U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------------------- National Prisoner Statistics Program ------------------------------------- Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005 October 2008, NCJ 222182 ------------------------------------------------------------ This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/csfcf05.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.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#csfcf ------------------------------------------------------------- By James J. Stephan BJS Statistician -------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted a national census--Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities (CSFCF)--of adult correctional facilities operating under state or federal authority as of December 2005. The census also included private and local facilities operating under contract to house inmates for federal or state correctional authorities. Facilities that housed primarily state or federal prisoners and that were operational on the day of the census and physically, functionally, and administratively separate from other facilities were included in the 2005 CSFCF. The types of facilities included were prisons and prison farms; prison hospitals; centers for medical treatment and psychiatric confinement; boot camps; centers for reception; diagnosis; classification; alcohol and drug treatment; community correctional facilities; facilities for parole violators and other persons returned to custody; institutions for youthful offenders; and institutions for geriatric inmates. The 2005 CSFCF excluded city, county, and regional jails and private facilities that did not house primarily state or federal inmates. It also excluded facilities for the military, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and correctional hospital wards not operated by correctional authorities. Selected findings from the Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005 * From June 30, 2000, to December 30, 2005, the number of state and federal correctional facilities increased by 9%, from 1,668 to 1,821. The number of prisoners held in custody increased by 10%, from 1,305,253 to 1,430,208. * Private correctional facilities (up 151) accounted for nearly all of the increase in the number of adult correctional facilities between June 30, 2000, and December 30, 2005. Most of the growth in private correctional facilities during this period was in facilities under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. * From 2000 to 2005, the number of private facilities increased from 16% (264) to 23% (415) of all institutions. About two-thirds of all private facilities were under contract to state authorities and a third were under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. * Inmates housed in private facilities increased from 91,184 in 2000 to 105,451 in 2005. In both years, inmates housed in private facilities made up about 7% of the nation's average daily prisoner population. * Between 2000 and 2005, facilities housing fewer than 500 inmates as an average daily population increased by 86. Facilities housing 500 to 999 inmates was relatively unchanged between 2000 (305) and 2005 (304). Facilities housing 1,000 to 2,499 inmates increased by 57 and the number of facilities housing 2,500 inmates or more rose by 11. * The number of minimum (up 155) and maximum (up 40) security facilities increased between 2000 and 2005. The number of medium-security facilities declined (down 42) during this period. * The number of facilities under court order or consent decree to limit the size of their inmate population declined from 145 in 2000 to 44 in 2005. Facilities under court order or consent decree for specific conditions also declined, from 320 to 218. *The overall inmate population in adult correctional facilities operating under state or federal authority increased by 10% between the 2000 and 2005 CSFCF. The number of correctional staff rose by 3% during this period. *More than 4 in 5 adult correctional facilities offered inmate work programs and about half of all prisoners had work assignments in 2005. *About 9 in 10 public correctional facilities and about 6 in 10 private correctional facilities offered academic and vocational training programs in 2005. *In 2005, counseling programs--such as life skills and community adjustment, drug and alcohol dependence and awareness, and HIV/AIDS counseling--were offered in nearly all public facilities and in about 3 in 4 private facilities. Facility characteristics The number of adult correctional facilities in the United States rose by 153 (or 9%) between June 30, 2000, and December 30, 2005. Private facilities increased by 151 (from 264 to 415) and accounted for nearly all the growth during this period. The number of public facilities was nearly unchanged between 2000 (1,404) and 2005 (1,406). Growth in private facilities included the addition of six confinement facilities and 145 community-based correctional facilities between 2000 and 2005 (table 1). The number of confinement institutions in the public sector increased by 78 from 1,107 to 1,185 between 2000 and 2005. Community-based facilities declined by 76. (See Methodology for definitions of confinement and community-based facilities.) Federally operated facilities increased by 21%, from 84 in 2000 to 102 in 2005. State operated facilities grew by 9%, from 1,584 to 1,719 during this period. Thirty states operated a larger number of adult correctional facilities in 2005 than in 2000; 14 states and the District of Columbia operated fewer facilities. Seven states had the same number of public and private correctional facilities in 2000 and 2005. Facility size and rated capacity The number of small facilities with an average daily population (ADP) of fewer than 500 inmates rose by 10% between 2000 and 2005. Large facilities with an ADP of 1,000 to 2,499 inmates grew by 13% during this period and facilities with an ADP of 2,500 or more inmates increased by 17%. In comparison, the number of medium-size facilities with an ADP of 500 to 999 inmates remained essentially unchanged, up 2 in the public sector and down 3 in the private sector between 2000 and 2005. The number of prisoners housed in state and federal correctional facilities rose faster than facility capacity expanded. The overall occupancy rate of adult correctional facilities nationwide increased from 2% above capacity in 2000 to 11% above capacity in 2005. The occupancy rate is defined as the number of inmates divided by rated capacity multiplied by 100. State public facilities accounted for most of the overall increase in the occupancy rate from 2000 to 2005. In 2005, public facilities were operating at 12% above rated capacity, compared to 3% above rated capacity in 2000. Private facilities were operating at 5% under rated capacity in 2005, down from 11% under rated capacity in 2000. Federal facilities were operating at 37% above their rated capacity in 2005, up from 34% above capacity in 2000. State facilities were operating at 8% above rated capacity, up from operating at 100% of rated capacity in 2000. Facility security level More than half of the nation's correctional facilities in 2005 were rated as minimum security, more than a quarter as medium security, and more than a fifth were rated as maximum security. (See Methodology for definitions.) Between 2000 and 2005, the number of maximum-security facilities increased by 12%. Nearly all of the increase in facilities rated as maximum security occurred in the public sector. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (up 6), Tennessee (up 5), and Virginia (up 5) accounted for most of the growth in the number of maximum-security facilities. The number of medium-security facilities declined by 8% during this period. The number of minimum-security facilities increased by 19% between 2000 and 2005. Private facilities operating under contract to house state or federal inmates accounted for all of the growth in minimum-security facilities (up by 169 facilities or 87%) between the 2000 and 2005 censuses. More than half of the growth in the number of minimum-security facilities occurred in three states: Connecticut (up 32), Texas (up 28), and Ohio (up 27). Court orders and consent decrees Fewer facilities in both the public and private sectors were under court directives in 2005 than in 2000. About 1 in 8 adult correctional facilities were operating under a court order or consent decree in 2005, compared to 1 in 5 in 2000. Approximately 1% of public facilities were under a court order to limit the size of their inmate population in 2005 due to crowding, compared to 8% in 2000. Six percent of private contract facilities were under court order to limit the size of their inmate population in 2005, compared to 10% in 2000. Twenty-seven of the 44 institutions that were under court order to limit the size of their inmate population in 2005 were restricted to housing fewer than 250 inmates. In 2005, no federal facilities were under a court order to limit the size of their inmate population. Fourteen percent of all public facilities were under court order for specific conditions of confinement in 2005, compared to 22% in 2000. For privately-operated facilities, 7% were under court order in 2005 for specific conditions of confinement, up from 6% in 2000. One federal facility was under a court order for specific conditions in 2005. The Midwest (94%) had the largest percentage of facilities that were not under court order for any reason; the South (82%) had the smallest percentage. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia, or about 35% of all jurisdictions, reported that all facilities in their jurisdictions were free of judicial sanctions at yearend 2005. Private facilities The number of private facilities operating under contract to state or federal correctional authorities increased by 57%, from 264 in 2000 to 415 in 2005 (table 2). The number of private facilities under federal contract rose by 106, nearly two and a half times as fast as private facilities under state contract (up 45) during this period. From midyear 2000 to yearend 2005, the number of inmates held in private facilities rose by 16%, from 91,184 to 105,451. The percentage of federal inmates held in private facilities increased by 54% to 22,801 inmates. State inmates held in private facilities rose by 8% to 82,650 inmates during this period. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia had more private institutions in operation in 2005 than in 2000. Connecticut (up 30) and Ohio (up 25) had the largest increases in the number of private institutions during this period. Thirteen states had fewer private institutions in 2005 than in 2000. California (down 27) and Texas (down 16) reported the largest declines in the number of private institutions under contract to house inmates in their jurisdictions. Approximately 2 in 3 inmates held in private facilities were held in six states--Texas (15,131), Oklahoma (7,802), Colorado (6,195), Florida (5,739), Mississippi (5,683) and Tennessee (5,087)--or in private facilities under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (22,801). Most private facilities were small. About 2 in 3 private facilities had an average daily population of less than 100 inmates. About 1 in 6 held between 100 and 499 inmates and about 1 in 6 held 500 or more inmates. Private facilities operating under contract to federal authorities were some of the smallest and largest private facilities. More than 4 in 5 private facilities operating under contract to federal authorities had an average daily population of less than 100 inmates. The two largest private facilities with an average daily population of 2,500 or more inmates were also federal contract institutions. Inmates Ninety-two percent of inmates held in custody for state or federal authorities on December 30, 2005, were men and 7% were women. The gender of 1% of inmates in custody was not reported (table 3). Male inmates outnumbered female inmates by more than 9 to 1 in every region and in most states. This pattern varied only among community-based facilities, which were defined as institutions that permitted half or more of all inmates to leave the facility, unaccompanied, on a regular basis. Women accounted for slightly more than 10% of the nation's prisoner population housed in community-based facilities. In New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Idaho, women accounted for more than a quarter of inmates housed in community-based facilities. Facility security level Slightly more than a third of state and federal inmates were housed in maximum-security prisons, two-fifths in medium security, and a fifth in minimum-security facilities at yearend 2005. Between 2000 and 2005, inmates held in minimum-security facilities increased by 22% and inmates held in maximum- security facilities increased by 16%. Inmates held in medium-security facilities declined by less than 1% during the period. Nearly all inmates classified for a maximum-security facility were held in public institutions, with private contract facilities housing less than 2% of the total in both 2000 and 2005. Nearly 2 in 5 state inmates were held in maximum-security prisons, compared to 1 in 7 federal inmates. Although 8% fewer medium-security facilities were in operation in 2005 than in 2000, in both years more than two-fifths of all inmates were housed in medium-security facilities. The distribution of inmates in medium-security housing was relatively consistent--43% in public versus 37% in private facilities and 41% in federal versus 43% in state facilities--across sectors. Less than a fifth of all inmates held by public authorities were housed in minimum- or low-security facilities, compared to more than half of all inmates housed in private facilities. Staff An estimated 445,000 employees were working in state and federal correctional facilities at yearend 2005 (table 4). Male employees outnumbered female employees by a ratio of 2 to 1. Among correctional officers and custody staff working in direct contact with inmates, men outnumbered women by a ratio of 3 to 1. The largest difference in staff by gender was among correctional officers in federal facilities. In federal facilities, 87% of correctional officers were men and 13% were women. The smallest difference--52% men and 48% women-- was among the total workforce in private facilities. In state operated facilities, about 74% of correctional officers were men and 26% were women. About 66% of all employees were correctional officers, line staff, or supervisors who worked in direct contact with inmates and were involved in their daily custody or monitoring. Correctional officers accounted for more than 80% of all employees in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware--states which operated combined jail/prison systems. Correctional officers accounted for less than 50% of employees in direct contact with inmates in the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. About 2% of all staff were wardens, superintendents, or other chiefs or lead administrators. Administrators accounted for more than 6% of correctional staff in Montana, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Administrators made up about 1% of correctional staff in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Florida, Maryland, Virginia, and Hawaii. Clerical and maintenance employees, including typists, secretaries, record clerks, janitors, cooks, and groundskeepers accounted for about 12% of the correctional workforce. Federal prisons (21%) had the highest percentage of clerical and maintenance employees; facilities in Florida (3%) had the lowest percentage. Academic and technical education employees made up about 3% of all staff. The percentage of academic and technical education employees ranged from 8% in West Virginia to less than 1% in Alabama, Arkansas, Washington state, and the District of Columbia. Professional and technical staff, including doctors, dentists, nurses, counselors, chaplains, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and classification officers, accounted for approximately 10% of employees. The percentage of professional and technical staff ranged from 24% in South Dakota to 3% in Arkansas. The remaining 7% of employees were either classified in other occupational categories or their occupations were not reported. Inmate-to-staff ratios Between 2000 and 2005, the number of inmates incarcerated in state and federal facilities rose 10%, nearly 3 times faster than the number of employees (up 3%) working in state and federal facilities. The largest increase in inmate-to-staff ratios occurred among federal facilities, from 3.4 to 1 in 2000 to 4.9 in 2005 (table 5). The largest increases in inmate-to-staff ratios among facilities under state authority occurred in Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina (appendix table 14). Among the few jurisdictions that reported a decrease in their inmate-to-staff ratio during this period, North Dakota reported the largest decrease, from 3.1 in 2000 to 2.3 in 2005. Nationwide, the ratio of inmates-to-correctional officers increased from 4.8 to 1 in 2000 to 5.1 in 2005. In both federal prisons (10.3) and in facilities in Alabama (9.3), the ratio of inmates-to-correctional officers was about twice the national average. The ratio of inmates-to-staff in community-based facilities was 3.5 to 1 in 2005, down from 3.8 five years earlier. Facilities in Alabama (8.1) had the highest ratio of inmates-to-staff; South Dakota (1.6) had the lowest. Facility programs Most correctional facilities had inmate work activities and offered inmates educational and counseling programs. Education, counseling, and work programs were available in a higher percentage of public institutions. Work release activities were more common in private facilities. Institutional work programs and work release More than half (54%) of all inmates held in facilities (88%) that operated work programs had work assignments at yearend 2005 (table 6). Work assignments were available to inmates in 97% of public facilities and 56% of private facilities. They were also available in 98% of federal facilities and 87% of state institutions. Facility support--such as office administration, food service and building maintenance--was the most common work activity in 74% of facilities. Public works (44%) assignments, including road and park maintenance, was the second most common work activity, followed by prison industries (31%). Among correctional facilities, 298 or 16% of facilities employed inmates in farming or related activities. Correctional facilities that employed inmates in farming or related activities included 51 institutions in Texas, 29 in Florida, and 29 in Virginia. Work assignments were not offered to inmates in 2% of public facilities and in 21% of private facilities. More than a quarter (28%) of correctional facilities had a work release program, which allowed inmates to work in the community unsupervised by facility staff during the day and to return to the facility in the evening. Approximately 25,000 inmates, or 2% of the total custody population, participated in the program. Educational programs Formal educational programs were available to inmates in more than 9 in 10 public institutions and about 6 in 10 private facilities. The most common educational program offered among all facilities was a secondary education or GED program (77%), followed by literacy training and lower basic adult education (67%), upper basic adult education (66%), and vocational training (52%). More than a third (37%) of all facilities offered special education programs for inmates with learning disabilities. More than a third (35%) of all facilities offered college courses, including 98% of all institutions operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 86% of facilities in Rhode Island, and 80% in Hawaii. No college courses were reported to be offered at facilities in Pennsylvania or South Carolina. English as a second language was taught in about 35% of all facilities, including 93% of institutions in Virginia and 90% in Hawaii. Study-release, a program that allows inmates to study in the community, was one of the least common educational programs. It was offered in 135 institutions or by 7% of all institutions nationwide, including 13 facilities in New Jersey and 11 in North Carolina. Nine percent of all facilities overall reported offering no formal educational programs to inmates, including 29% of institutions in Pennsylvania and 25% of institutions in Delaware. Counseling programs Counseling and special programs were available to inmates in nearly all (97%) public institutions and in about three-quarters (74%) of private facilities. Life skills and community adjustment counseling--including personal finance and conflict resolution--were the most common counseling programs offered in more than three quarters (78%) of all facilities, followed by drug and alcohol dependence and awareness counseling (74%) and job seeking, interviewing, and related employment counseling (73%). Psychological or psychiatric counseling was available in 58% of facilities, HIV and AIDS programs in 55%, parenting and child rearing training in 48%, and sex offender counseling in 36%. Drug and alcohol dependence and awareness counseling was offered in all facilities in Hawaii and Wyoming, compared to 8% of institutions in Florida and 13% in Washington state. No counseling or special programs were available in 29 public and 11 private facilities. Methodology The 2005 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities (CSFCF) was the seventh enumeration of state institutions and the fourth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1984, 1990, 1995, and 2000. The facility universe was developed from the census conducted in 2000. Each state's department of corrections was contacted to identify new facilities and facilities that had closed since June 2000. Telephone follow-ups were carried out during 2006. All but one respondent--Illinois Department of Corrections-- participated in the 2005 CSFCF. Scope Facilities were included in the enumeration if they were staffed with federal, state, local, or private employees; held inmates primarily for state or federal authorities; were physically, functionally, and administratively separate from other facilities; and were operational on December 30, 2005. The census included the following types of adult correctional facilities: prisons and prison farms; reception, diagnostic, and classification centers; facilities primarily for parole violators and other persons returned to custody; road camps; forestry and conservation camps; facilities for youthful offenders except in California; vocational training facilities; drug and alcohol treatment facilities; and state-operated local detention facilities in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Jails and other local and regional detention facilities, including those housing state prisoners, were specifically excluded from the census, as were private facilities not predominantly for state or federal inmates. Also excluded were facilities for the military, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service, and correctional hospital wards not operated by correctional authorities. Data reporting and estimation Because the census was a complete enumeration, the results were not subject to sampling error. The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some inmates in custody in one jurisdiction may be held for a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of inmates under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all inmates over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the inmate is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails. The number of correctional employees in 2005 was not available for 104 facilities or 5.7% of all institutions. To estimate the total number of employees, the total number of facilities nationwide was divided by the number of facilities that reported employees and multiplied by the number of employees reported. A similar formula was used to calculate the total number of correctional officers. Detailed information for each Illinois facility as of June 30, 2000, was reported during the 2000 census. For the 2005 census, data for Illinois were based on the number of facilities and inmates reported on the Illinois Department of Corrections Website as of June 30, 2005. The 48 institutions and 44,150 inmates recorded in the 2000 census for Illinois were used as a base to calculate the 2005 data. Between 2000 and 2005, seven Illinois facilities closed, two new facilities opened, and two facilities merged for a total count of 44 institutions holding 41,777 inmates in 2005. For the 2005 census, 2,892 inmates were added to the count to bring the number of inmates housed in Illinois (44,669 prisoners) into agreement with the number of inmates reported on the Illinois Department of Corrections Website as of June 30, 2005. Because information was not available to make this final adjustment by individual facility, the 44,669 prisoners are not reflected in the data file. Facility-level data on correctional employees in California was not available in 2005. State-wide data on employees by gender and by occupational category other than correctional officers were estimated based on the percentages reported by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in the 2000 census. Additional data, which was requested in the census but not discussed in this report, will be available from the University of Michigan's Criminal Justice Archive in the public use data set--Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005. The additional data includes year of original facility construction; plans to add to, close, or renovate the facility; facilities by gender of inmates authorized to house; inmates by gender under and over age 18; inmates by race and ethnicity; inmates by custody level; inmates by sentence status; non-U.S. citizen inmates; geriatric unit inmates; U.S. military veteran inmates; inmates in protective custody, disciplinary action, administrative segregation, death row, and other restricted population units; inmates held for federal, state, local, and tribal authorities; per diem fees charged to house inmates for other correctional authorities; employees by race and ethnicity; disciplinary/misconduct reports; major and other disturbances during 2005; assaults on staff and resulting staff deaths; assaults on other inmates; escapes from secure custody; and walkaways from community facilities. Definitions Community-based facilities--Correctional facilities were classified as community-based if 50% or more of the residents were regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by facility staff, to work or study in the community. Community-based facilities included entities such as halfway houses, residential treatment centers, restitution centers, and prerelease centers. Confinement facilities--Correctional facilities in which less than 50% of the inmates left the facility unaccompanied on a regular basis. Confinement facilities included prisons, prison farms, penitentiaries, correctional centers, work camps, and reformatories. Design capacity--Design capacity is the number of inmates that the facility planners or architects intended for the facility. High-security facilities--High-security facilities were described as supermax, maximum, close, or high-security facilities and were characterized by a wall or double-fenced perimeter and armed correctional officers stationed in a tower or on patrol. Cell housing was isolated from the perimeter in one of two ways: within a cell block so that a prisoner who had escaped from a cell was confined within the building or by double security using bars, steel doors, or other hardware to isolate the prisoner from the perimeter. All entry to or exit from the cell block was via trap gate or sallyport. Medium-security facilities--Medium-security facilities were characterized by a single- or double-fenced perimeter with armed correctional officers stationed in a tower or on patrol. Housing units included cells, rooms, or dormitories. Dormitories were living units designed or modified to accommodate 12 or more persons. All entry to or exit from the cell housing unit was via trap gate or sallyport. Minimum- or low-security facilities--Medium- or low-security facilities were characterized by a fenced or posted perimeter. Cell housing units were rooms or dormitories. Normal entry to and exit from the cell housing units were conducted under visual surveillance. Rated capacity--Rated capacity is the maximum number of beds or inmates allocated by a rating official to institutions within the jurisdiction. ------------------------------------------------------------- This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables (includes 19 appendix tables) are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site . ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is director. This Web Report was written by James J. Stephan. William J. Sabol, Ph.D., Tracey L. Snell, and Elizabeth Collins-Wildman provided statistical verification. Data collection and processing for this report were carried out by Garry L. Smith with the assistance of Patricia Torreyson and Pamela H. Butler, under the supervision of Charlene M. Sebold, Governments Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Georgette Walsh edited the report, Tina Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final printing, under the supervision of Doris J. James. October 2008, NCJ 222182 ------------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs Innovation -- Partnerships -- Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov ------------------------------------------------------------- 10/02/2008/JER