Examines the offending patterns of persons on federal community supervision in 2005 by offender characteristics and prior criminal history. It includes the number and types of crimes offenders committed prior to and after being placed on community supervision. The report examines arrests of released offenders by federal and nonfederal (state and local) law enforcement agencies. It also compares characteristics and recidivism outcomes of offenders released from federal prison to offenders released from state prison in 2005. Findings are based on records obtained from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the FBI's Interstate Identification Index, and state repositories.
- Nonfederal (i.e., state and local) law enforcement agencies were responsible for approximately three-quarters (76%) of prior arrests of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005.
- Nonfederal charges accounted for more than two-thirds (68%) of all arrests that occurred during the 5 years following placement on federal community supervision.
- Within 1 year following placement in 2005 on community supervision, 18% of the federal offenders had been arrested at least once. At the end of the 5-year follow-up period, 43% had been arrested.
- Among those conditionally released from federal prison, nearly half (47%) were arrested within 5 years, compared to more than three-quarters (77%) of state prisoners released on community supervision.
- About 3 in 10 federal prisoners released to a term of community supervision returned to prison within 5 years, while nearly 6 in 10 state prisoners conditionally released returned in 5 years.
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Time Served in State Prison, 2018 — Supplemental Tables
- What Emergency Management Needs to Know about Corrections / What Corrections Needs to Know about Emergency Management
- Factors that Facilitate and Hinder Implementation of a Problem Oriented Policing Intervention in Crime Hot Spots: Suggestions to Improve Implementation Based on a Field Experiment