U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1999 April 2001, NCJ 186179 --------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cfjs99.htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#cfjs ----------------------------------------------------------- This Bureau of Justice Statistics Report was prepared by the Urban Institute under the supervision of Steven K. Smith and John Scalia, Jr.,of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This report was prepared under BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K 015. Principal staff at the Urban Institute were Laura Winterfield, William J. Sabol, William Adams, Avi Bhati, Barbara Parthasarathy, Jake Rosenfeld, and Yan Yuan. Layout and design were by David Williams. Tom Hester and Ellen Goldberg of BJS provided editorial review. This report is made possible through the cooperation of the following Federal agencies and their staffs: The United States Marshals Service (USMS), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The staff who provided expert advice about the source records include: Joe Briggs (USMS); Steven Schlesinger and Catherine Whitaker (AOUSC); Siobhan Sperin and Barbara Tone (EOUSA); and Gerald Gaes and Nancy Miller (BOP). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. BJS authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use all or any part of the material in this publication; citation to source, however, is appreciated. An electronic version of this report and the data underlying graphics may be found on the BJS Internet Home Page (http://www. ojp.usdoj.go v/bjs/). The BJS-sponso red Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center (FJSRC) Internet Home Page (http://fjsrc. urban.org) provides online access to the Federal Justice database. Users may download data from the Federal Justice database for independent analysis or use the online query system to quickly obtain customized statistics. To order additional copies of this report or CD-ROMs containing the Federal Justice database, call the BJS Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277. Contents Highlights Arrest Prosecution Pretrial release Adjudication Sentencing Appeals Corrections Introduction Organization of the Compendium Modifications in the 1999 Compendium Notes to reader System overview Chapter 1. Arrests for Federal offenses Arrests by offense categories Arrests by law enforcement agencies Arrests across demographic groups Arrests by Drug Enforcement Administration agents Tables Chapter notes Chapter 2. Prosecution U.S. attorneys' decisions Suspects in matters received Suspects in matters concluded Tables Chapter notes Chapter 3. Pretrial release Types of pretrial release Factors relating to release or detention Pretrial outcomes by offense categories Pretrial outcomes across demographic groups Length of pretrial detention Tables Chapter notes Chapter 4. Adjudication Defendants in cases filed Defendants in cases terminated Case processing times Convictions by U.S. magistrates Characteristics of convicted defendants Tables Chapter notes Chapter 5. Sentencing Offenders convicted and sentences imposed Average prison sentences imposed Relationship between sentence imposed and mode of conviction Characteristics of offenders sentenced to prison Tables Chapter notes Chapter 6. Appeals Appeals filed Appeals terminated Tables Chapter notes Chapter 7. Corrections Federal offenders under supervision Outcomes of offenders completing supervision Characteristics of offenders completing supervision Admissions, releases, and standing population of Federal prisoners Federal prisoners: First releases and time served Characteristics of Federal prisoners Tables Chapter notes Methodology The Federal justice database Table construction and interpretation Offense classifications Source agencies for Compendium data tables Glossary Tables Chapter 1. Arrests for Federal offenses October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Arrests for Federal offenses, by offense Arrests for Federal offenses and booked by USMS, by Federal law enforcement agency Characteristics of Federal arrestees Characteristics of suspects arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, by type of drug Characteristics of suspects arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, by weapon use at time of arrest Chapter 2. Prosecution October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Suspects in matters received by U.S. attorneys, by offense Disposition of suspects in matters concluded, by offense Suspects in matters concluded and declined, by investigating agency Basis for declination of prosecution by U.S. attorneys Disposition of matters declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by offense Mean and median processing times from receipt to filing or declination, by offense Chapter 3. Pretrial release October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Type of pretrial release, by offense Type of pretrial release, by defendant characteristics Form of pretrial detention, by offense Form of pretrial detention, by defendant characteristics Pretrial detention hearing outcomes, by offense Pretrial detention hearing outcomes, by defendant characteristics Behavior of defendants released prior to trial, by offense Behavior of defendants released prior to trial, by type of release Behavior of defendants released prior to trial, by defendant characteristics Length of pretrial detention, by form of release or detention, and most serious offense charged Chapter 4. Adjudication October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Defendants in cases commenced, by offense Disposition of cases terminated, by offense Time from filing to disposition of cases terminated Dispositions by U.S. magistrates Characteristics of convicted offenders Chapter 5. Sentencing October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Sentence types in cases terminated, by offense Type and length of sentences imposed, by offense Sentences imposed on convicted offenders, by offense of conviction and method of disposition Convicted offenders sentenced to incarceration, by offense and offender characteristics Average incarceration sentence lengths imposed, by offense and offender characteristics Median incarceration sentence lengths imposed, by offense and offender characteristics Chapter 6. Appeals, 79 October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Criminal appeals filed, by type of criminal case and offense Criminal appeals filed and criminal appeals terminated, by offense Criminal appeals terminated, by type of criminal case and offense Disposition of criminal appeals terminated on the merits, by offense Criminal appeals cases terminated on the merits, by nature of offense Chapter 7. Corrections October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Federal offenders under supervision, by offense Characteristics of Federal offenders under supervision, by offense Outcomes of probation supervision, by offense Characteristics of offenders terminating probation supervision Outcomes of supervised release, by offense Characteristics of offenders terminating supervised release Outcomes of parole, by offense Characteristics of offenders terminating parole Admissions and releases of Federal prisoners, by offense Characteristics of Federal prison population, by major offense category Number of first releases from Federal prison, by release method and sentence length Average time to first release and percent of sentence served, for prisoners released by standard methods Mean time served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods Percent of sentence served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods Characteristics of first releases from prison, by offense, all releases Mean time served to first release from Federal prison for prisoners released by standard methods, by offense and offender characteristics Figures Highlights October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure H Average length of sentences imposed, by offense Figure H Admissions to Federal Bureau of Prisons, releases, and prisoners at yearend, by offense Figure H Average time to first release, standard releases, by offense System overview October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure S System overview, Federal criminal case processing Figure S Federal criminal case processing Chapter 1. Arrests for Federal offenses October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure Type of drug involved in drug arrests, by race of arrestee Figure Type of immigration arrests Chapter 2. Prosecution October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure Suspects in matters concluded: Percentage of suspects that were prosecuted, declined, referred to other authorities for disposition, or disposed by U.S. magistrate Figure Of suspects in matters declined, percent referred or handled in other prosecutions or settled through alternative resolution Chapter 3. Pretrial release October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure Percent of defendants released prior to case disposition, by offense category Figure Detention hearings held, by offense category Figure Pretrial release rates, by defendant characteristics Chapter 4. Adjudication October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure Disposition of cases terminated Figure Average time from filing to disposition of cases terminated, by offense Chapter 5. Sentencing October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure Rates of incarceration and probation for offenders convicted and sentenced in cases terminated Figure Incarceration and probation sentence lengths (in months) of offenders convicted and sentenced in cases terminated Figure Average prison sentences imposed on defendants convicted at trial or by guilty plea Chapter 6. Appeals October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure Types of criminal appeal cases Figure Appeals cases filed, by type of offense Figure Disposition of criminal appeals terminated Chapter 7. Corrections October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Figure Violation rates of offenders terminating probation, supervised release, or parole, by type of violation Figure Violation rates of offenders completing probation, supervised release, or parole, by category of offense Figure Rates of violation of conditions of supervision, by level of education Figure Mean lengths of sentence imposed and time served (in months) for offenders released from prison for the first time Figure Characteristics of first releasees ------------------------------------------------------ Highlights The number of suspects investigated by U.S. attorneys increased by 2%between 1998 and 1999, from 115,692 to 117,994; between 1990 and 1999, the number of investigations increased by 17%. About three-quarters of those for which the investigation was concluded were prosecuted -- either before a U.S. district court judge (60%) or before a U.S. magistrate (13%) -- and 27% of those investigated were not prosecuted by U.S. attorneys. The number of defendants prosecuted in Federal courts increased by 2% between 1998 and 1999, from 78,172 to 80,031. The number of offenders under Federal correctional supervision increased 52% between 1990 and 1999. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the number of offenders under Federal correctional supervision was 215,687 compared to 141,790 during 1990. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the number of Federal inmates serving a sentence of imprisonment increased by 10,260 to 119,185. The number under community supervision was 96,502. Almost two-thirds of those under community supervision were on post-incarceration supervised release (59,644) or parole (5,129). Arrest During 1999, 109,857 offenders were arrested by Federal law enforcement agencies for violations of Federal law. A third of all arrests were for public order offenses, 29% for drug offenses, 15% for property offenses, 14% for supervision violations, 4% for violent offenses, and 4% to secure and safeguard a material witness. About 72% of all arrests for Federal offenses were made by agencies of the Department of Justice, while Treasury Department agencies accounted for 11% of all arrests. Within the Department of Justice, 36% of arrests were made by the U.S. Marshals Service, 33% of arrests were made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 15% each were made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Prosecution During 1999 U.S. attorneys initiated criminal investigations involving 117,994 suspects, and they concluded their investigations of 113,933 suspects. Thirty-nine percent of the suspects were investigated for public-order, 32% for drug, 24% for property, and about 5% for violent offenses. The number of suspects investigated for immigration offenses increased between 1998 and 1999, from 14,114 to 15,539. Of the suspects in criminal matters concluded, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 68,384 in U.S. district courts and 14,545 were disposed of before U.S. magistrates. During 1999, U.S. attorneys declined 27% of matters concluded. Suspects in criminal matters involving drug or violent offenses were slightly more likely to be prosecuted in a U.S. district court (77% and 59%, respectively) than were the suspects involved in public-order or property offenses (53% and 50%, respectively). Suspects involved in property offenses (such as fraud) or regulatory public-order offenses were more likely to be declined for prosecution (42% and 63%, respectively) than were suspects investigated for drug or violent offenses (17% and 35%, respectively). Pretrial release During 1999 about 47% of the 65,559 defendants who terminated pretrial services were released at some time prior to their criminal trial. Defendants charged with property offenses such as embezzlement, forgery, and larceny and those charged with regulatory public-order offenses or tax law violations were more likely to be released prior to trial (between 80% and 96% of these defendants were released) than were defendants charged with violent offenses, drug trafficking, weapons, or immigration offenses (between 10% and 46% of these defendants were released). The proportion of defendants released prior to their trial decreased from 62% during 1990 to 47% during 1999. Defendants charged with violent, drug, weapon, or immigration offenses were considerably less likely to be released during 1999 than during 1990. During 1990, 45% of defendants charged with violent offenses, 54% of drug defendants, 63% of weapon defendants, and 30% of immigration defendants were released at some point prior to trial. By contrast, during 1999, 35% of defendants charged with violent offenses, 41% of drug defendants, 46% of weapon defendants, and 10% of immigration defendants were released. Defendants having a prior criminal history of serious or violent crimes were less likely to be released than those without a prior criminal history; defendants with more criminal history were less likely to be released than those with less criminal history. Twenty-five percent of the defendants with a prior violent felony conviction were released before trial, while 59% of defendants with no prior convictions were released. Forty-nine percent of defendants with one prior conviction were released, as compared to 38% of defendants having two to four prior convictions and 27% of defendants having five or more prior convictions. About 82% of defendants released prior to trial completed their periods of release without violating the conditions of their release. About 18% of defendants released violated the conditions of their release, and 7% of defendants had their release revoked. Defendants charged with drug and violent offenses were more likely to commit at least one violation of their conditions of release (29% and 23%, respectively) and to have their release revoked (10% and 12%, respectively) than were other defendants. Defendants released during 1999 were more likely to violate the conditions of their pretrial release than those released during 1990. During 1999, 18% of those released at some point prior to trial violated a condition of their release. During 1990, 12% violated their release conditions. Adjudication During 1999, 80,031 defendants were charged in Federal courts with a criminal offense, about 84% of whom were charged with felonies. Of the defendants charged with felonies, 41% were prosecuted for drug trafficking, 30% for public-order, 22% for property, and 4% for violent offenses. The number of defendants charged with a felony immigration offense increased by 14% between 1998 and 1999, from 9,254 to 10,550. The number charged with a felony drug offense increased by 5%, from 28,021 to 29,306. Criminal cases were concluded against 75,723 defendants during 1999, 83% of whom had been charged with felonies. The proportion of defendants convicted in the Federal courts increased from 81% during 1990 to 87% during 1999. Additionally, the proportion of defendants who pleaded guilty increased from 88% during 1990 to 95% during 1999. Ninety-one percent of defendants charged with felonies were convicted. The conviction rate was about the same for all major offense categories: 92% of defendants charged with public-order offenses and 90% of violent, property, and drug defendants. Sentencing Defendants convicted during 1999 were more likely to be sentenced to prison than those convicted during 1990. During 1999, 72% of defendants were sentenced to prison compared to 60% of those sentenced during 1990. About 93% of felony drug offenders and 92% of violent felony offenders received prison sentences during 1999, as did 84% of felony public-order offenders and 59% of felony property offenders. Average length of sentences imposed, by offense, October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999 Most serious Average sen- offense of conviction tence length All offenses 57.8 mo Felonies 59.4 Violent offenses 87.7 Property offenses 24.0 Drug offenses 75.4 Public-order offenses 48.7 Misdemeanors 10.7 The 47,659 offenders sentenced to prison received, on average, 57.8 months of imprisonment. Offenders sentenced for violent felony offenses and felony drug offenses received longer average prison terms (87.7 and 75.4 months, respectively) than those convicted of felony property and public-order offenses (24.0 and 48.7 months, respectively). While the proportion of defendants sentenced to prison is at an all-time high, average prison sentences have declined from the peak attained during 1992. During 1992 the average prison term imposed was 62.6 months; for violent felony offenders, the average term imposed was 94.8 months; for drug felony offenders, the average term was 84.1 months. Appeals Between 1994 and 1999, the number of appeals received by the U.S. Courts of Appeals remained relatively constant between 10,000 and 11,000 annually. However, the proportion of criminal defendants appealing some aspect of their conviction decreased from 21% during 1994 to 16% during 1999. During 1999, 10,251 criminal appeals were filed. Forty-seven percent of the appeals filed challenged both the conviction and sentence imposed. Only 4% of appeals were filed by the Government. Of the 10,675 appeals terminated during 1999, 77% (or 8,260) were terminated on the merits. In 84% of the appeals terminated on the merits, the district court ruling was affirmed, at least in part. Corrections Community supervision Between 1990 and 1999, the number of offenders on community supervision increased by 14%, from 84,801 during 1990 to 96,502 during 1999. While nearly equal proportions of offenders were serving terms of probation and post-incarceration supervision (parole or supervised release) during 1990, during 1999, almost two-thirds were serving a term of post-incarceration supervision (62% supervised release and 5% parole) while 33% were on probation. Drug offenders comprised 11% of offenders on probation, 53% of offenders serving terms of supervised release, and 52% of offenders on parole. Property offenders comprised 38% of offenders on probation, 26% of offenders serving terms of supervised release, and 11% of offenders on parole. A total of 16,002 offenders completed their terms of probation during 1999. Most of these offenders (81%) completed their terms of probation successfully. Eleven percent of probationers terminating supervision during 1999 committed technical violations; 5% committed new crimes. A total of 21,570 offenders completed terms of supervised release during 1999. Of these offenders, 64% successfully completed their terms without violating conditions of release; 20% committed technical violations; and 13% committed new crimes. Admissions to Federal Bureau of Prisons, releases, and prisoners at yearend, by offense, October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999 Most serious offense All All Population of conviction admissions releases at yearend All offenses 63,986 52,472 119,185 Violent offenses 8.1% 8.6% 11.2% Property offenses 16.5 19.8 7.3 Drug offenses 41.4 39.2 57.4 Public-order offenses 32.3 31.0 22.2 Note: Percentages of offenses do not total to 100% due to offenders whose most serious offense of conviction is unknown or indeterminable. A total of 2,503 offenders completed terms of parole during 1999. Of these offenders, 55% successfully completed their terms without violating conditions of release; 26% committed technical violations; and 14% committed new crimes. Prison Between 1990 and 1999, the number of inmates serving a sentence of imprisonment more than doubled, from 56,989 during 1990 to 119,185 during 1999. During 1999, 47,391 prisoners were received by the Bureau of Prisons from U.S. district court commitments. An additional 16,595 prisoners were returned to Federal prison for violating conditions of probation, parole, or supervised release, or were admitted to Federal prison from elsewhere than a U.S. district court. Drug offenders -- who comprised a little over 50% of persons admitted into Federal prison -- comprised the largest percentage of persons in prison (57%) at the end of 1999. During 1999, 37,672 prisoners were released for the first time from Federal prison after commitment by a U.S. district court. Of these, 33,748 were released by standard methods and 3,924 were released by extraordinary means (death, treaty transfer, sentence commutation, or drug treatment). An additional 14,800 prisoners were released from subsequent commitments to Federal prison. Time served by Federal offenders increased from 19 months during 1990 to 28 months during 1999. Additionally, the proportion of the sentence served increased from 65% during 1990 to 87% during 1999. Violent and drug offenders were among those offenders who served the longest prison terms (53 months and 40 months, respectively). Average time to first release, standard releases, by offense, October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999 Most serious original Mean time offense of conviction served All offenses 28.0 mo Violent offenses 53.3 Property offenses 15.6 Drug offenses 40.1 Public-order offenses 19.1 Introduction This Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report presents an overview of case processing in the Federal criminal justice system. The data presented are compiled from the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) database. The FJSP database includes data provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in addition to providing data describing defendants in cases processed by the Federal judiciary, provides data describing defendants processed by the Federal pretrial services agencies and the Federal probation and supervision service. The BJS Federal Justice Statistics database is archived on CD-ROM, copies of which are available from the BJS Clearinghouse. The data can be downloaded from the Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center located at http://fjsrc.urban.org. Each agency reports on those defendants it processed during a given year in an annual statistical report. These agency reports are often incomparable due to the varying methods the agencies use to report case processing activities. As reported by an interagency working group, headed by BJS, the differences in the case processing statistics are attributable, in part, to the differing needs and missions of the agencies. The working group found the following differences in reported statistics: * the universe of cases reported during a given period -- some agencies report on those case processing events that occurred during a particular period, whereas others report on those events recorded during a particular period; and * many of the commonly used case processing statistics suspect/defendant processed, offense committed, disposition, and sentence imposed -- are defined differently across agencies. BJS, through its FJSP, has recognized the incomparability of these annual statistical reports and has attempted to reconcile many of the differences identified by the working group. For instance, by combining databases from several years, BJS is able to report on those cases that actually occurred during the reporting period. Additionally, commonly used case processing statistics are made comparable across stages by applying uniform definitions to data obtained from each agency. Because definitions in the FJSP are consistent with those categories in BJS programs describing State defendants convicted, sentenced, or imprisoned, the comparison of Federal and State case processing statistics is facilitated. The 1999 Compendium, 14th in a series which includes 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, describes defendants processed at each stage of the Federal justice system -- arrest by Federal law enforcement agencies (chapter 1), investigation and prosecution by the U.S. attorneys (chapter 2), pretrial release or detention (chapter 3), adjudication in the U.S. district courts (chapter 4), sentencing (chapter 5), appeal of the conviction and/or sentence imposed (chapter 6), and corrections (chapter 7) -- for the 12-month period ending September 30, 1999 (the Federal fiscal year). Prior to 1994, the Compendium was reported on a calendar- year basis. The tables presented report events that occurred during the Federal fiscal year -- October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999. Generally, the tables include both individual and organizational defendants. Organizational defendants are not included in tables describing pretrial release and detention or tables showing defendants sentenced to incarceration. Juvenile offenders charged as adults are included in the reported statistics. Felony and misdemeanor distinctions are provided where possible (see "Offense classifications" in Methodology). Organization of the Compendium Each chapter of the Compendium describes a major stage in the processing of criminal suspects and defendants. Each chapter contains Chapter notes that describe the universes of data used in the tables and information relevant to the interpretation of individual tables. The Compendium contains the following: Chapter 1. This chapter describes arrests made by Federal law enforcement agencies for violations of Federal law, including the characteristics of arrestees. Chapter 2. This chapter describes decisions made by Federal prosecutors in screening criminal matters and the characteristics of defendants in cases prosecuted or declined for prosecution. Chapter 3. This chapter describes the pretrial release and detention practices of the Federal judiciary, including the characteristics of defendants detained or released pending trial. Chapter 4. This chapter describes actions by the Federal judiciary in adjudicating defendants in cases filed by the U.S. attorneys, including the offense charged and characteristics of defendants convicted. Chapter 5. This chapter describes the sentences imposed by the Federal judiciary on convicted defendants, including the characteristics of defendants sentenced. Chapter 6. This chapter describes appeals of criminal convictions and sentences imposed in the Federal courts, including the original offense charged. Chapter 7. This chapter describes defendants under Federal correctional supervision -- probation, parole, and supervised release -- including the outcome of the supervision (successful completion or violations), admissions to and releases from Federal prison, and time served by Federal inmates. Methodology. This section describes the procedures followed in analyzing data and developing tables. Glossary. This section contains definitions for terms used in the Compendium. Since many terms used in the text and tables have specialized meanings (either because they refer to Federal law or because of reporting procedures by the Federal agencies supplying the data), readers are encouraged to check the glossary for exact definitions of tabulated data. Comparing Case Processing Statistics. This document, prepared by an interagency working group tasked to reconcile differences in Federal criminal case processing statistics, identifies and describes the major differences in the way Federal criminal justice agencies collect, tabulate, and report criminal case processing events. Modifications in the 1999 Compendium Figure S.2 shows counts of suspects, defendants, and offenders in various stages of the Federal criminal justice system. Previously, this figure presented this information as a percent of suspects investigated. Two new tables have been added to Chapter 1. These show characteristics of suspects arrested by DEA agents, the kinds of drugs for which these arrests were made, and the types of weapon used at the time of arrest, if suspect was armed. Sex-related offenses have been renamed and reclassified in the 1999 Compendium. "Rape" has been renamed to "Sexual abuse" and now includes all violent sexual offenses. All "nonviolent sex offenses" are now reclassified under "Other public-order offenses." Tables in all chapters reflect this change. Tables displaying the race of the suspect/defendant/offender now show four races, where previously two were displayed. In addition to "white" and "black," these tables now display relevant statistics for "Native American" and "Asian/Pacific Islander" categories. Notes to reader The tables in the Compendium were constructed to permit valid comparisons within each table and to allow the reader to compare percentages (but not raw totals) across tables. It should be understood, however, that the total number of subjects/defendants shown in a particular table may not equal the number of subjects/defendants involved in a particular stage of processing, since some records could not be linked and some data sources did not include information on particular data elements classified in a particular table. Data notes indicate the exact universe for individual tables. The Compendium is a statistical presentation of Federal criminal justice information with limited analyses of trends or explanatory factors underlying the statistics. Analyses of Federal justice statistics may be found in special reports and other publications, some of which are cited in the Compendium. Assessment of changing patterns in the Compendium tabulations may depend on detailed examination of subcategories not shown in the tabulations or may require other sources of information, such as knowledge of legislation or Federal agency procedures. Chapter 1. Arrests for Federal offenses Discussion Tables October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Arrests for Federal offenses, by offense Arrests for Federal offenses and booked by USMS, by Federal law enforcement agency Characteristics of Federal arrestees Characteristics of suspects arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, by type of drug Characteristics of suspects arrested by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, by weapon use at time of arrest Chapter notes Sixty-six Federal agencies employ full-time personnel empowered to make arrests. As of June 1998, these agencies employed about 83,000 officers. ***Footnote 1: Brian A. Reaves and Timothy C. Hart, Federal Law Enforcement Offices, 1998, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC (NCJ-177607).*** More than half (56%) of all law enforcement officers were employed by the Department of Justice. The Department of Treasury employed 24% of all officers. Offenders arrested by Federal agencies are transferred to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service for processing, transportation, and detention. ***Footnote 2: The Federal agency making the arrest may be different from the Federal agency initiating the investigation involving the arrestee. Statistics describing agencies initiating investigations are shown in table 2.3 Of chapter 2, "Prosecution."*** During 1999, the U.S. Marshals Service received 109,857 offenders for processing from the Federal law enforcement agencies, including nearly 29,000 offenders arrested by deputy U.S. Marshals. Arrests by offense categories During 1999, 109,857 offenders were arrested by Federal law enforcement agencies for violations of Federal law. A third of all arrests were for public order offenses; 29% for drug offenses; 15% for property offenses; 14% for supervision violations; 4% for violent offenses; and 4% to secure and safeguard a material witness. Approximately 39% of drug arrests involved cocaine; 29%, marijuana; 11%, amphetamine (or methamphetamine); 7%, heroin; and the remainder other drugs or drug paraphernalia. Almost two-thirds of arrests for public-order offenses were immigration offenses. Most (82%) of these were for illegal entry into the United States; 13% involved alien smuggling; 4% involved false claims of citizenship by entrants to the United States; and about 2% involved other immigration violations. Arrests by law enforcement agencies During 1999, 72% of all arrests for Federal offenses were made by components of the Department of Justice; the Treasury components accounted for 11% of all arrests. In addition, 3% of arrests were made by State and local agencies and 7% of offenders were arrested after voluntarily reporting to the U.S. Marshals following a summons. Within the Department of Justice, 36% of arrests were made by the U.S. Marshals Service, 34% were made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 15% each were made by the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, and less than 1% were made by other Department of Justice components. Within the Treasury Department, 59% of arrests were made by the U.S. Customs Service, 20% were made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 15% were made by the Secret Service, and 6% were made by the IRS. Arrests across demographic groups Most (85%) of offenders arrested by Federal law enforcement agencies during 1999 were male. Most (71%) were white and about a quarter were black. Individuals between the 21 and 40 years comprised nearly 70% of all those arrested. A third of those arrested were identified as noncitizens. Most (67%) offenders arrested for drug offenses were white, while 31% were black. Of those offenders arrested on charges involving cocaine, 59% were white and 40% were black. Of those offenders arrested on charges involving marijuana, 92% were white and 7% were black. Arrests by Drug Enforcement Administration agents During 1999, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration arrested 37,746 suspects. Some of these suspects were referred to U.S. attorneys for a prosecutorial decision; others were referred to a State prosecutor. Suspects arrested by DEA agents were predominantly white (67%) non-Hispanic (62%) males (83%) who were U.S. citizens (77%). The highest proportion of them were between 21 and 30 years old (43%). Whites were usually the highest proportion of suspects arrested for all drug types, with the exception of crack cocaine, where blacks were the highest proportion. Almost 4% of all suspects were armed at the time of arrest. Males were almost twice as likely to be armed at arrest as females (5% versus 3%). Non-Hispanics (5%) and U.S. citizens (5%) were more likely to be armed at time of arrest than were Hispanics (3%) and U.S. noncitizens. If armed at arrest, offenders from all demographic subgroups were more likely to be armed with a handgun than any other weapon. Chapter notes Tables 1.1-1.3 were derived from the U.S. Marshals Prisoner Tracking System. Only records of arrests made during October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, were selected. Information on individual cases, offenses, and detainees were used to construct the tables. Tables 1.4-1.5 were derived from the DEA Defendants Statistical System. Only records of arrests made during October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, were selected. Some suspects arrested by DEA agents may be transferred to State or local jurisdiction and not to the U.S. Marshals service. Therefore, counts of DEA arrests from tables 1.4-1.5 can be expected to be higher than those reported in table 1.2. Offenses of arrest were classified by the U.S. Marshals into their four-digit offense codes. These were then aggregated into the offense categories shown in the tables. These categories are similar, but may not be directly comparable, to categories used in other tables of this Compendium. Chapter 2 Prosecution Discussion Tables October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Suspects in matters received by U.S. attorneys, by offense Disposition of suspects in matters concluded, by offense Suspects in matters concluded and declined, by investigating agency Basis for declination of prosecution by U.S. attorneys Disposition of matters declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by offense Mean and median processing times from receipt to filing or declination, by offense Chapter notes Federal criminal cases may be brought by the U. S. Attorney's Office, by the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, or by other authorized agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service. The 93 U.S. attorneys serve as the chief Federal law enforcement officers within their respective districts. Investigations are most commonly referred to a U.S. attorney by a Federal investigative agency (primarily the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Postal Inspection Service; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and the Secret Service), by the Criminal Division, or by a State or local investigative agency. Investigations may also be initiated -- and cases brought directly -- by U.S. attorneys or by the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This chapter reports only on suspects that were at least partially investigated by U.S. attorneys. U.S. attorneys' decisions After criminal investigations are initiated and criminal suspects are referred to them, U.S. attorneys may file charges against defendants in a U.S. district court, or they may decline to file these charges for reasons such as weak or insufficient evidence, minimal Federal interest, lack of resources, or lack of criminal intent. Matters that are declined may be referred to another authority for prosecution or be settled through alternative resolution procedures. U.S. attorneys may also file cases before U.S. magistrates, who have the authority to adjudicate misdemeanor offenses (18 U.S.C. sec. 3401). Because of the relatively less serious nature of these cases, and because they are handled by magistrates, the U.S. attorneys count these cases as criminal matters disposed by U.S. magistrates. The decision to prosecute a suspect in a criminal matter depends upon many factors, including the Attorney General's priorities, U.S. attorney priorities and resources, laws governing each type of offense, and the strength of evidence in each case. During 1999, 60% of suspects in all offense categories were prosecuted before U.S. district court judges, while an additional 13% were handled by U.S. magistrates. Suspects were prosecuted at different rates depending on their offense. Suspects involved in violent and drug offenses were more likely to be prosecuted before U.S. district court judges than were those involved in property and public-order offenses. Suspects involved in drug offenses were the most likely (77%) to be prosecuted. Suspects involved in property offenses were the least likely to be prosecuted (50%). However, suspects involved in property offenses were more likely to have their matters declined and not referred to other authorities for prosecution (34%) than were suspects involved in other types of criminal matters. These cases were resolved by other means, including restitution, civil/administrative procedures, and pretrial diversion. Suspects in matters received During 1999 there were 117,994 suspects in new matters received for investigation by U.S. attorneys.*** Footnote 1: See Chapter notes, item 1, p. 33. The 1999 data are not directly comparable to the 1993 and prior compendia.*** Of these suspects, 39% were investigated for public-order offenses, 32% for drug offenses, and 24% for property offenses. Five percent of all suspects were investiated for violent crimes. Relative percentages of offenses reflect criminal activity as well as Federal investigative, prosecutorial, and statutory priorities. For example, during 1999 priority areas for U.S. attorneys included drug and violent crimes (including firearms prosecutions), international terrorism, white collar crimes, and prosecution of those responsible for hate crimes and attacks on houses of worship (with the National Church Arson Task Force).***Footnote 2: Statistical Report, United States Attorneys' Offices, Fiscal Year 1999. U.S. De- partment of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Washington, DC.*** Suspects in matters concluded Upon receiving a matter, a U.S. attorney will either immediately decline it for prosecution or investigate further. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a matter may be filed as a criminal case in a U.S. district court, referred to a U.S. magistrate, or declined for prosecution. Of the 113,933 suspects in criminal matters concluded during 1999, 60% were prosecuted in U.S. district court, 27% were declined for prosecution, and 13% were referred to U.S. magistrates. ***Footnote 3: The number of suspects in criminal matters conclude is not comparable to the 1993 and prior compendia. See Chapter notes, item 2, p. 33, for details.*** Suspects prosecuted -- The likelihood of prosecution in U.S. district court varied widely across offense categories. Drug and violent offenders were more likely to be prosecuted than those involved in property and public-order offenses. U.S. attorneys prosecuted approximately 77% of suspects involved in drug offenses, 60% of those in violent offenses, 53% of those in public- order offenses, and 50% of those in property offenses. Differences in rates of prosecution within major categories were substantial. For example, among violent offenders, 75% of robbery suspects were prosecuted, while 58% of murder, 44% of assault, and 43% sexual abuse suspects were prosecuted. Among property offenders, suspects investigated for counterfeiting were prosecuted at a higher rate than those involved in fraud (73% compared with 48%), and among suspects involved in public-order offenses, immigration (78%), weapon (70%), and tax law violation suspects (62%) were much more likely to be prosecuted than suspects in escape (24%) and civil rights (7%) offenses. Suspects in matters concluded and declined, by investigating agency -- During 1999, 59% of suspects in matters concluded were investigated by components of the Department of Justice; the Treasury Department investigated 19% of suspects in matters concluded. In addition, 10% of suspects in matters concluded were investigated by independent Federal agencies and State/local agencies (not shown in a table). Among the investigating agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency (1%), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (3%) and the National Park Service (7%) had among the lowest declination rates, while the Office of the Inspector General (54%), the Indian Affairs Bureau (53%), and the Environmental Protection Agency (61%) were among those with the highest declination rates. The declination rate for matters investigated by components of the Department of Justice (27%) was the same as the overall declination rate. Suspects in matters declined -- Suspects in matters involving violent offenses were less likely to be declined for prosecution (35%) than those involved in property offenses (42%) but more likely than those in drug offenses (17%). Suspects in public-order offenses were slightly less likely to be declined for prosecution than those involved in violent offenses -- 25% compared to 35%. The decision to decline prosecution is based on a number of factors, including the lack of prosecutable offense, alternative resolution, or case- and suspect-related reasons. Of the 31,004 declinations during 1999, 26% occurred because of case-related reasons, mostly due to weak evidence (21%); 22% occurred because there was no crime or criminal intent was lacking; and 23% occurred for other reasons, such as agency requests (6%) and lack of resources (4%). Not all suspects whose matters were declined for prosecution avoided prosecution. Twenty-two percent of the suspects in matters declined were referred to another authority for prosecution. An additional 5% were settled through alternative resolution procedures. Suspects involved in property offenses constituted the largest number of suspects who were referred by U.S. attorneys to other authorities for prosecution or resolution. Of the suspects whose matters were declined, those involved in drug offenses were the most likely to be referred to other authorities for prosecution or alternative resolution. Thirty-six percent of the drug suspects whose matters were declined prosecution by U.S. attorneys were referred for other prosecution or resolution, as were 27% of the public-order, 24% of violent and property offense suspects. Within major offense categories, the likelihood that suspects in matters declined for prosecution were referred to other authorities for prosecution or alternative resolution varied among specific offenses. Within property offenses, referral occurred with 37% of persons involved in counterfeiting, compared to 15% of suspects in arson and explosives cases. Within public-order offenses, 47% of agriculture suspects and 62% of escape suspects were referred to other authorities or had their case settled through alternative procedures, compared to 6% of suspects in civil rights cases. Defendants in cases concluded by U.S. magistrates Cases concluded by U.S. magistrates are, by statute, misdemeanors. ***Footnote 4: At the time that U.S. attorneys receive them, matters may not be classifiable as felonies or misdemeanors. If a U.S. magistrate disposes of a case or what the U.S. attorneys call a "matter" its offense level has been determined, by statute, to be a misdemeanor.*** Overall, U.S. magistrates disposed of 13% of all criminal matters investigated by U.S. attorneys. For most offenses, the likelihood that a U.S. magistrate concluded the matter was also relatively low. The most notable exception was escape, for which 53% of matters were concluded by U.S. magistrates. The escape offense category accounted for 10% of all cases concluded by U.S. magistrates. Most of the 2,829 escape violations were against defendants who absconded to avoid prosecution in State courts, the so-called "unlawful flight to avoid prosecution." Upon apprehension of the fugitive, these cases are normally dismissed by U.S. magistrates and turned over to the State for prosecution on the original warrant. Other types of offenses having comparably high rates of disposal by U.S. magistrates included migratory birds offenses (86%); conspiracy, aiding and abetting, traffic, and jurisdictional offenses (79%); and other property violations (68%). Processing times -- For matters concluded during 1999, the average number of months from receipt of a matter to its conclusion by a U.S. attorney as a case filing or declination or its disposal by a U.S. magistrate was 8.3 months. However, the time to process matters varied with the outcome of the matter. Matters concluded by U.S. magistrates in which the suspect was convicted took the least amount of time -- an average of 3.0 months, and at least 50% of these convictions occurred in about 30 days. Similarly, 50% of the matters declined for prosecution were declined within 13.8 months. Overall, suspects in violent and drug offenses were processed more quickly than suspects in other offenses. For key decisions, such as whether to file a case or decline a matter for prosecution, drug offenses were concluded slightly quicker than violent offenses (5.6 months compared to 6.3 months). At an average of 15.0 months, fraudulent property offenses took longer to conclude than other offenses. Chapter notes 1) Tables 2.1-2.6 were created from the Central System data files of the EOUSA. For table 2.1, only records which showed a matter received during 1999 were selected. For tables 2.2-2.6, only records which show a matter terminated by reason of declination, disposition by a U.S. magistrate, or filed as a case in U.S. district court from October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, were selected. In all of these tables, matters "declined immediately" -- those cases in which the U.S. attorney spent less than 1 hour investigating -- were excluded. 2) The number of suspects in matters investigated in table 2.1, and the number of suspects in matters concluded in tables 2.2 and 2.6 are not directly comparable to counts in the 1993 and prior compendia. In those years, these statistics included appellants in appeals filed or appeals terminated. In table 2.1 of this Compendium and its corresponding tables in 1994 and subsequent compendia, the number of suspects in matters received is limited to suspects in criminal matters that were filed as cases in U.S. district courts, handled by U.S. magistrates, or declined for prosecution. In the 1993 and prior compendia, the number of suspects in criminal matters received included criminal appeals. To obtain a number of suspects comparable to the statistic reported in the 1993 and prior compendia, add to the data in table 2.1 of this Compendium, the number of appellants in appeals that were handled by U.S. attorneys. In tables 2.2 and 2.6 of this Compendium and their corresponding tables in the 1994 and subsequent compendia, the number of suspects in matters concluded also is limited to those suspects whose matters were concluded by a case filing in a U.S. district court, by declination, or by disposition by a U.S. magistrate. In the 1993 and prior compendia, this number included appellants in criminal appeals terminated. To obtain a number that is comparable to the number reported in the 1993 and prior compendia, the number of appellants in appeals terminated and handled by U.S. attorneys needs to be added to the totals in table 2.2. 3) Offenses in the Central System data files are classified by the title and section of the United States Code for the most serious offense investigated, as determined by the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for the matter. For tables in this Compendium, these citations were translated into the corresponding four-digit offense codes used by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). These four-digit codes were then aggregated into the categories shown in the tables. U.S. Code citations often do not permit detailed classification of drug offenses by the type of criminal activity involved. A person charged with conspiracy is classified under the substantive offense alleged (for example, conspiracy to defraud is classified as fraud) unless type of conspiracy cannot be determined from the U.S. Code citation. Unclassified conspiracies are included among "conspiracy, aiding and abetting, traffic, and jurisdictional offenses" in tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6. The most serious offense investi- gated is based on the criminal lead charge as determined by the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for the criminal matter. 4) In the tables in this chapter, the "all offenses" row or "total declinations" row includes records whose offense category (basis for declination) is missing or indeter- minable. The percentage distributions in these tables, however, are based on the number of observations with nonmissing offenses (basis for declination) values. The number of missing values are reported either on a separate line or in a footnote. 5) In 1999, additional data for "lack of resources" as a reason for declination were discovered; these cases previously were coded as "unknown or indeterminat" in 1998 and prior years. Therefore, in table 2.4, the apparent increase in "lack of resources" as a declina- tion reason (between 1998-99) is due in large part to this additional information and reclassification of declination reasons from "unknown and indeterminate." Chapter 3 Pretrial release Discussion Tables October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999 Type of pretrial release, by offense Type of pretrial release, by defendant characteristics Form of pretrial detention, by offense Form of pretrial detention, by defendant characteristics Pretrial detention hearing outcomes, by offense Pretrial detention hearing outcomes, by defendant characteristics Behavior of defendants released prior to trial, by offense Behavior of defendants released prior to trial, by type of release Behavior of defendants released prior to trial, by defendant characteristics Length of pretrial detention, by form of release or detention, and most serious offense charged Chapter notes Chapter 3 Pretrial release The Bail Reform Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. sec. 3141) sets the terms for release and detention of defendants facing charges in Federal courts. At the time defendants first appear before a judicial officer, they may be (1) released on personal recognizance or unsecured bond; (2) released subject to conditions imposed by the court, possibly including traditional bail; (3) temporarily detained without bail (limited to 10 working days) to permit deportation, exclusion, or the revocation of previously granted conditional release; or (4) detained pending the outcome of a detention hearing.* 18U.S.C. sec. 3142(e) (1984)* According to the statute, a defendant must be brought before a judicial officer without "unnecessary delay" upon arrest. The judicial officer, who may be a judge but is generally a U.S. magistrate, determines whether the defendant will be released or detained prior to trial. If a hearing is required, the release decision may be delayed no longer than 3 days (or 5 days if requested by the defendant). At the initial appearance a recommendation to detain the defendant is made by the U.S. attorney and/or the pretrial services officer. If the court concurs with the recommendation to detain the defendant, a pretrial detention hearing is scheduled -- typically within 1 week of the initial appearance. At the pretrial detention hearing evidence is presented to show cause why the defendant should be detained pending adjudication of the charges. Recommendations to detain a defen- dant are limited to those instances where the defendant was charged with (1) a crime of violence, (2) an offense with a statutory maximum sen- tence of life imprisonment or death, (3) a drug offense with a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years or more imprisonment, or (4) any felony offense if the defendant had been convicted on two or more occasions of an offense described above or a similar State-level offense. Addition- ally, a detention recommendation may be made if there is a serious risk that the defendant would flee in an attempt to avoid prosecution or would obstruct justice or intimidate witnesses or jurors. Types of pretrial release Defendants may be released without financial conditions according to the following: Personal recognizance -- defendant is released subject to no financial or other conditions. Unsecured bond -- no money is re- quired to be posted before release, but defendant is liable for full bail amount if he or she fails to appear. Conditional release -- any combina- tion of restrictions that are deemed necessary to guarantee the defen- dant's appearance at trial or the safety of the community. Non-financial con- ditions commonly place restrictions on the defendant's movements, associa- tions, and/or actions. They may also involve employment or treatment for medical, psychological, or substance abuse conditions. Defendants may also be released on financial conditions. Financial condi- tions include (1) deposit bond (the de- fendant is required to post a percent- age of the total bail amount, usually 10%), (2) surety bond (the defendant is released subject to guarantees by a third person that the full amount will be paid), or (3) collateral bond (collat- eral equal to the full bail amount re- quired to be posted by the defendant before release). Financial conditions may occur in combination with nonfi- nancial conditions. Factors relating to release or detention In deciding whether to release a def- endant and in setting release condi- tions, the court is directed to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense charges, the weight of evi- dence against the defendant, the de- fendant's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employ- ment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, commu- nity ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal his- tory, and record concerning appear- ance at court proceedings. During 1999, 30,841 defendants were released for some period of time prior to trial. Those defendants released made up 47% of the 65,559 defendants who terminated pretrial services during 1999. Of the defendants released, 82% completed pretrial services without violating the conditions of their release. In 1999, 44,626 defendants were det- ained for some period of time prior to the disposition of their case. Those defendants detained comprised about 68% of all defendants who terminated pretrial services during 1999. Included are those who were detained prior to having a pre- liminary hearing with the magistrate, at which point they could have been either released or ordered to have a detention hearing. Of the defendants detained, 55% were ordered detained by the court until case disposition. Pretrial detention hearings were held for 33,188 defendants. Of these, 24,561, or 74%, were ordered detained. Of the 30,841 defendants released prior to trial, 18% violated a condition of their release. The majority (91%) of these violations were technical violations of the bail conditions. Defendants released on deposit bond were more likely (26%) than other defen- dants to incur some violation of the conditions of their release. Conversely, defendants given conditional release violated their release at the lowest rates (4%). Seven percent of all released defendants had their release revoked. Pretrial outcomes by offense categories Releases -- Defendants charged with property offenses were more likely than other defendants to be released prior to criminal trial; in 1999, 81% of the 13,850 property offenders were released. The percent released varied greatly across offense categories. Among violent offenders, 24% of those charged with robbery were released compared to 39% of those charged with murder and 59% of those charged with assault. Among public order offenders, 10% of those charged with immigration offenses were released compared to 96% of those charged with tax law violations and 46% of those with weapons offenses. Nearly 41% of all drug defendants were released. Drug trafficking de- fendants were less likely to be re- leased than those charged with non- trafficking offenses (40% compared to 54%), but defendants charged with trafficking offenses outnumbered those charged with nontrafficking of- fenses 10 to 1. The release types for those defen- dants who were released prior to trial varied among offense categories. Within each major offense category except violent offenses, the highest percentage of defendants released was on unsecured bond. Of the 35% of released violent defendants, 41% were released on unsecured bond and 44% on personal recognizance compared to 81% of all property defendants released, of whom 54% were released on unsecured bond and 32% on personal recognizance. Detentions -- Among the major offense categories, defendants charged with drug or violent offenses were the most likely (81% each) to be detained for some period of time. However, violent defendants were more likely than drug offenders to be detained by the court (64% versus 54%). Property and public- order defendants were less likely to be detained than were drug and violent de- fendants. During 1999, 75% of public-order defendants were detained, with 57% of these detained by the court. Of public-order defendants, those charged with immigration of- fenses were the most likely to be detained (97%). In 1999, 31% of defendants charged with property offenses were detained, with 45% of these detained by the court. For 69% of defendants charged with violent offenses, it was decided at the initial appearance that a detention hearing was warranted. This rate varied by offense category: 62% of those charged with drug-related offenses, 52% of those charged with public-order offenses, and 23% of those charged with property offenses were ordered to have a detention hearing. Of those charged with violent offenses, the of- fenders most likely to have a pretrial detention hearing were those charged with kidnapping, robbery, or murder. The least likely to have a pretrial detention hearing were those charged with sexual abuse and those charged with assault. Once a defendant was ordered to have a detention hearing, the chances of being detained were less variable across offense categories. The highest rate of defendants ordered detained were those charged with public-order offenses (82%) - pri- marily immigration (89%) and weap- ons offenders (72%). Of the 69% of defendants charged with violent of- fenses and given a pretrial detention hearing, 74% were ordered detained. In 1999, 71% of those charged with drug offenses and 61% of those charged with property offenses were ordered detained following a pretrial hearing. Violations -- Of defendants released prior to trial and terminating pretrial services during 1999, those charged with drug offenses were more likely (29%) than other defendants to incur at least one violation during the release period. Among major offense categories, those charged with property offenses were less likely (12%) than others to violate conditions of their release. Those charged with drug offenses and vio- lent offenses were more likely to have their release revoked (10% of all released drug defendants, 12% of all released violent defendants). Only 4% of released public-order de- fendants were revoked, as were 5% of released property defendants. Pretrial outcomes across demographic groups Releases -- Females were more likely (73%) than males (42%) to be released during 1999. Males were more likely to have a financial condition imposed on them as females (20% versus 12%). Sixty-three percent of all defendants identified as non-Hispanic were released during 1999 compared to 23% of Hispanics. Non-Hispanic releasees were twice as likely to be released on personal recognizance as Hispanics. The higher the education level of the defendant, the greater the probability of release. Forty percent of defen- dants with less than a high school education were released in 1999, while 80% of those who had completed college were released. Releasees with a college degree were less likely to receive financial conditions (16%) and more likely to be released on personal recognizance (30%) than those who had less education. Defendants with a history of drug abuse were released less frequently than those defendants with no known drug history (51% versus 60%). However, among all released defen- dants, drug abuse history does not appear to have had a major effect on the form of pretrial release. Detentions -- Males were more likely (72% versus 46%) than females to be detained. Of all detainees, 57% of the men and 43% of the women were detained following a detention hearing. Hispanics had a substantially higher probability of being detained (91%) as compared with non-Hispanics (54%). However, among those detained, His- panics and non-Hispanics had nearly equal chances of being detained fol- lowing a detention hearing (56% com- pared to 54%). Younger defendants were more likely than older ones to be detained. Seventy-two percent of defendants between the ages of 16-18 and 72% of defendants in their twenties were detained, compared to 50% of those over 40. However, among all defen- dants detained, the chances of being detained following a detention hearing were similar across all age groups. These patterns were more dramatic with education levels. Those defen- dants with lower levels of education were more likely to be detained. Seventy-eight percent of those who did not graduate from high school were detained versus 33% of college graduates. Of those detained, 54% of defendants without a high school di- ploma were detained following a de- tention hearing compared to 48% of college graduates. Not only were male defendants nearly twice as likely as female defendants to have a detention hearing (54% ver- sus 33%), they were also more likely (76% versus 59%) to be ordered de- tained as a result of the hearing. The likelihood of having a detention hearing increased with the number of prior convictions and severity of the defendant's criminal history. Further- more, 55% of those with a history of drug abuse had detention hearings as compared to 43% of those without such a past. Those with a history of drug abuse were slightly more likely to be detained after a hearing. Violations -- Released males were more likely than females to incur a violation during the pretrial release period (20% versus 14%) and were slightly more likely to have their release revoked. Native Americans were more likely to incur at least one violation than were either blacks or whites (26% vs. 22% for black and 17% for whites), and to have their release revoked (17% vs. 8% for blacks and 6% for whites). Defendants with no prior criminal history were less likely to have a pre- trial release violation than those with a prior conviction. Released defendants with a known drug history were nearly 3 times as likely to incur a violation than those with no known drug history. Also, those with a history of drug use were substantially more likely to have their release revoked (14% vs. 4%). Length of pretrial detention Among defendants detained for any time prior to case disposition, those charged with violent offenses were detained the longest (an average of 96.7 days) compared to drug (82.7 days), public-order (59.9 days), and property (43.1 days) defendants (not shown in a table). Of defendants released, those re- leased conditionally spent the greatest average number of days detained (71.4 days) compared to those re- leased on personal recognizance (42.5 days), unsecured bond (34.5 days), or financial conditions (26.1 days). This trend varied only slightly across all major offense categories -- in general, defendants released by conditional means were detained more days than defendants who were released by any other means. Of defendants not released, those de- tained following a detention hearing were detained longer, on average, than those held on financial conditions (107.1 days compared with 83.9 days). This pattern was true across all major offense types. 1) All tables in chapter 3 were created from data in the Pretrial Services Information Act System data base, which is maintained by the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) within the AOUSC. The data describe 65,559 defendants who terminated pretrial services during October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, and whose cases were filed by com- plaint, indictment, or information. In these tables, the totals (e.g., "all offenses") included records whose offense or other attributes were missing or indeterminable. The percentage distributions were based on nonmissing values, and missing values were reported in a separate row or in a footnote. Offenses in the PSA are based on the most serious charged offense, as determined by the probation offi- cer responsible for the interview with the defendant. The probation officer classifies the major offense charged into AOUSC four-digit offense codes. For defendants charged with more than one offense on an indictment, the probation officer chooses as the major charged offense the one carrying the most severe penalty or, in the case of two or more charges carrying the same penalty, the one with the highest offense severity. The of- fense severity level is determined by the AOUSC, which ranks offenses according to the maximum sentence, type of crime, and maximum fine amount. These four-digit codes are then aggregated into the same offense categories as those used in chapter 1. For drug offenses, the type of drug activity -- trafficking or possession -- is obtained by the probation offi- cers from their reading of the indict- ment or other charging documents. The AOUSC citation manual provides probation officers with detailed instructions on how to code drug crimes. 2) In tables 3.1-3.4, the percentages showing the methods of release or methods of detention were based on the number of defendants released or the number of defendants detained. In tables 3.5 and 3.6, the percentages were based on the number of defendants who had hearings and were ordered detained. This method departs from the 1993 and prior compendia, in which the percentages were based on the number of defendants terminating pretrial services. Chapter 4 Adjudication Discussion Tables October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Defendants in cases commenced, by offense Disposition of cases terminated, by offense Time from filing to disposition of cases terminated Dispositions by U.S. magistrates Characteristics of convicted offenders Chapter notes Federal criminal cases may result in conviction of the defendant following plea or trial, acquital of the defen- dants after trial, or dismissal of the case.***Footnote 1: Unless otherwise noted, data describe felony and misdemeanor cases in U.S. district courts and include Class A misde- meanors that are handled by U.S. district curt judges, which occur infrequently.*** Defendants in cases filed During 1999, 80,031 defendants had criminal charges filed against them in U.S. district courts, and 67,442 (84%) of those defendants were charged with felonies. The 29,306 drug felony defendants comprised 37% of all criminal defendants in cases filed and 43% of all felony defendants. Felony property and public-order defendants comprised 19% and 26%, respectively, of all defendants in cases filed. The 12,474 misdemeanor defendants constituted 16% of all defendants in cases filed; 40% of those misdemeanor defendants were charged with traffic violations. Defendants in cases terminated Cases were terminated against 75,723 defendants during 1999, 62,839 (91%) of whom were felony defendants. During 1999, the 27,008 drug-related felony defendants comprised nearly 36% of all defendants in cases terminated and 43% of all felony defendants. Eighty-seven percent of all defendants, 91% of all felony defendants and 71% of misdemeanor defendants were convicted. For major felony offense categories, conviction rates remained around 90%. Within major offense categories, however, the conviction rates varied more widely. For example, within the violent offense category, the conviction rates ranged from 71% for those found guilty of making threats against the President, to 95% for robbery. Within the public-order category, the conviction rate ranged from 60% for civil rights violations to 96% for tax law violations and 98% for antitrust offenses. Most defendants who were convicted pleaded guilty. Overall, over 94% of those convicted pleaded guilty, while only 5% were convicted at trial. For felony offenses, 95% pleaded guilty to their charges. For the major felony offense categories, guilty pleas were registered for 90% of violent offenders, 95% of drug offenders, and 96% each for public-order and property offenders. During 1999, 4,352 defendants exercised their right to a trial. A higher percentage of violent offenders went to trial than drug, property, and public-order offenders. Ten percent of violent offenders went to trial as compared with 5% of both property and public-order offenders, and 7% of drug offenders. Of defendants who exercised their right to a trial, 3,236 (74%) were convicted either by a jury or a bench trial. The felony trial conviction rate was 82%, while the misdemeanor conviction rate was 44%. Among felony offenses, trial conviction rates ranged from 77% for property defendants to 85% for drug defendants. Violent and public-order offenders fell in between, as about 80% were convicted at trial for each respectively. Case processing times The data in table 4.3 cover the interval from the time a case is filed in U.S. district court through sentencing for those convicted as well as the interval from case filing through disposition for those not convicted, or those whose cases are dismissed. Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as amended, sets time requirements for processing criminal cases in Federal courts. Except for certain exclusions, indictment must occur within 30 days of arrest; defen- dants are guaranteed at least 30 days to prepare for trial; and the Government must be ready for trial within 70 days. The Speedy Trial Act does not specify an interval from trial to sentencing, ***Footnote 2: The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 specifies minimum intervals for the disclosure and objections to the presentence report. (See rule 31, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.)*** and the time limits set by the act exclude several enumerated periods of pretrial procedure such as time spent awaiting rulings on motions.***Footnote 3: 18 U.S.C. 3161 et. Seq.*** Additionally, defendants may waive their rights within the Speedy Trial Act. As a result, the actual processing time for most defendants can be longer than the statutory limits without violating the provisions of the act. Overall, the average time for process- ing defendants was 9.2 months. For felony defendants, the overall proc- essing time average was 9.8 months; for those charged with misdemeanor crimes, the average processing time was 5.8 months. Defendants who pleaded guilty were processed, on av- erage, 4 months quicker than defen- dants who went to trial. Overall, defendants whose cases were ultimately dismissed took longest to process (16 months), on average. Among major felony offense categories, case processing times were similar to the overall pattern, except for violent offenses. Defendants convicted of violent offenses took a greater amount of time for trial (13 months), on average, than for dismissal (10.6 months). Convictions by U.S. magistrates During 1999 U.S. magistrates dis- posed of 12,019 misdemeanor criminal defendants, 71% of whom were convicted. Public-order offenders comprised 58% of the defendants disposed by U.S. magistrates, with property offenders comprising another 29%. Drug offenses comprised a little over 11% of U.S. magistrates' cases. Characteristics of convicted defendants Among defendants convicted, there were over 5 times as many men as women (85% versus 16%); over twice as many whites as blacks (67% ver- sus 28%); and almost twice as many non-Hispanics as Hispanics (61% ver- sus 39%). Most were U.S. citizens (66%), had graduated high school or completed some higher education (55%), and had some criminal history (55%). Persons over the age of 30 represented 55% of defendants. Chapter notes 1) Tables 4.1-4.4 were derived from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AOUSC) criminal master data files. Only records with cases filed in U.S. district court or cases that terminated in U.S. district court during October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, were selected. Offenses were classified according to the most serious offense charged. In the case of multiple offenses, the offense carrying the most severe potential penalty was selected. In this Compendium, carjacking of- fenses are classified as robberies, based on title and section of the U.S. Code. In compendia prior to the 1997 Compendium, they were classified as motor vehicle thefts, based on the AOUSC offense classifications. 2) Table 4.5 was created by matching the AOUSC master data files with the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) monitoring system files and the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) data files. These latter two data files contain information on the characteristics of defendants. The USSC monitoring system files are limited to records of defendants sentenced under the Federal sen- tencing guidelines only. These in- clude defendants convicted of felo- nies or Class A misdemeanors. Excluded from the USSC data were defendants convicted only of Class B or C misdemeanors or in- fractions, defendants whose of- fenses were committed before No- vember 1, 1987, and juvenile of- fenders. Juveniles charged as adults are included in table 4.5. Some of the defendants excluded from the USSC data files were in- cluded in the PSA data. (See Chapter 3 Chapter notes for more information on the PSA data.) Ta- ble 4.5 indicates the number of re- cords for which relevant data were available. Percentage distributions were based on records with known values of defendant characteristics and offenses. 3) A criminal record, as reported in table 4.5, is limited to prior adult convictions. For some defendants in this table, it is further limited to the portion that is relevant for cal- culating sentences under the Federal sentencing guidelines. In general, this is limited to sentences imposed within a 15-year period prior to the current offense and offenses committed within the United States. For most defendants, the criminal history used to calculate sentencing guideline ranges includes their entire adult criminal history. Chapter 5 Sentencing Discussion Tables October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Sentence types in cases terminated, by offense Type and length of sentences imposed, by offense Sentences imposed on convicted offenders, by offense of conviction and method of disposition Convicted offenders sentenced to incarceration, by offense and offender characteristics Average incarceration sentence lengths imposed, by offense and offender characteristics Median incarceration sentence lengths imposed, by offense and offender characteristics Chapter notes Depending upon the type and severity of the offense, convicted offenders may be sentenced to incarceration, probation, a fine, or a combination of sanctions such as a split or mixed sentence (imprisonment as well as a period of probation supervision). (For a definition of mixed sentences, see Glossary, p. 113.) The Federal sen- tencing guidelines require a term of supervised release following service of any prison sentence of more than 1 year. In addition, courts have the dis- cretion to impose supervised release in any other case. Except where otherwise indicated, ta- bles in this chapter are based on the most serious offense of conviction. They are not directly comparable with tables in earlier chapters that are based on the most serious offense in- vestigated or most serious offense charged (see "Offense classifications" in Methodology, p. 109). Offenders convicted and sentences imposed Of the 66,055 offenders sentenced during 1999, 47,659 (72%) were sen- tenced to prison; 12,977 (20%) were sentenced to probation; and 3,148 (5%) were ordered to pay only a fine. (Offenders given an intermediate sanction such as intermittent confine- ment or community confinement that also included probation supervision are counted among offenders given probation.) Of the 47,659 offenders sentenced to prison, 46,070 (97%) were convicted of felonies, and 83% of convicted felons were sentenced to prison. Felony drug and violent of- fenders were more likely to receive prison sentences (92% and 91% re- spectively) than were either property (59%) or public-order (84%) offenders. Among public-order offenders, per- sons convicted of weapons (93%), immigration offenses (90%), and es- cape (91%) were almost as likely to receive prison sentences as were vio- lent and drug offenders. Among property offenders, persons convicted of arson or the use of explosives (82%) were the most likely to receive prison sentences. Overall, 20% of convicted offenders were sentenced to probation. The percentage of misdemeanants sen- tenced to probation (49%) was three times that of convicted felons (14%). Among felons, persons convicted of postal law violations were the most likely to be given probation (91%) followed by persons convicted of communication (65%) and agriculture (64%) violations. While less than 1% of all convicted felons were ordered to only pay a fine, 31% of the felons convicted of anti- trust violations were so ordered. Fines generally were reserved for misde- meanor offenders, 28% of whom received fines. Average prison sentences imposed For all offenders given prison terms, the average term of imprisonment im- posed was 57.8 months. Persons convicted of felonies received an average prison term of 59.4 months. The average length of prison sen- tence imposed varied among major offense categories. Property of- fenders received the shortest sentence, on average, while violent offenders received the longest (24.0 months compared to 87.7 months). Drug offenders received 75.4 months, on average, and public-order offend- ers received 48.7 months. The aver- age prison term for public-order of fenders was primarily attributable to sentences imposed for weapons of- fenders. The 3,191 weapons offenders sentenced to prison comprised 22% of the 14,683 public-order offenders sent to prison; weapons offenders received an average prison term of 98.7 months, and public-order offenders other than weapons offenders received an average prison term of 34.8 months. Relationship between sentence imposed and mode of conviction Offenders convicted by plea were less likely to receive prison sentences than those convicted at trial. Seventy-two percent of the offenders convicted by guilty plea received some prison time, while 85% of the offenders convicted at trial received prison sentences. For violent offenders, 91% of those convicted by plea received prison sen- tences, as did 97% of those convicted at trial. For fraudulent property offend- ers, 58% of those convicted by plea received prison sentences, compared to 84% of those convicted at trial. And, for regulatory public-order of- fenders, 43% of those convicted by plea went to prison, but 79% of those convicted at trial did. The average prison term imposed on defendants convicted at trial was longer than the term imposed on de- fendants convicted by plea. Defend- ants convicted at trial received 155.4 months, on average, while those con- victed by plea received an average of 52.3 months. Drug offenders convicted at trial received an average of 209.7 months as compared to the 67.9 months for drug offenders convicted by a guilty plea. Violent offenders who went to trial received an average sentence of 163.4 months as compared to the 80.6 months for those convicted by plea. Characteristics of offenders sentenced to prison The majority of persons convicted during 1999 were male (84%), white (67%), non-Hispanic (58%), and U.S. citizens (66%). (Percents were calcu- lated from numbers in table 5.4.) The percentage sentenced to prison was not uniform across all categories of age, race, sex, education, and ethnic- ity. Similarly, the average sentences imposed were not uniform across these categories. However, conclusions about the effect that characteristics may have had on sentencing cannot be drawn from the aggregate patterns in the data. Such an assessment would require detailed information for each category showing the presence or absence of factors that are legally intended to affect sentencing, such as offense severity, weapon use, role in the offense, victim injury, dollar loss, and so forth. One such study of the factors affect- ing sentencing found that "nearly all of the aggregate differences among sen- tences for whites, blacks, and Hispan- ics during 1989-90 can be attributed to characteristics of offenses and of- fenders that current law and sentenc- ing guidelines establish as legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions."*Douglas C. McDonald and Kenneth E. Carlson, Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1993 (NCJ 145328).* Average sentences imposed were longest for males (60.5 months), blacks (86.8 months), non-Hispanics (67.2 months), and U.S. citizens (67.2 months). These longer terms are due in large part because these categories of offenders (males, blacks, non- Hispanics, and U.S. citizens) are more highly concentrated in the offense types that also are associated with longer average sentences. For example, incarceration rates for blacks exceed those of whites in the violent, drug, as well as regulatory and nonregulatory public-order offense categories. These offenses are associated with longer average sentences than are property offenses or misdemeanors -- the categories in which whites' incarceration rates exceed those of blacks. In general, within categories of offender characteristics, average prison terms were longer for violent and drug offenses than for property and regulatory public-order offenses. These two offense categories generally are considered to be more serious under the Federal sentencing guidelines than are property and regulatory public-order offenses. As a result, for aggregate tables like the ones presented in this chapter, persons with a certain characteristic may appear to receive more severe sentences on average. The primary reason for the longer averages is the larger number of serious offenses that made up the average sentences. Chapter notes 1) Tables 5.1-5.3 were derived from the AOUSC criminal master data files. Only records of defendants sentenced during October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, were selected. Offenses shown in these tables -- offenses of conviction -- are based on the longest actual sentence imposed. 2) Tables 5.4-5.6 were created from AOUSC criminal master data files, supplemented with linked data on offender characteristics from two sources: the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) monitoring system files (which are limited to records of defendants sentenced under the Federal sentencing guidelines); and the Pretrial Services Information Act System database, maintained by the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA). These two supplemental data files contain information on the characteristics of defendants. Table 5.4 indicates the number of records for which relevant data were available. Percentage distributions were based on records with known values of defendant characteristics and offenses. Means and medians in tables 5.5 and 5.6 were based on the number of records shown in table 5.4. 3) Criminal record, as reported in tables 5.4-5.6, is limited to prior adult convictions. For some defendants in these tables, it is further limited to the portion of their criminal record that is relevant for calculating sentences under the Federal sentencing guidelines. In general, this is limited to sentences imposed within 15 years of the current offense and sentences for offenses committed within the United States. For most defendants, the criminal history used to calculate sentencing guideline ranges is the same as their adult criminal history. Chapter 6. Appeals Discussion Tables October 1, 1998 -- September 30, 1999 Criminal appeals filed, by type of criminal case and offense Criminal appeals filed and criminal appeals terminated, by offense Criminal appeals terminated, by type of criminal case and offense Disposition of criminal appeals terminated on the merits, by offense Criminal appeals cases terminated on the merits, by nature of offense Chapter notes Prior to implementation of the Sen- tencing Reform Act of 1984, only criminal convictions could be ap- pealed. However, the Sentencing Re- form Act provided for the appellate review of sentences imposed given that the sentence was (1) imposed in violation of the law; (2) imposed as the result of an incorrect sentencing guideline application; (3) outside the recommended guideline sentencing range; or (4) imposed for an offense for which no sentencing guideline exists and is plainly unreasonable. Both the defendant and the Government have the right to appeal an imposed sentence.*18 U.S.C. sec. 3742* Appeals filed During 1999 the U.S. Court of Ap- peals received 10,251 criminal appeals. Of all appeals, 4% were filed by the Government (not shown in a table). Forty-seven percent of appeals filed in 1999 challenged both the conviction and the sentence imposed. About twice as many appeals challenged only the sentence imposed as those that challenged only the conviction (23% versus 13%). Fifteen percent of appeals filed were appeals of con- victions for crimes committed before 1987, when the sentencing guidelines took effect. The distribution of appeals by type of appeal filed (sentence, conviction, or both) was relatively constant across the major offense categories underly- ing the appeal. However, 54% of ap- peals filed for immigration offenses appealed both the sentence and the conviction, compared to 47% for all criminal categories. Nearly half of all appeals filed (for which the offense is known) were for drug convictions (46%). Appeals for public-order convictions comprised 30% of all appeals filed, property offenses comprised 18%, and the re- maining 6% of appeals filed were for violent offenses. Appeals terminated A total of 10,675 appeals terminated during 1999. Of these, 49% were ap- peals of both the sentence and con- viction, 24% were appeals of the sen- tence only, and 12% were appeals of the conviction only. Fifteen percent were appeals of convictions for of- fenses sentenced under laws in effect prior to the sentencing guidelines. In nearly half of all appeals terminated in 1999 (for which the offense is known), drug offense convictions un- derlie the appeal (48%); the underly- ing offense in 27% of the appeals was a public-order offense; 19% were property offense appeals; and 6% were appeals for violent offense con- victions. For 38% of public-order appeals, the underlying offense of conviction was for weapons. Robbery offenses composed 47% and murder composed 24% of the underlying of- fenses for appeals of a violent conviction. Sixty-three percent of property offense appeals were for fraud convictions. Of the 10,675 appeals terminated dur- ing 1999, 77% were terminated on the merits, while the remainder were ter- minated on procedural grounds. For appeals based on a conviction of a drug offense or a public-order offense, 78% were terminated on the merits. Also terminated on the merits were 82% of appeals based on a violent conviction and 76% of appeals based on a property conviction. Within these major offense categories, 92% of appeals based on murder convictions were terminated on the merits, as were 81% of weapons offenses, and 78% of robbery offenses. In 79% of appeals terminated on the merits, the district court ruling was affirmed. In another 5% it was partially affirmed. Eighty-two percent of all drug offense appeals were af- firmed, as were 83% of violent of fense appeals and 74% of property appeals. Seventy-six percent of public-order offense appeals were affirmed. District court decisions were reversed or remanded back to the court in 9% of the cases. Property offenses had the highest rate of reversal or being remanded back to the court (12%). Nine percent of violent and public or- der offense appeals were reversed or remanded, as were 7% of drug offense appeals. Overall, appeals were dismissed in 7% of cases. The highest dismissal rate was for public-order appeals (9%). Chapter notes Tables in chapter 6 were created from the AOUSC appeals database. Records of appeals filed or terminated during October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, were selected. Data include records of 10,251 criminal appeals filed during fiscal year 1999 and 10,675 appeals terminated during the same period. The unit of analysis in the appeals data is a single case. Most records in the appeals data report on a single appellant. Appeals were classified into the offense categories that represent the underlying offense of conviction. Offenses represent the statutory offense charged against a defendant in a criminal appeal. Offenses were classified by the AOUSC into their four-digit offense codes. These were then aggregated into the offense categories shown in the tables. Chapter 7 Corrections Discussion Tables October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999 Federal offenders under supervision, by offense Characteristics of Federal offenders under supervision, by offense Outcomes of probation supervision, by offense Characteristics of offenders terminating probation supervision Outcomes of supervised release, by offense Characteristics of offenders terminating supervised release Outcomes of parole, by offense Characteristics of offenders terminating parole Admissions and releases of Federal prisoners, by offense Characteristics of Federal prison population, by major offense category Number of first releases from Federal prison, by release method and sentence length Average time to first release and percent of sentence served, for prisoners released by standard methods Mean time served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods Percent of sentence served to first release, by length of sentence imposed, offense, and type of case, for prisoners released by standard methods Characteristics of first releases from prison, by offense, all releases Mean time served to first release from Federal prison for prisoners released by standard methods, by offense and offender characteristics Chapter notes Federal offenders under supervision As of the end of the fiscal year 1999, there were 96,502 offenders under active Federal supervision, of which most (89%) were felons. Sixty-seven percent of these offenders were re- ceiving one of two forms of post- incarceration supervision: supervised release (59,644) or parole (5,129). The remainder (31,729) were under probation supervision. Most of the probationer population had been con- victed of either a property felony (38%) or some type of misdemeanor offense (32%). Fifty-three percent of offenders under supervised release and nearly 52% of parolees had been convicted of a drug offense. Among the 96,502 offenders under active Federal supervision at the end of the fiscal year 1999, 79% were male; 65% were white; 84% were of non-Hispanic origin; 39% were over age 40 (compared to 31% who were between 31-40 years of age and 31% who were 30 or younger); 36% had a high school diploma only (compared to 33% who had at least some college and 32% who had less than a high school diploma); and 64% had no known drug history. Outcomes of offenders completing supervision Probation -- During 1999, 16,002 offenders completed one or more terms of active probation. Overall, 81% of offenders successfully completed their term of probation, another 17% violated their conditions of probation, and the remaining 2% were administrative closures. Of offenders terminating probation, 5% committed a new crime. Most committed technical violations, including drug use (3%) or absconding (2%). Offenders convicted of violent of- fenses were less likely than others to successfully complete a term of pro- bation without a violation. During 1999, almost 39% of probationers con- victed of violent offenses violated their conditions of probation, as did 17% of drug, 14% of property, and 12% of public-order offenders. Violent offenders were also more likely to commit new crimes (17%) than were probationers convicted of drug (6%), property (5%), and public-order (4%) offenses. Supervised release -- During 1999, 21,570 offenders completed terms of supervised release. Overall, 64% of them successfully completed their term of supervised release; 20% committed technical violations, such as drug use (8%) or absconding (4%); and almost 13% of these offenders violated their probation supervision by committing a new crime. The remaining 3% had their supervision administratively terminated. Violent offenders were less likely than others to complete a term of supervised release without a violation. Fifty- seven percent of violent offenders violated conditions of supervised release, while 33% of public-order, 32% of drug, and 28% of property offenders violated supervised release. Violent offenders were also more likely to commit new crimes (19%) than offenders convicted of public-order (16%), drug (12%), or property (10%) offenses. Parole -- During 1999, 2,503 offenders completed terms of parole. Overall, 55% of these offenders successfully completed their term of parole. During 1999, 14% of these offenders violated their supervision by committing a new crime; 26% committed technical violations, such as drug use (13%) or absconding (4%); and 4% completed their parole term through an administrative case closure. Offenders convicted of violent of- fenses were less likely than others to complete a term of parole without a violation. Sixty-one percent of violent offenders violated conditions of parole, while 35% of public-order, and 31% of property and drug offenders violated parole. Violent offenders were also more likely to commit new crimes (23%) than offenders convicted of property (15%), public-order (12%), or drug (10%) offenses. Characteristics of offenders completing supervision Probation -- Among offenders who completed a term of probation, 73% were male; 68% were white and 87% were of non-Hispanic origin; 34% were less than age 31 (compared to 39% over age 40); 26% had less than a high school diploma (compared to 37% whose highest education was a high school diploma and 37% who had at least some college education); and 78% had no known drug history. Younger offenders, those with a his- tory of drug abuse, and those with a lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the conditions of probation. Offenders ages 16 to 20 were more likely (36%) to violate conditions of supervision than probationers in other age groups -- 24% of those ages 21 to 30 and 12% of those over age 30. Probationers with a history of drug abuse were 6 times more likely to violate probation for drug use than offenders who were not drug abusers. Probationers with known histories of drug abuse were also more likely to violate supervision for other reasons (fugitive status or new crimes) than were other probationers. Probationers with lower levels of education were more likely to violate the conditions of probation than those with higher levels of education. Those who did not graduate high school had a 25% violation rate, those whose highest education was a high school diploma had a 16% violation rate, those with some college had a 12% violation rate, and those with a college degree had only a 5% violation rate. Supervised release -- Among those who completed a term of supervised release, 84% were male; 65% were white; 82% were of non-Hispanic origin; 25% were less than age 31 (40% were over age 40); 38% had only some high school (35% whose highest education was a high school diploma and 27% had at least some college); and 56% had no known drug history. Younger offenders, those with a history of drug abuse, and those with a lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the conditions of supervised release. Offenders under age 30 were more likely to violate conditions of their supervision than offenders in other age groups -- 51% of those under age 31 violated a condition of their supervision compared to 19% of those over age 40. Releasees with a history of drug abuse were almost 4 times more likely to terminate their supervision for technical violations of drug use as were releasees who were not drug abusers. Releasees with known histories of drug abuse were also more likely to violate supervision with technical violations or new crimes. Similarly, releasees with lower levels of education were more likely to violate conditions of supervised release than those with higher levels of education. Those who did not graduate from high school had a 41% violation rate, those whose highest education was a high school diploma 32% violation rate, those with some college had a 24% violation rate, and those with a college degree had a 11% violation rate. Parole -- Among those who completed a term of parole, 95% were male; 62% were white; 86% were of non-Hispanic origin; 79% were over age 40; 45% had only some high school (34% whose highest education was a high school diploma and 21% had at least some college); and 47% had no known drug history. Offenders with a history of drug abuse and those with a lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the conditions of parole. Releasees with a history of drug abuse were almost 3 times more likely to terminate their supervision for technical violations of drug use than were releasees who were not drug abusers. Releasees with known histories of drug abuse were also more likely to violate supervision with technical violations or new crimes. Releasees with lower levels of educa- tion were usually more likely to violate conditions of parole than those with higher levels of education. Those whose highest education was a high school diploma had a 44% violation rate, those who did not graduate from high school had a 42% violation rate, those with some college had a 35% violation rate, and those with a college degree had a 16% violation rate. Admissions, releases, and standing population of Federal prisoners The Federal prison population grew by 11,514 persons during fiscal year 1999, increasing from 107,671 sen- tenced prisoners to 119,185. The greatest growth was among drug and public-order offenders, particularly im- migration and weapons offenses. In 1999 the number of drug offenders in prison grew by 5,922 and the number of immigration offenders increased by 3,006. Federal prisoners: First releases and time served During 1999, 37,672 prisoners were released from Federal prison for the first time after serving a sentence imposed by a U.S. district court. ***Footnote 1: Tables 7.11-7.16 include only prisoners first released by the BOP during 1999.*** Of these, 33,748 were released by standard means. These standard releases served an average of 28.0 months (table 7.12) in prison -- 91% of the sentence imposed, on average.***Footnote 2: Average time to first release is the number of months in Bureau of Prisons facilities minus credits for time spent in jail prior to final disposition or sentencing. Percent of sentence served is the average percentage of each individual prisoner's percent of total sentence obligation served until first release.*** The remaining 3,924 first releases were released by extraordinary means: 2,671 were released early due to participation in a drug treatment program; 371 were deported; 200 had their sentences commuted; 228 died; and 454 were released for other reasons -- including completion of an intensive confinement program Drug offenders made up the majority of those released by extraordinary means (83%). Time served until first release varied by offense: Violent offenders served an average of 53.3 months; drug of- fenders served an average of 40.1 months; public-order offenders served an average of 19.1 months; and prop- erty offenders served an average of 15.6 months. During 1999 the average time to first release for public-order offenders was influenced heavily by the relatively short time served by immigration offenders. Im- migration offenders composed 64% of all released public-order offenders and, on average, served 12.2 months until first release. This was nearly seven months fewer than the average time served for all public-order offenders (19.1 months). Exclusive of immigration offenders, public-order offenders served an average of 31.4 months until first release (not shown in a table). While violent and drug offenders served more time before first release, property and public-order offenders served more of their sentences than violent and drug offenders. Old law offenders -- those who committed crimes before implementa- tion of Federal Sentencing Guidelines in November 1987-- that were re- leased in 1999 are not shown sepa- rately in any table. Only 2%, or 639, of released offenders were old law of- fenders. New law offenders released during 1999 served, on average, 26.6 months in prison (92% of the sen- tence imposed). Since the Guidelines became effective as of November 1987, new law offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment greater than 163 months could not have been released by standard means as of the end of fiscal year 1999. ***Footnote 3: The Federal Sentencing Guidelines allow a prisoner up to 54 days per year for good behavior, so a prisoner sentenced to 163 months in prison in November 1987 could have served 142 months of his or her sentence and been released in 1999.*** They could have been released for extraordinary reasons such as death, commutation, or treaty transfer.***Footnote 4: Prisoners released for extraordinary reasons have been excluded from all time served calculations.*** Characteristics of Federal prisoners Standing population -- Of prisoners in Federal prison at the end of 1999, 93% were male, 57% were white, 40% were black, 29% were Hispanic, and 74% were U.S. citizens. Fifty -seven percent of the yearend population were 31 years of age or older. This portrait of the Federal prison population was similar across offenses and for new law offenders, except for the ethnicity and citizenship of violent and property offenders. More than 88% of these offenders were non-Hispanic and U.S. citizens. Prisoners released -- Of prisoners released during 1999, 88% were male, 73% were white, 24% were black, 42% were Hispanic, and 60% were U.S. citizens. Fifty-five percent were 31 years of age or older. These patterns were most similar for those released for drug offenses, and least similar for offenders released for violent offenses. Ninety-four percent of released violent offenders were male, 52% were white, 33% were black, 8% were Hispanic and 95% were U.S. citizens. Time served to first release -- Of prisoners released by standard methods, males served more time than females (29.0 months vs. 20.6 months); blacks served more time than whites (39.0 months vs. 24.5 months); and non- Hispanics served more time than Hispanics (32.7 months vs. 22.2 months). Older persons served more time than younger (until over age 40), and U.S. citizens served more time than noncitizens. However, across offenses, the overall pattern does not apply. For example, blacks served more time on average than whites, but among property offenders released from prison, whites served more time than blacks. White offenders served an average of 21.0 months for non-fraudulent property offenses compared to 14.9 months by black offenders. Among violent offenders, Hispanics and non-Hispanics both served about 53 months in prison before being released. Chapter notes 1) Offenders were classified accord- ing to their most serious offense at conviction. In cases involving multiple offenses, the AOUSC offense severity hierarchy was applied. The most serious offense was the one with the most severe penalty imposed. If equal prison terms were imposed, or there was no imprisonment, the offense with the highest severity code, as determined by the U.S. Title and Code Criminal Offense Citations Manual, was selected. 2) Tables 7.1 and 7.2 were created using the probation, parole, and supervision data files of the Federal Probations Supervision Information System (FPSIS), which is maintained by the AOUSC. Yearend pending cases (that is, records with of- fenders who were under active supervision as of the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 1999) were selected. Corporate defendants were ex- cluded from table 7.1. 3) Tables 7.3-7.8 were created using the FPSIS data files as well. Only records with one or more terminations of active supervision during October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, were selected. Each termination was counted separately. Technical violations and terminations for new crimes are shown only if supervision terminated with incarceration or removal from active supervision for reasons of a violation. Corporate defendants were ex cluded from tables 7.3-7.8. 4) Table 7.9-7.16 were created from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) data files. Tables 7.9 and 7.10 show sentenced prisoners in the custody of the BOP at the end of fiscal year 1999. Tables 7.11-7.16 include only prisoners committed by U.S. district courts or released by the BOP during fiscal year 1999. In these tables, a single person may be counted more than once if that person was committed into, or released from, the BOP more than one time during fiscal year 1999, or if that person appears in more than one column in a table, e.g., commitment and population. Offense categories in these tables were based on combinations of offense designations used by the BOP. They are similar, but may not be directly comparable, to the categories used in other tables of this Compendium. Of- fenses for some prisoners admitted or released were not able to be classified; these offenders were included in the totals and are shown as "other prisoners" on the last line of tables. In these tables, offenses were clas- sified according to the offense as- sociated with the longest single sentence actually imposed. Classi- fications in other tables may have been based on the longest potential sentence allowed by law. 5) Tables 7.9-7.16 distinguish be- tween prisoners committed by U.S. district courts for violations of the U.S. Code and other prisoners. Prisoners released after commitment from U.S. district court are called "first releases." The other admissions and releases include offenders who returned to prison after their first release (such as probation, parole, or supervised release violators), of- fenders convicted in other courts (such as military or District of Columbia courts), and persons admitted to prison as material witnesses or for purposes of treatment, examination, or transfer to another authority. Of- fenders who entered or left a prison temporarily -- such as for transit to another location, for health care, or to serve a weekend sentence -- were not counted as admitted or released. Persons who were detained for deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and who were not criminal offenders were also not included in the tables. Table 7.11 distinguishes between standard and extraordinary methods of release from prison. "Standard" releases include the usual methods of exiting from prison, such as full-term sentence expirations, expirations with good time, mandatory releases, and releases to parole. Extraordinary releases are unusual exits from prison, such as death, commutation, and transfer to another facility. 6) Tables 7.11-7.16 include only prisoners committed by U.S. district courts and released by the BOP during fiscal year 1999. Prisoners committed by U.S. district court -- but not for a violation of the U.S. Code, or whose offense could not be classified -- were included in the total but are not shown sepa- rately. Table 7.9, however, shows these prisoners separately. Other prisoners -- such as probation and parole violators and prisoners com- mitted by other courts, such as courts martial or District of Colum- bia Superior Court -- were ex- cluded from tables 7.11-7.16, as were other persons admitted to Federal prison but not committed from a U.S. district court. 7) In tables 7.11-7.16, time served was calculated for prisoner's arrival into jurisdiction of the BOP until first release from prison, plus any jail time served and credited. The cal- culation is the same as that cur- rently used by the BOP. Prisoners serving consecutive sentences may have total imposed sentences ex- ceeding the longest single sen- tence length. Accordingly, time ac- tually served may exceed the longest single imposed sentence. The percent of sentenced served is the average of each individual prisoner's percent of sentence served. Because other publications may include different groups of prisoners, calculate time served differently, or use a different offense classification, data in tables in this Compendium may differ from estimates of time served in previous publications by the BOP or in publications based on other data sources. Time served, as reported in tables 7.11-7.16 in this Compendium, may not be directly comparable to the calculation of time served in the 1993 and prior compendia. The methodology in this report uses ad- ditional information to identify prison commitment dates and account for jail credit. In previous reports, jail credits were overesti- mated in some cases. In addition, time served estimates reported in tables 7.12-7. 14 and 7.16 include only prisoners released by standard methods (expirations, mandatory releases, and releases to parole). Prisoners released by extraordinary means (death, commutation, trans- fer, etc.) are excluded from the time served calculations in these tables. 8) Table 7.9 shows all persons admit- ted to, or released from, the juris- diction of the BOP during fiscal year 1999. Prisoners counted in this column are the same as pris- oners included in tables 7.11, 7.12, and 7.13. Table 7.9 shows in separate columns, as well as in the total, prisoners committed by a U.S. district court -- but not for a violation of the U.S. code, or whose offense could not be classified. Other columns in table 7.9 include prisoners who were committed by other courts, returned to prison for violation of the conditions of super- vision, or were received for exami- nation, treatment, or transfer to an- other jurisdiction. Offenders who returned to prison for a violation of the conditions of supervision with- out a new court commitment, were classified according to the offense with the longest single sentence originally imposed at conviction. Methodology The Federal justice database Source of data The source of data for all tables in this Compendium is the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Federal justice database. The database is presently constructed from source files provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in addition to providing data describing defendants in cases processed by the Federal judiciary, provides data describing defendants processed by the Federal pretrial services agencies and the Federal probation and supervision service. Federal law prohibits the use of these files for any purposes other than research or statistics. A description of the source agency data files is provided in the table at the end of this section. Some records in the Federal justice database are matched according to a statistically weighted combination of names, other personal identifiers, dates of court appearances, types of offenses, and other relevant information contained in the files. Using the matched data files, it is possible to combine information about two or more stages of the processing of a criminal matter or case, for example from adjudication to probation or parole supervision. Reporting period Wherever possible, matters or cases have been selected according to some event which occurred during fiscal year 1999 (October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999). Some data files provided by source agencies are organized according to a calendar year time frame; these have been combined and divided into fiscal years for purposes of the Compendium. Files which are organized by their source agencies according to fiscal year nonetheless include some pertinent records in later years' files. For example, tabulations of suspects in matters concluded during fiscal year 1999 in this Compendium have been assembled from source files containing records of 1999 matters concluded which were entered into the data system during fiscal years 1999 or 2000. Availability of data items The availability of particular items of information is affected by the data source. For example, data on prosecutors' decisions prior to court filing are provided for cases investigated by U.S. attorneys but not for those handled by other litigating divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice. Criminal Division cases enter the data base once they are filed in U.S. district court, however. Many items of social and demographic information come from presentence investigation records, supervision records, or sentencing records, and are available only for arrested defendants who were convicted and/or began serving a sentence involving supervised release. This particularly affects sex, race, ethnicity, and prior record information. Table construction and interpretation The tables presented report events that occurred during the Federal fiscal year -- October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999. Generally, the tables include both individual and organizational defendants. Organizational defendants are not included in tables describing defendants under pretrial release and detention, defendants sentenced to incarceration, and offenders under post-conviction supervision. Juvenile offenders are included in the reported statistics. Unit of analysis The unit of analysis in chapters 1 through 6 is a combination of a person (or corporation) and a matter or case. For example, if a single person is involved in three different criminal cases during the time period specified in the table, he or she is counted three times in the tabulation. Similarly, if a single criminal case involves a corporate defendant and four individual defendants, it counts five times in the tabulation. In chapter 7, the unit of analysis for incarceration, probation, parole, or other supervised release is a person entering custody or supervision, or a person leaving custody or supervision. For example, a person convicted in two concurrent cases and committed once to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in the indicated time period is counted as one admission to a term of incarceration. A person who terminates probation twice in the indicated time period, such as with a violation and again after reinstatement, is counted as two terminations of probation. Interpretation The tables in the Compendium are constructed to permit the user to make valid comparisons of numbers within each table and to compare percentage rates across tables. The total numbers of subjects in Compendium tables that are based on records linked between two files are generally less than the total number of records in either source file. Accordingly, comparisons of absolute numbers across two or more tables in this volume and other data sources are not necessarily valid. Offense classifications Procedure The offense classification procedure used in this Compendium is based on the classification system followed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Specific offenses combined to form the BJS categories shown in the Compendium tables.*These categories correspond to the Bureau of Justice Statistics crime definitions and, to the extent possible, are or- ganized and presented consistent with BJS publications on State criminal justice systems.* Offense categories for Federal arrestees in chapter 1 are based on the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) offense classifications, which are converted into U.S. Marshals' four-digit offense codes, which, in turn are aggregated into the offense categories shown in the tables. These categories are similar, but may not be directly comparable to the BJS offense categories used in other chapters of this Compendium. For data from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, which include United States Code citations but do not include the Administrative Office offense classifications, United States Code titles and sections are translated into the Administrative Office classification system and then aggregated into the offense categories used in the tables. Offense categories for prisoners in chapter 7 are based on combinations of offense designations used by the Bureau of Prisons. They are similar to the categories in other chapters and other tables in chapter 7, but may not be directly comparable. Felony/misdemeanor distinctions Felony and misdemeanor distinctions are provided where possible. Felony offenses are those with a maximum penalty of more than 1 year in prison. Misdemeanor offenses are those with a maximum penalty of 1 year or less. Felonies and misdemeanors are further classified using the maximum term of imprisonment authorized. Section 3559, U.S. Code, Title 18 classifies offenses according to the following schedule: Felonies Class A f