2015-05-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: USPC was established in 1976, in part to carry out a national parole policy that would govern the release of offenders to community supervision prior to completing their full custody sentences. USPC's budget is just over $13 million for fiscal year 2015.
Over time, changes in laws have abolished parole and introduced supervised release—a new form of postincarceration supervision. As a result, USPC has been reauthorized and has authority to grant and revoke parole for eligible federal and D.C. offenders and to revoke supervised release for D.C. offenders violating the terms of their release. USPC's current authorization is set to expire in 2018.
This report addresses (1) changes in the number of offenders under USPC's jurisdiction from fiscal years 2002 through 2014 and (2) the organizational characteristics needed for an entity to feasibly assume jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from USPC, and the feasibility and implications of such a transfer.
GAO analyzed USPC data on federal and D.C. offenders from fiscal years 2002-2014—the most recent years for which reliable data were available—as well as DOJ reports on USPC and USPC policies, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. GAO also discussed with USPC and some of its criminal justice partners the feasibility of transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders and any related challenges.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2002 through 2014, the total number of offenders under the Department of Justice's (DOJ) U.S. Parole Commission's (USPC) jurisdiction declined 26 percent from about 23,000 to about 17,000. Specifically, following the abolition of parole, the number of offenders on or eligible for parole declined 67 percent among federal offenders, and 74 percent among D.C. offenders. However, following the introduction of supervised release, the number of D.C. offenders on supervised release or serving a prison sentence that includes supervised release increased 606 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2011, and then slightly declined through fiscal year 2014.
Transferring USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders would require that an entity has three key organizational characteristics to assume this jurisdiction, and altering or establishing a new entity poses challenges. Based on our discussions with officials from USPC and other organizations, including those from the D.C. government, these three key organizational characteristics are:
statutory authority for asserting jurisdiction over D.C. offenders;
processes, procedures and personnel in place for handling parole and supervised release cases; and
formal agreements with other criminal justice organizations for making parole and supervised release decisions.
We identified 17 criminal justice entities with the potential to assume USPC's jurisdiction for D.C. offenders; however none currently possesses the three key organizational characteristics. Thus, transferring jurisdiction is not feasible without altering an existing or establishing a new entity, and would pose challenges related to estimating costs and assessing impacts on decision making.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making any recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: With an enacted budget of just over $13 million in fiscal year 2015, the  Department of Justice’s (DOJ) U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) has  jurisdiction to grant and revoke parole for eligible federal and D.C.  offenders. USPC also has the authority to revoke supervised release for  D.C. offenders who violate the terms of their release. USPC uses a  hearing process to make parole and supervised release decisions. Over  time, changes in laws abolished parole and introduced supervised  release for offenders under USPC’s jurisdiction. Thus, these changes  have reduced the number of offenders eligible for parole, increased the  number of offenders sentenced to supervised release, and changed  USPC’s jurisdiction over these offenders.on the offender population under USPC’s jurisdiction over time and the   You asked us for information  feasibility and cost of transferring jurisdiction for D.C. offenders from  USPC to another entity.
Specifically, this report addresses (1) the changes in the number of  offenders under USPC’s jurisdiction from fiscal years 2002 through 2014  and (2) the organizational characteristics needed for another entity to  feasibly assume jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from the USPC and the  feasibility and implications of such a transfer.
To identify the changes in the number of offenders under USPC’s  jurisdiction, we obtained historical data on these offenders from USPC  and analyzed the data from fiscal years 2002 through 2014—the most  recent years for which reliable data on the offender population were  available. Specifically, USPC requested data on the numbers of federal  and D.C. offenders under its jurisdiction from its criminal justice partner  agencies, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; the Court  Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia  (CSOSA); the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC); and the Federal   USPC then sent to each of these partners a  Bureau of Prisons (BOP).set of questions we provided to the agency asking about the steps they  had taken to ensure the quality of the data in their data systems. Based  on their responses, which USPC collected and returned to us, we  determined the data coming from each agency’s system would be  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. Upon receipt of the data  from its partners, USPC compiled the information and provided the  offender population counts to GAO. During our data analysis process, we  observed some anomalies in the counts and we shared those  observations with USPC. As a result, USPC acknowledged some errors  in these counts, revised them, and ultimately provided us with reliable  offender population counts. During this process, we also met with USPC  officials to discuss the offender data and obtain additional information  describing these offenders. Additionally, we obtained DOJ and USPC  documentation, such as DOJ reports on USPC to Congress, USPC  memorandums of understanding with criminal justice partners, and other  USPC documentation, such as the rules and procedures manual,  containing information about the commission and the offenders under its  jurisdiction.
To identify the organizational characteristics that USPC and key criminal  justice partners considered necessary for an entity to feasibly assume  jurisdiction of D.C. offenders from USPC, and to determine the feasibility  and implications of such a transfer, we interviewed officials from USPC as  well as from key criminal justice partners including CSOSA and the  District of Columbia’s Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and   Further, we analyzed documentation on the key responsibilities  Justice.and sources of funding for USPC and 17 other entities that we identified  as being involved in the federal and D.C. criminal justice system,  including those with specific responsibilities related to D.C. offenders. We  assessed this documentation to determine whether the other entities had  a structure in place to feasibly assume USPC’s jurisdiction for D.C.  offenders. See table 6 in appendix II for information on the key  responsibilities of USPC and the other entities.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to May 2015  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Parole Commission and Reorganization Act of 1976 established  USPC as an independent agency within DOJ. In particular, the act  required USPC to develop rules and regulations establishing guidelines  for (1) granting or denying an application or recommendation to parole  any eligible prisoner, (2) imposing reasonable conditions on an order  granting parole, and (3) modifying or revoking an order paroling any  eligible prisoner. In addition, the act required USPC to enact other rules  and regulations as necessary to carry out a national parole policy. Certain  functions of USPC changed after the federal and D.C. governments  abolished parole and enacted a new sentencing structure for certain  offenses that included a new form of post-incarceration supervision,  called supervised release, as discussed below.
subsections: section_title: Federal and D.C. Governments’ Parole Changes
paragraphs: The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole for federal  offenders convicted of crimes committed on or after November 1, 1987,  and, under a new sentencing structure for certain offenses, introduced  supervised release for these offenders. Generally, federal offenders  convicted of crimes committed before November 1, 1987, are eligible for  parole and USPC has jurisdiction to determine whether to grant or deny  parole for these offenders. Federal offenders convicted on or after  November 1, 1987, now receive determinate sentences—a definite term  of imprisonment, followed in most cases by a period of supervised  release, which may continue for a number of years. Additionally, under  the Sentencing Reform Act, a federal court, in imposing a sentence to a  term of imprisonment for a felony or a misdemeanor, may include as part  of the sentence a requirement that the offender be placed on a term of  supervised release after imprisonment, as well as modify, terminate,  extend, or revoke a term of supervised release.have jurisdiction for supervision and revocation decisions for these  federal offenders subject to terms of supervised release under the new  determinate sentencing structure. With the abolition of parole for federal  offenders, it was expected that the existing functions of USPC—granting  parole, determining and modifying parole conditions, and revoking  parole—would apply to a limited and diminishing class of federal   Thus, USPC does not  offenders sentenced under the old sentencing law who were on or  otherwise eligible for parole. Thus, the act provided for the eventual  abolition of USPC.
The expectation that USPC would only carry residual functions that  eventually would disappear, or readily could be assigned elsewhere,  changed with the enactment of the National Capital Revitalization and  Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act). The  Revitalization Act, along with related D.C. legislation, instituted reforms in  the sentencing and supervision structure for D.C. offenders, which in  many respects were similar to those that the Sentencing Reform Act of  1984 had established for federal offenders. Revitalization Act required the District of Columbia to move to a  determinate sentencing structure for certain offenses and abolished  parole. Also, it provided for terms of supervised release to follow the  determinate sentences to be imposed. Further, it provided USPC with  ongoing jurisdiction for supervision and revocation decisions for D.C.  Code offenders subject to terms of supervised release under the new  determinate sentencing structure. In August 2000, the District of  Columbia enacted a determinate sentencing system and abolished parole  for D.C. offenders convicted of crimes committed on or after August 5,  2000. These offenders now receive determinate sentences, followed in  most cases by a period of supervised release. According to DOJ, during  the period of supervised release, the offenders’ behavior is to be closely  monitored under conditions that USPC determines are in order to protect  public safety and maximize the likelihood of successful reentry into  society. D.C. offenders convicted of crimes committed before August 5,  2000, are under the jurisdiction of USPC and are on or are eligible for  parole.
USPC was last reauthorized in 2013, since it still has offenders under its  jurisdiction, including federal and D.C. offenders on or eligible for parole  and D.C. offenders on supervised release or serving a prison sentence  that includes supervised release. This reauthorization expires on November 1, 2018.
Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712 (1997).
section_title: USPC’s Current Offender Population and Responsibilities
paragraphs: Offenders under USPC’s jurisdiction currently include the following:  federal offenders on or eligible for parole; other federal offenders, including transfer treaty offenders, military  offenders, and certain Federal Witness Protection Program  offenders;
D.C. offenders on or eligible for parole; and
D.C. offenders on supervised release or serving a prison sentence  that includes supervised release.
Regarding the above offenders, USPC currently has the responsibility for: holding hearings regarding release decisions for federal, transfer  treaty, military, and D.C. offenders; making determinations regarding the initial conditions of supervised  release for D.C. offenders, managing these offenders’ risk in the  community, modifying the conditions of supervision for changed  circumstances, discharging offenders from supervision early, and  issuing warrants or summons for violation of the conditions; and  revoking the release of federal, military, witness protection, and D.C.  offenders on parole and D.C. offenders on supervised release.
section_title: Number of Offenders under USPC’s Jurisdiction Declined over Time but the Number of D.C. Offenders on Supervised Release or Serving a Prison Sentence that Includes Supervised Release Generally Increased
paragraphs: As figure 1 shows that, from fiscal years 2002 through 2014, the total  number of offenders under USPC’s jurisdiction declined 26 percent from  about 23,000 to about 17,100. Specifically, the number of federal and  D.C. offenders on or eligible for parole declined; however, the number of  D.C. offenders on supervised release or serving a prison sentence that  includes supervised release generally increased. Table 1 in appendix I  provides data on the annual variation in these numbers during this period,  and the subsections below elaborate on the trends.
subsections: section_title: Number of Federal and D.C. Offenders on or Eligible for Parole Has Decreased
subsections: section_title: Federal Offenders
paragraphs: As figure 2 illustrates, from fiscal years 2002 through 2014, the overall  number of federal offenders either on or eligible for parole declined 67  percent, from just about 7,200 to about 2,400 following the abolition of  federal parole in 1987.
In particular, over the period shown in the figure, the number of federal  offenders on parole declined 68 percent from about 4,000 to about 1,300.  Similarly, the number of federal offenders eligible for parole declined 66  percent from about 3,200 to about 1,100. Table 2 in appendix I provides  the annual variation in these numbers from fiscal years 2002 through  2014 for this population.
Figure 3 provides information on the number and composition of federal  offenders under USPC’s jurisdiction for 5 of the most recent fiscal years.  As the figure illustrates, the overall number of federal offenders under  USPC’s jurisdiction declined 27 percent from fiscal years 2010 through  2014 mainly because of the decline in the number of federal offenders on  parole.
Table 3 in appendix I provides data on the annual variation in these  numbers from fiscal years 2002 through 2014.
section_title: D.C. Offenders
paragraphs: As figure 4 illustrates, from fiscal years 2002 through 2014, the number of  D.C. offenders on or eligible for parole declined 74 percent, from about  14,100 to about 3,700 following the abolition of parole for D.C. offenders  in 2000.
In particular, over the period shown in the figure, the number of D.C.  offenders on parole declined 70 percent from about 7,400 to about 2,200.  Similarly, the number of D.C. offenders eligible for parole declined 78  percent from about 6,700 to 1,500. Table 4 in appendix I provides the  annual variation in these numbers from fiscal years 2002 to 2014.
section_title: Number of D.C. Offenders on Supervised Release or Serving a Prison Sentence that Includes Supervised Release Has Increased
paragraphs: Figure 5 illustrates that, from fiscal years 2002 through 2014, following  the introduction of supervised release in 2000, the total number of D.C.  offenders on supervised release or serving a prison sentence that  includes supervised release increased 606 percent, from about 1,700 to  about 12,000 in fiscal year 2011, and then slightly declined but remained  above 11,000 through fiscal year 2014.
In particular, over the period shown in the figure, the number of D.C.  offenders on supervised release increased 600 percent from about 900 to  about 6,300 in fiscal year 2011 and then slightly declined but remained  above 5,700 through 2014. Similarly, the number of D.C. offenders  serving a prison sentence that includes supervised release increased 613  percent from about 800 to about 5,700 in fiscal year 2011 and then  slightly declined to above 5,300 through 2014. Table 5 in appendix I  provides the annual variation in these numbers from fiscal years 2002 to  2014.
section_title: Transferring USPC’s Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders Would Require Key Organizational Characteristics that Existing Entities Do Not Possess; Altering or Establishing a New Entity Would Pose Challenges
paragraphs: According to officials from USPC and criminal justice partner  organizations we interviewed, any organization accepting the transfer of  USPC’s jurisdiction over D.C. offenders would need to have three key  organizational characteristics in place for such a transfer to be feasible.  Because no existing entity currently possesses these characteristics, a  transfer of USPC’s jurisdiction to another entity is not feasible without  altering the characteristics of an existing entity or establishing a new  organization. Doing so would pose challenges related to estimating costs  and assessing impacts on decision making.
subsections: section_title: Three Key Characteristics that Existing Entities Do Not Possess Are Necessary for an Entity to Assume Jurisdiction for D.C. Offenders
paragraphs: According to officials we interviewed from USPC and CSOSA, in order for  another entity to feasibly assume USPC’s jurisdiction for D.C. offenders,  this entity would need to have the following key organizational  characteristics in place: (1) relevant statutory authority; (2) specialized  processes, procedures, and personnel; and (3) formal agreements with  other organizations concerning decisions for parole and supervised  release cases. We found that none of the other 17 criminal justice entities  currently involved with D.C. offenders possesses any of the three:
Relevant statutory authority. The Revitalization Act specifies different  organizations’ responsibilities over D.C. offenders, including USPC’s  jurisdiction for parole and supervised release decisions regarding  these offenders. None of the other 17 entities we assessed have  similar authority. Further, USPC derives its powers from existing  statute to subpoena witnesses for parole and supervised release  revocation hearings. Thus, any organization assuming USPC’s  functions would likewise need relevant statutory authority to do so.
Specialized processes, procedures, and personnel. USPC has  mechanisms in place, as well as the appropriate expertise, for  handling and hearing parole and supervised release cases. No other  organization that could potentially assume USPC’s jurisdiction has  these same mechanisms in place already. For example, USPC’s  standard operating procedures describe the hearing processes and  the specific steps hearing officials are required to take before making  recommendations to the Parole Commissioners for parole and  supervised release cases. Additionally, according to USPC officials,  because USPC is the only organization in the federal government that  makes parole and supervised release decisions based on federal and  D.C. statutes, its personnel have developed the necessary expertise  to carry out its responsibilities over time.
Formal agreements with other organizations concerning parole and  supervised release decisions. USPC has formal agreements  concerning its decisions for parole and supervised release cases with  other criminal justice partners. Thus, an entity absorbing USPC’s  jurisdiction would need to establish these formal agreements anew  and stipulate roles. For example, according to USPC officials, USPC  conducts many decision hearings for D.C. offenders who have been  released outside of the D.C. metro area. In order to conduct those  hearings, USPC leverages its formal agreement with U.S. Probation  and Pretrial Services, to ensure that it has access to offenders and  information on these offenders. Further, according to CSOSA  officials, their agency’s understanding with USPC is formalized in an  interagency agreement. They noted that any transfer of jurisdiction  would require a new, formalized agreement with any new entity  accepting USPC’s jurisdiction to ensure ongoing and successful D.C.  offender management. Further, according to USPC officials, formal  agreements are reinforced with statutory authorities. Thus any entity  assuming USPC functions would need authority to enter into formal  agreements with partner agencies for the management of D.C.  offenders.
section_title: Altering or Establishing a New Entity Poses Challenges
paragraphs: Given that no entity currently involved in the criminal justice system has  the structure in place to absorb USPC’s jurisdiction for D.C. offenders, the  transfer of jurisdiction is not feasible without altering the characteristics of  an existing entity or establishing a new organization. Altering or  establishing a new entity poses challenges estimating costs and  assessing impacts on decision making.
subsections: section_title: Estimating Costs
paragraphs: Altering the characteristics of an existing entity or establishing a new  organization with the structure to assume USPC’s jurisdiction could  involve an initial outlay of expenditures in order to begin operations. For  example, start-up costs could include, among others, costs related to  hiring and training personnel; renting or building work space; and  establishing processes, procedures, and an infrastructure of technology.  Such initial costs could possibly be neutralized by longer term savings  attributable to reductions in USPC operations. However, because it is  difficult to estimate both the specific start up costs involved and any  projected efficiencies resulting from a modification to USPC’s jurisdiction,  a net cost effect is difficult to estimate as well.
Estimating the dollar amount of start-up costs is challenging on several  fronts. We spoke with representatives from the D.C. Office of the Deputy  Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, which has oversight of D.C.’s  criminal justice agencies and thus could have responsibility for  supervising a new entity if the entity were to be housed in the D.C.  government. According to these officials, they are not well positioned to  generate a cost estimate for creating a new entity for three reasons. First,  D.C. has not recently established an entirely new organization and thus  these officials had no example upon which to base an estimate. Second,  they noted that D.C. had recently consolidated several agencies, and that  this process resulted in increased costs. Finally, they explained that  estimates of this type are often required to be made years in advance in  order to secure the necessary statutory and funding changes from their  city council and Congress.
Estimating projected efficiencies resulting from a modification to USPC’s  jurisdiction is also difficult. This is mainly because USPC would still incur  operating costs related to its authorities over federal offenders even after  its jurisdiction over D.C. offenders was transferred. In addition, USPC’s  operations with respect to D.C. offenders would still need to operate for  some amount of time before a new or altered entity would be ready to  assume its responsibilities. Thus, there would be some overlap of  expenses before funding shifted.
It is also important to note that D.C. government organizations that could  oversee a new or altered entity already rely on federal funding. For  example, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia received about  $115 million in funding from the federal government in fiscal year 2014.
Additionally, the Public Defender Service for District of Columbia’s Parole  Division, which provides representation to D.C. offenders facing  revocation before USPC, among other things, received about $40 million  in fiscal year 2014 from the federal government to do so. Thus,  withdrawing funding from USPC to provide additional federal funds to  another organization that already receives federal funding would likely  just shift the federal burden. On the other hand, if the new or altered entity  could perform USPC’s functions related to D.C. offenders more efficiently  and at a lower cost than USPC, then federal savings might be realized.  Assessing USPC’s current operational expenses and analyzing where  efficiencies could be achieved would require a thorough evaluation. Such  an evaluation, and the implementation of any changes resulting from it,  could require upfront costs. Thus, it is difficult to estimate whether or not  any longer term savings could be achieved after the initial investments to  alter an existing entity or establish a new organization.
section_title: Delays in Decision Making
paragraphs: Altering the characteristics of an existing entity or establishing a new  organization with the structure to assume USPC’s jurisdiction could  initially result in delays in decision-making but the longer term impact is  also challenging to assess. For example, the altered or newly created  organization would need time to start up and establish formal agreements  with its criminal justice partners such as CSOSA. According to USPC and  CSOSA officials, this could result in the other entity experiencing potential  delays in making parole or supervised release decisions. These officials  further stated that such delays could result in increased incarceration and  supervision costs, risks of litigation, and threats to public safety.
Specifically, according to USPC and CSOSA officials, because offenders  cannot be released until the organization processes decisions, delays in  decision-making by the other entity could result in, for example, offenders  staying incarcerated longer and having higher housing-related costs.  These officials also stated that if offenders are under supervision and a  decision to revoke their status is delayed, then this could result in more  supervision-related expenses. Further, according to USPC and CSOSA  officials, when decisions are made outside the statutory timeframes  because of delays, offenders could be positioned to file lawsuits, which  could result in additional costs related to, for example, defending the  organization’s actions. Finally, according to USPC officials, if courts were  to rule in favor of those offenders, they could potentially offer early  release or reduced sentences to them, which could result in public safety  threats.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ, CSOSA, and  the D.C. government. They did not provide written comments. USPC and  CSOSA provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the  draft as appropriate.
If you or your staff have any questions about our work, please contact me  at (202) 512-9627 or MaurerD@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Number of Offenders under USPC’s Jurisdiction from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2014
section_title: Appendix II: Criminal Justice Entities Involved with District of Columbia Offenders
paragraphs: Table 6 describes the federal and local agencies involved with District of  Columbia offenders. We identified these entities by reviewing our prior  work on the District’s criminal justice system and other information on the  key responsibilities of these federal and District criminal justice  organizations.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or MaurerD@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth (Assistant Director);  David Alexander; Pedro Almoguera; Willie Commons, III; Emily Gunn;  Eric Hauswirth; Susan Hsu; Katherine Lee; and Juan Tapia-Videla made  key contributions to this report.