U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006 August 2008, NCJ 222180 ------------------------------------------------------------- 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/cspsa06.htm ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- By Thomas P. Bonczar BJS Statistician ------------------------------------------------------------- Overview State parole supervising agencies employed nearly 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time workers on June 30, 2006, according to findings from the 2006 Census of State Parole Supervising Agencies. The average caseload was 38 active parolees for each full-time equivalent (FTE) position devoted to parole supervision. About half of parole supervising agencies had a role in releasing prisoners to parole, setting the conditions of supervision, or conducting revocation hearings. The census collected information from 52 state agencies which included 2,287 separate administrative, regional, and other offices (table 1). These agencies reported that they supervised 660,959 adult parolees or about 83% of the 798,202 parolees reported at yearend 2006 in the Annual Parole Survey. (See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006, available at .) Combined parole and probation agencies supervised 4 times as many offenders on probation as on parole On June 30, 2006, 35 of the reporting state parole supervising agencies also supervised adults on probation. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release following a prison term. Criminal offenders sentenced to a period of correctional supervision in the community are on probation. These combined parole-probation supervision agencies supervised about 4 times as many offenders on probation (1,200,570) as on parole (269,416). The 1.2 million probationers represented about a quarter of the estimated 4,237,023 adults on probation on December 31, 2006, as reported in the 2006 Annual Probation Survey. Among the agencies that provided information, 17 supervised paroled offenders only. These agencies had 503 offices less than a quarter of the total number of offices but they supervised more than half of the total parole population. ------------------------------------------------------------- A technical supplement has been added to this report, including an expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes ------------------------------------------------------------- Seven state agencies reported that they supervised juveniles on probation or parole in addition to adults; however, not all agencies reported the number of juveniles on supervision. State parole supervising agencies located in a department of corrections supervised a smaller percentage of parolees (69%) than probationers (77%). In comparison, agencies that were independent of a department of corrections supervised a larger share of parolees (25%) than probationers (16%). Ten independent agencies were located in the executive branch of government; one (Alabama) was in the legislative branch (see appendix table 1, forthcoming). Other parole agencies supervised nearly an equal share of parolees (7%) and probationers (8%). Five agencies supervised half of the parole population Five state agencies accounted for about half of the adults under parole supervision on June 30, 2006 (table 2). These five agencies include the Departments of Corrections in California (125,067 adults on parole); ***Footnote 1: An additional 67 parolees were under supervision by the California Youth Authority on June 30, 2006.*** Texas (101,175); and Illinois (33,354); and two independent agencies, New York (53,215) and Pennsylvania (24,956, excluding adults supervised by county parole offices). Pennsylvania also supervised adults on probation (3,777) at midyear 2006. State parole supervising agencies employed nearly 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time workers Including payroll staff, nonpayroll staff, and contract staff, an estimated 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time workers were employed by the 52 state parole supervising agencies on June 30, 2006 (table 3). This number includes imputed estimates for parole supervising agencies in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon that did not provide information on staffing in the census. Nonpayroll staff included those on the payroll of other government agencies, unpaid interns, and volunteers. In the 49 state agencies that provided information, 82% of full-time employees worked for a department of corrections, 16% worked for an independent parole agency, and 1% for another type of agency. Nearly all part-time employees (96%) worked for a department of corrections. When viewed by type of population served, 66% of full-time workers and 81% of part-time workers were employed by an agency that supervised both parolees and probationers. Among state agencies that provided information about their employees, nearly all full-time workers (94%) and about half of part-time workers (47%) were on the payroll. An equal percentage of the remaining full-time employees were nonpayroll staff and contract staff (3% each). Among part- time workers, 40% were nonpayroll staff and 13% were contractors. Men (51%) and women (49%) made up nearly equal percentages of full-time employees. Women were 58% of part-time employees. Average caseload was 38 active parolees for each FTE devoted to supervision Respondents were asked to report the portion of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions devoted to direct supervision of adult offenders on active parole on June 30, 2006. The census included directions for counting the time that full-time and part-time employees had available for supervising parolees. Respondents were also asked to count just that portion of time available for supervision of parolees among employees who divided their time between supervision of parolees and other responsibilities. An estimated 14,000 FTE staff supervised about 528,000 adults active on parole on June 30, 2006 in the 52 agencies included in the census (table 4). Staff positions allocated to supervision of offenders on active parole amounted to about 1 in 5 of the estimated 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part- time staff members. This resulted in an average caseload at midyear 2006 of 38 persons on active parole supervision for each FTE staff position devoted to adult parole supervision. An average of 49 parolees were on active supervision for each FTE position devoted to supervision in agencies that supervised only parolees (based on 16 agencies that provided information). Among agencies that had authority for both parolees and probationers, 28 parolees were on active supervision per FTE position (based on 25 agencies). These caseload calculations do not take into account differences in the offenses for which parolees had been incarcerated or differences in their required levels of supervision. Two-thirds of paroled offenders were required to meet with a parole officer at least once a month Two-thirds of adult offenders on parole were required to have face-to-face contact with a parole officer at least once a month, including 14% who were required to have weekly face-to-face contact (table 5). An additional 17% of paroled offenders were required to meet with their parole officers less than once a month or to maintain contact by mail, telephone, or other means. Thirteen percent of paroled offenders were no longer required to report on a regular basis. A reporting frequency had not yet been determined for 3% of paroled offenders. Nearly 8 in 10 adult offenders were on active parole supervision. Half of parole supervising agencies had a role in releasing prisoners to parole, setting the conditions of supervision, or conducting revocation hearings Twenty-six of the 50 state agencies providing information reported that, as of June 30, 2006, they participated in releasing persons from prison to parole supervision, setting the terms or conditions of adult parole supervision, or conducting parole revocation hearings (table 6). Of the 26 agencies that performed at least one of these functions, 14 performed all 3 functions. The remaining 24 agencies that responded performed none of these functions. Two agencies did not provide information. Nineteen of 50 parole supervising agencies reported at midyear 2006 that they considered prisoners for release. In the census, 13 parole supervising agencies reported that between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, they considered 126,641 prisoners for release and released 57,850 a rate of 46 prisoners released per 100 considered. Some prisoners considered for release may have been released after this period, and some of those released may have been considered for release before the period. North Dakota released 76 prisoners per 100 considered for release and Connecticut released 71 (table 7). Arizona released 13 per 100. The census did not collect information on the characteristics of prisoners considered for release. Paroled offenders are frequently required to abide by one or more conditions of supervision when released into the community. Such conditions may include payment of supervision fees, submission to drug testing, finding employment, and fulfilling requirements for treatment. Adult parole supervising agencies in 20 states reported that they set the terms or conditions of adult parole supervision. In 14 of these states, the parole board also had a role. The 30 parole supervising agencies reporting that they did not perform this function most frequently identified the parole board (27 jurisdictions) as the entity that set the terms or conditions of supervision. Failure to abide by the terms or conditions of supervision may result in revocation of parole. Revocation can result in the return of the paroled offender to incarceration or lead to modification of the conditions of parole supervision. Seventeen of the 18 agencies that had responsibility for conducting parole revocation hearings held 67,534 hearings between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Based on the number of adults on parole in these agencies during the year ending June 30, 2006, no more than one in five parolees had a revocation hearing.***Footnote 2: This was calculated by dividing 67,534 parole revocation hearings by an estimated 317,828 parolees at risk of re-incarceration.*** This is because some parolees may have had more than one revocation hearing. A total of 317,828 parolees were at risk of re-incarceration in these 17 agencies, including an estimated 203,125 adults on parole on June 30, 2005, plus an estimated 114,703 who entered parole supervision between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006 (not shown in table). Each of the 18 agencies that conducted parole revocation hearings reported sharing this responsibility with a parole board. Thirty of the 32 supervising agencies that did not conduct revocation hearings identified the parole board as the authority performing this function. Up to 16% of at-risk parolees in some agencies were re-incarcerated for a failed drug test All 50 parole supervising agencies that provided information reported testing paroled offenders for the use of illegal drugs during the year ending June 30, 2006. Eight agencies were able to report the number of parolees returned to incarceration between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, due to a drug violation detected during agency testing. These agencies re-incarcerated between less than 0.5% and 16% of those estimated to have been at risk of re-incarceration (table 8). The population at risk of re-incarceration in these agencies included adults who were on parole on June 30, 2005, plus those who entered parole between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Information about the number of paroled offenders tested and whether testing was done upon entry to supervision, randomly, or upon suspicion of use, was not obtained. Nearly all agencies report use of drug, sex offender, or mental health treatment programs On June 30, 2006, 47 of 49 parole supervising agencies reported having paroled offenders enrolled in a drug treatment program run by a formally trained professional (table 9). In the 21 agencies that provided enrollment counts, an average of 10.9% of all paroled offenders (28,084 of 258,652) were enrolled in such a program. Nearly all agencies (46) also reported that paroled offenders were enrolled in a self-help or drug awareness program such as Narcotics Anonymous or Cocaine Anonymous. Seven of these agencies, supervising 26,333 parolees, reported that 4,510 parolees (17.1%) were in these programs on June 30, 2006. The other agencies were unable to provide counts. Nearly all parole supervision agencies also reported having paroled adult offenders enrolled in a sex offender treatment program (46 agencies), or a mental health treatment program (47) (table 10). Twenty-six agencies reported that 3.7% of paroled offenders were enrolled in a sex offender treatment program, and 17 agencies reported that 9.0% of paroled offenders were enrolled in a mental health treatment program operated by a formally trained mental health professional. Among the agencies that provided information, a greater percentage of paroled offenders were enrolled in drug treatment programs than in sex offender or mental health programs. 2 in 5 parole supervising agencies operated or contracted a housing service for paroled offenders Respondents were asked whether their parole agency had a program that provided assistance to parolees in obtaining housing, beyond an occasional referral by a parole officer to an apartment building or landlord. Among 50 state supervising agencies that provided information, 7 reported having a working relationship with a state or county housing agency, and 6 had a contract with a private rental agency to refer paroled offenders to landlords (table 11). Four agencies operated an in-house service to provide housing referrals to paroled offenders. Ten other agencies operated other types of programs. Twenty of the 50 agencies that provided information indicated that as of June 30, 2006, they had some type of formal housing assistance program for paroled offenders (table 12). Four agencies offered two or more types of housing assistance programs. Half of parole supervising agencies offered some type of formal employment assistance Other than an occasional referral by a parole officer to a job opening or to a particular employer, the most frequent type of formal employment assistance provided by parole supervising agencies involved a working relationship with a state or county employment agency (17 agencies). Nearly equal numbers of parole supervising agencies reported that paroled offenders received employment assistance through a contract with a private employment service (8 agencies), that the parole agency operated an in-house employment service for paroled offenders (6 agencies), or that some other type of employment assistance was provided (6 agencies). Overall, 25 of the 50 adult parole supervising agencies that provided information had some type of organized program to provide employment assistance to paroled offenders at midyear 2006 (table 13). Seven agencies offered more than one type of employment assistance program. Methodology The 2006 Census of State Parole Supervising Agencies, with a reference date of June 30, 2006, was sent to 68 respondents, including 50 central state reporters, the California Youth Authority, and the District of Columbia (table 14). Sixteen local Minnesota Community Corrections Act agencies were asked to provide information on staffing and supervision not available from the state. The purpose of the census was to collect information about parole supervising organizations. In contrast with the parole census, the 2006 Annual Parole Survey (APS),with a reference date of December 31, 2006, was sent to 54 respondents, including 54 central state reporters, the California Youth Authority, and 1 municipal agency. The APS collected summary counts of the number of adults on parole at the beginning and end of the year, the number of adults entering and exiting parole supervision during the year, and characteristics of the end of year parole population. The APS has been conducted annually since 1977. Responses to the parole census included one summary response from a central respondent in the Oregon Department of Corrections based on summary data gathered from 36 county governments that independently administered all adult parole supervision in the state. Illinois provided only counts of the adult parole population on December 31, 2007 for the state as a whole and by parole office. Wisconsin provided no data. Virginia's report of 8,609 adults on parole supervision on June 30, 2006, included additional groups of offenders that were not previously reported. For the parole census, Virginia included all paroled offenders for whom the state has responsibility, paroled felons who are the responsibility of local jurisdictions in Virginia, and offenders whose parole was originally supervised by the courts that sentenced them. Restricting Virginia's parole count to the groups included in the 2006 Annual Parole Survey would result in an estimate of 4,239 adults on parole on June 30, 2006 based on an average of the state's adult parole population on January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006. A technical supplement to this report is forthcoming. It includes an expanded Methodology that discusses estimation procedures. It contains detailed Explanatory Notes with definitions, limitations, and counting exceptions in the census. Also, the supplement will contain appendix tables with state-level data and other details on findings in this report. Revised 2/9/09 JER