U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008 December 2009 NCJ 228230 ------------------------------------------------------------ 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://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1764 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://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=42 ------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar BJS Statisticians At yearend 2008, 5,095,200 offenders were under community supervision the equivalent of about 1 in every 45 adults in the United States (figure 1). The community supervision population includes adults on probation and adults on parole. Probationers (4,270,917) represented the majority (84%) of offenders under community supervision. Parolees (828,169) accounted for a significantly smaller share (16%) of this population.***Footnote 1 Probation is a court-ordered period of correctional supervision in the community generally as an alternative to incarceration. In some cases probation can be a combined sentence of incarceration followed by a period of community supervision. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a prison term.*** The data discussed in this report and additional 2008 data are available by jurisdiction in the appendix tables, following Methodology. Highlights *Nearly 5.1 million adults were under community supervision at yearend 2008 the equivalent of about 1 in every 45 adults in the United States. *Probationers (4,270,917) represented the majority (84%) of the community supervision population in 2008; parolees (828,169) accounted for a smaller share (16%). *The probation (0.9%) and parole (0.9%) populations grew at the same rate during 2008. The probation population increased by 36,446 probationers while the parole population increased by 6,992 parolees during the year. *Growth in the probation population has slowed in recent years to an average of 0.7% annually between 2003 and 2008 from an average of 2.5% annually between 2000 and 2003. *The probation exit rate increased from 53 per 100 probationers in 2006 to 55 per 100 in 2008. *The increase in the probation exit rate was associated with an increase in probationers discharged after completing the terms of supervision (58% in 2006; 63% in 2008). *During 2008 growth in the parole population slowed to about a third of the average annual increase between 2005 and 2007 (2.6%), the fastest period of growth in the parole population since 2000. *The parole exit rate increased from 67 per 100 parolees in 2007 to 70 per 100 in 2008. This increase was associated with an increase in parolees discharged after completing the terms of supervision (46% in 2007; 49% in 2008). ------------------------------------------------------------- The data discussed in this report and additional 2008 data are available by jurisdiction in the appendix tables, following Methodology. ------------------------------------------------------------- During 2008 the community supervision population grew 0.9%, or by 43,100 offenders (appendix table 1). Between 2000 and 2003 this population experienced its fastest rate of growth (2.4% annually), growing at a rate three times faster than the average annual increase (0.8%) between 2003 and 2008. The probation population increased 0.9% (or 36,446 probationers) during 2008 (appendix table 2). The fastest period of growth (2.5% annually) in the probation population occurred between 2000 and 2003. Since 2003 the average annual rate of growth in the probation population has slowed. Between 2003 and 2008 the probation population increased at an average annual rate (0.7%) that was less than a third of its average annual increase between 2000 and 2003. Similar to the increase in the probation population, the parole population rose 0.9% (or 6,992 parolees) during 2008 (appendix table 12). Between 2000 and 2003 the parole population increased an average of 2.1% annually before slowing to an average increase of 0.7% per year between 2003 and 2005. The fastest period of growth in the parole population since 2000 occurred between 2005 and 2007 (2.6% annually). During 2008 (0.9%), growth in the parole population slowed to about a third of the rate of growth observed between 2005 and 2007. Probation has accounted for about 82% of the growth in community supervision since 2000 During the past eight years the number of offenders supervised in the community has increased by more than half a million (545,100), from an estimated 4.6 million in 2000 to nearly 5.1 million in 2008. The increase in the community supervision population largely reflected the growth in the probation population during this period. The number of probationers increased from 3.8 million in 2000 to almost 4.3 million in 2008, representing approximately 82% (or 444,708) of the growth in the community supervision population between 2000 and 2008. During this period the parole population increased from 723,898 parolees to 828,169, representing a significantly smaller share (19% or 104,271) of the growth in the community supervision population.***Footnote 2 A small number (less than 1%) of the community supervision population was known to be on both probation and parole. For this reason the amount of growth represented by probationers (82%) and parolees (19%) does not add to 100%.*** ***Footnote 3 Changes in the community supervision population, as well as the probation and parole populations, are based on data reported by the jurisdictions annually. While these data are specific to the reporting year, the reporting methods for some probation and parole agencies changed over time. See Methodology.*** Entries to probation declined in 2008 while exits from probation continued to rise In addition to supervising nearly 4.3 million probationers in 2008, probation agencies received an estimated 2.4 million adults who were placed on probation, up from nearly 2.2 million in 2000 (figure 2).***Footnote 4 Entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies, and the estimation method for Pennsylvania changed in 2008. The national estimates of entries and exits are based on estimation methods for Pennsylvania from 2000 to 2007 that are comparable to 2008; therefore, the estimates are not comparable to previously published BJS reports. See Methodology.*** These probation agencies discharged an estimated 2.3 million probationers from supervision in 2008, up from over 2.1 million in 2000. Correctional population increased 0.5% in 2008; the smallest annual increase since 2000 Over 7.3 million men and women were under some form of correctional supervision at yearend 2008, including offenders supervised in the community (5,095,200) on probation or parole and those incarcerated (2,304,100) in state or federal prisons and local jails (table 1). About 3.2% of adults in the U.S. resident population, or 1 in every 31 adults, were under correctional supervision at yearend 2008. This rate has remained fairly stable during the past eight years. The 0.5% (or 33,900 offenders) increase in the correctional population in 2008 was the smallest annual increase since 2000. Offenders under community supervision (70%) made up the majority of the correctional population at yearend 2008, while inmates incarcerated in prison or jail accounted for 30%. These percentages have remained relatively unchanged since 2000. Similar to the slower rate of growth in the correctional population during 2008, the incarcerated population (0.3%) experienced its smallest increase since 2000. Additionally, the community supervision population grew less than 1% for the second year (0.7% in 2007; 0.9% in 2008). While the incarcerated population experienced a faster average annual rate of growth (2.2%) than the community supervision population (1.4%) between 2000 and 2008, the community supervision population represented the majority of the growth in the correctional population. The total correctional population increased by 863,100 offenders between 2000 and 2008. Offenders supervised in the community represented 58% of the growth in the correctional population, while inmates incarcerated in prison or jail represented 42%.***Footnote 5 Some offenders in prison or jail remained under the jurisdiction of a probation or parole agency. Information on calculating the growth of the total correctional population and accounting for offenders with dual correctional statuses is available in the Methodology.*** In each year since 2000, the number of adults entering probation has exceeded the number exiting, and the probation population increased annually.***Footnote 6 See Methodology for a discussion on entries and exits to probation and parole and changes in the number of offenders in these populations.*** In 2008 the number of entries to probation exceeded the number of exits by about 28,500. However, the number and rate of growth in probation entries declined during the year while exits continued to increase. Probation entries decreased by 1.0% (down 23,000 probationers) while exits increased 1.1% (up 25,000). From 2000 to 2006 the average annual increase in probation entries (0.9%) was slightly larger than exits (0.8%), and the probation population increased by an average of 1.6% per year. Since 2006 the growth in exits has, on average, outpaced the growth in entries. From 2006 to 2008 probation exits increased an average of 2.4% annually while entries increased 1.5%, and growth in the probation population slowed to an average annual rate of 0.7%. Increase in probation exit rate since 2006 was associated with an increase in probationers completing supervision The probation exit rate is a measure of how quickly the probation population turns over and how long probationers remain under supervision. The exit rate for all probationers was 55 per 100 probationers in 2008 (table 2). This means that more than half of the probation population was discharged from supervision during the year. Since 2006 (53 per 100) the exit rate for all probationers has continued to increase, and the average annual rate of growth in the probation population has slowed. The increase in the exit rate since 2006 was associated with an increase in the percentage of probationers discharged after either completing their full-term probation sentence or receiving an early discharge. Of the estimated 2,230,200 probationers discharged from supervision during 2006, 58% had either completed their full-term probation sentence or received an early discharge (table 3). By 2008 the rate of completion rose to 63% of the estimated 2,340,800 probationers discharged during the year. The increase in the probation population during 2008 was partially offset by declines in five states with probation populations over 100,000 During 2008, 30 states and the District of Columbia reported an increase in their probation populations, accounting for a total increase of 74,829 probationers during the year (figure 3). Georgia (17,877) reported the largest absolute increase in its probation population, followed by Colorado (11,278), Pennsylvania (9,986), Arizona (5,402), and Florida (3,506). States that reported the smallest increases include Alaska (180), Kansas (132), New Mexico (109), and Wyoming (80). Growth in the probation population was partially offset by a decrease of 38,383 probationers in 20 other states and the federal system. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of this decrease occurred in five states, each of which had a probation population of more than 100,000. Those five states include California (-9,602) which reported the largest absolute decrease in its probation population, followed by Texas (-7,226), Michigan (-5,704), Washington (-2,757), and New York (-2,209). States that reported the smallest declines in their probation populations during the year include Nevada (-124), Vermont (-117), New Hampshire (-101), and Montana (-34). Majority of probationers were under active supervision at yearend 2008; 1 in 12 were absconders The majority (71%) of probationers were on active supervision at yearend 2008 (appendix table 5). Probationers on active supervision are required to regularly report to a probation authority in person, by telephone, or by mail. Probationers on inactive supervision (8%) were not required to report regularly and accounted for a smaller share of the population. Absconders who had failed to report and could not be located also accounted for 8% of the probation population. About 6% of probationers had a warrant issued for their arrest, and 7% were on other statuses. About 3 in 10 probationers were drug offenders in 2008, up from about a quarter in 2000 The most common type of offense for which probationers were under supervision in 2008 was a drug offense. About 3 in 10 probationers were under supervision for a drug offense in 2008, up from about a quarter (24%) of all probationers in 2000. A quarter (25%) of probationers were under supervision for a property offense in 2008, up from 23% in 2004. The share of probationers under supervision for a violent offense (19%) remained unchanged between 2004 and 2008. Data on probationers supervised for property and violent offenses were not collected prior to 2002. Public-order offenders, including those supervised for a DWI or other traffic offense, represented a smaller share of the probation population in 2008 (17%) compared to 2000 (24%). Other changes in the composition of the probation population during the last eight years include a larger share of women in 2008 (24%), compared to 2000 (22%). White probationers also represented a larger share of the probation population in 2008 (56%), compared to 2000 (54%). During this period the percentage of black probationers declined from 31% in 2000 to 29% in 2008. The percentage of Hispanic probationers and probationers of other races have remained fairly stable. Parole exits grew at a faster rate than entries in 2008, and growth in the parole population slowed In 2008, 828,169 offenders were under parole supervision, an increase of 6,992 parolees from the previous year. The growth in the parole population during 2008 (0.9%) was a third of the rate of growth during 2007 (2.7%). From 2000 to 2008, parole entries grew from an estimated 484,400 to 581,000; parole exits increased from an estimated 473,900 to 574,000 (figure 4).***Footnote 7 Entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies, and the estimation method for Pennsylvania changed in 2008. See footnote 4 and Methodology.*** Since 2000 the size of the parole population has grown each year as the number of adults entering parole supervision has exceeded the number exiting.***Footnote 8 See Methodology for a discussion on entries and exits to probation and parole and changes in the number of offenders in these populations.*** In 2008 the parole population grew 0.9% as the number of entries exceeded exits by 7,000. However, the rate of growth in the population slowed during 2008 as exits from parole grew 5.6%, more than two and half times faster than the growth in entries to parole (2.1%). The slower growth rate in entries was consistent with the smaller increase in the number of inmates conditionally released from prison to community supervision during 2008. (See Prisoners in 2008, available online at .) Between 2000 and 2003, the growth in parole entries (1.5% per year) outpaced exits (0.9% per year), and the parole population grew by an average of 2.1% annually. Parole exits (3.2% annually) grew, on average, faster than entries (2.3% annually) between 2003 and 2005, and the growth in the parole population slowed (0.7% annually). The average increase (2.6% annually) in the parole population rose again between 2005 and 2007. During this period the average annual rate of growth in parole entries (3.6%) was faster than the growth in parole exits (2.5%). In 2008 the growth in the parole population slowed again as the number of exits from parole increased at a faster rate than the number of entries to parole. Rise in parole exit rate during 2008 was associated with an increase in parolees completing the terms of their supervision The exit rate for all parolees was 70 per 100 in 2008 (table 4). This exit rate indicates that 70% of the parole population was discharged from supervision at some point during the year. Between 2005 and 2007 (67 per 100 for both years) the parole exit rate remained fairly stable. During this period as the exit rate remained stable and entries continued to rise, the parole population experienced its fastest average rate of growth (2.6% per year) since 2000. As the exit rate for all parolees increased from 2007 to 2008, growth in the parole population slowed (0.9%). Growth in the parole exit rate during 2008 was associated with an increase in the percentage of parolees who were either discharged from supervision either after completing their full-term sentence or receiving an early discharge. Of the estimated 543,600 parolees discharged from supervision in 2007, 46% had met the conditions of their supervision and served their full-term sentence or received an early discharge (table 5). The rate of completion increased to almost half (49%) of the estimated 574,000 parolees who were discharged during 2008. Slowing rate of growth in parole population during 2008 was related to the overall decline in state parole During 2008, 34 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system reported an increase in their parole populations, amounting to a total of 22,081 parolees (figure 5). The federal system (7,234) reported the largest absolute increase in the nation, followed by Missouri (2,027) and Michigan (1,392). The smallest increases occurred in Utah (29), Wyoming (21), Delaware (16), and New Hampshire (8). The federal system accounted for a third of the total increase in the parole population in 2008. Growth in the federal parole population exceeded the total change in the nation's parole population (6,992) during the year. Contributing to the rise in the federal parole population was the significantly faster growth in entries (9%) to federal parole supervision, compared to exits (0.4%) (not shown in graph). Fifteen states reported a decline in their parole populations for a total decrease of 14,860 parolees during 2008.***Footnote 9 Excludes Virginia because the state could not provide data for January 1. See Methodology.*** In absolute numbers Pennsylvania (-5,516) and California (-3,011) reported the largest declines among the states that reported a decrease, accounting for more than half (55%) of the decrease in the parole population during 2008. The smallest declines in the number of parolees occurred in Maine (-1) and Oregon (-1). Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the total change in the parole population amounted to an estimated decline of 242, which was offset by the increase in the federal parole population during the year. Although the federal parole population grew 7.9% during 2008, the overall decline in state parole contributed to slowing the growth in the nation's parole population to 0.9% during the year (not shown in graph). About 85% of all parolees were required to regularly report to a parole authority in 2008; about 6% were absconders In 2008, 85% of parolees were on active parole supervision and were required to regularly report to a parole authority in person, by mail, or by telephone (appendix table 15). Another 6% of the parole population were classified as absconders and could not be located, while 4% were on inactive supervision and were not required to regularly report to a parole authority. The remaining 5% of parolees were on other statutes. Most parolees were under supervision for a drug offense; whites accounted for about 4 in 10 parolees in 2008 In 2008 parolees were more likely to have served a sentence for a drug offense (37%) than any other type of offense, down slightly from 38% in 2004. Property offenders represented a smaller share of the parole population in 2008 (23%) compared to 2004 (26%), while violent offenders accounted for a slightly larger share of the parole population in 2008 (26%) compared to 2004 (25%). Prior to 2002 no offense data on parolees were collected; 2008 was the first year that weapon offense data were collected separately. The parole population was predominantly male in 2008 (88%), and this percentage has remained unchanged since 2000. White parolees represented 41% of the parole population at yearend 2008, up from 38% in 2000. Black and Hispanic parolees represented smaller shares of the population during this period. Black parolees made up 38% of the population in 2008, down from 40% in 2000. Hispanic parolees accounted for 19% of the population, down from 21% in 2000. Methodology Begun in 1980 the Annual Probation Survey and the Annual Parole Survey collect data on the total number of adults supervised in the community on January 1 and December 31 each year and data on the number of adults who enter and exit supervision during each year. Both surveys cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) depends entirely upon the voluntary participation of state central reporters and separate state, county, and court agencies for its annual data on probation and parole. In 2008 the U.S. Census Bureau served as the BJS collection agent for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data for the federal system were provided directly to BJS through the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP), which obtained data directly from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Probation The 2008 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 467 respondents 33 central state reporters, 432 separate state, county, or court agencies, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. States with multiple reporters were Alabama (3), Arizona (2), Colorado (8), Florida (41), Georgia (2), Idaho (2), Kentucky (3), Michigan (134), Missouri (2), Montana (4), New Mexico (2), Ohio (187), Oklahoma (3), Pennsylvania (2), Tennessee (3), Washington (32), and West Virginia (2). Parole The 2008 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 55 respondents 51 central state reporters, the California Youth Authority, one municipal agency in Alabama, the state agency in Pennsylvania which also provided county data, and the federal system. States with multiple reporters were Alabama (2), California (2), and Pennsylvania (2). Virginia was not able to provide data for January 1, 2008. Additional details for Virginia are provided under Estimating the January 1, 2008 parole population in Virginia. Federal parole (as defined here) includes a term of supervised release from prison, mandatory release, parole, military parole, and special parole. Definitional differences exist between parole reported here and in other BJS data series. Additional information about the data collection instruments is available online at (last accessed October 20, 2009). Updating probation and parole population counts each year Some states update their probation and parole population counts for different reasons after submitting the data to BJS. Updated population counts usually include data that were not entered into the information system before the survey was submitted or data that were not fully processed by yearend. For these reasons and with the exception of the data reported for 2008, the population counts on December 31 for years ending 2000 to 2007 are based on the January 1 counts for the next reporting year. Population counts for yearend 2008 are based on December 31, 2008 data. Estimating the January 1, 2008 parole population in Virginia Virginia was unable to provide data for January 1, 2008. The respondent was able to provide an estimate of the change (5% decrease) in Virginia's parole population during 2008. The estimated decline was used to impute the January 1, 2008 parole population for Virginia (estimated at 4,700). Changes in reporting methods among probation agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2008 Nine reporting agencies in separate jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting probation data between 2000 and 2008. These changes included administrative changes, such as consolidating databases or implementing new information systems, resulting in data review and cleanup, reclassifying offenders, including those on probation to parole and offenders on dual community supervision statuses, and including certain probation populations that were not previously reported. This section discusses those nine reporting agencies. It also discusses the year the change occurred and the total change in the jurisdiction's probation population, as well as the total change in the jurisdiction's probation population between 2000 and 2008. Combined, changes in population and changes due to new reporting methods for these nine jurisdictions accounted for 207,900 additional probationers between 2000 and 2008, representing approximately 47% of the total change (444,708) in the nation's probation population during this period. BJS was unable to precisely break out the amount of change in the probation population attributable to a change in population versus a change in reporting methods based on the information provided. Three Alabama agencies respond to the Annual Probation Survey. The state agency changed its method of reporting probation data beginning with its January 1, 2006 population by including certain probationers in the population whose statuses had previously been classified as other than a probationer in prior years. The reporting change resulted in a difference of about 9,600 additional probationers in Alabama's total population reported between December 31, 2005 (38,995) and January 1, 2006 (48,607). The total change in Alabama's probation population was about 13,100 additional probationers between 2000 and 2008. The District of Columbia changed its method of reporting probationers beginning with its January 1, 2008 population because probationers who were on active supervision and awaiting approval for a transfer through an interstate compact agreement were excluded from the prior years' data. The reporting change resulted in a difference of nearly 1,600 additional probationers between the December 31, 2007 (6,485) and January 1, 2008 (8,073) populations reported by the District of Columbia. The total change in the District of Columbia's probation population between 2000 and 2008 was a decline of about 2,100 probationers. Two Georgia state agencies respond to the Annual Probation Survey. The state agency that provides misdemeanant data of probationers supervised by private agencies changed its reporting methods beginning with its January 1, 2007 population when it expanded coverage. The reporting change resulted in a difference of about 9,600 additional probationers in Georgia's total population reported between December 31, 2006 (422,790) and January 1, 2007 (432,436). The same agency experienced another reporting change beginning with its January 1, 2008 population when it excluded probationers under supervision for a minor traffic citation. This reporting change resulted in a decline of nearly 56,200 probationers in Georgia's total population reported between December 31, 2007 (435,361) and January 1, 2008 (379,204). The total change in Georgia's probation population was about 75,700 additional probationers between 2000 and 2008. Additionally, because the state agency that experienced reporting changes has the capacity to report probation cases and not the number of individuals under supervision, the counts may have overstated the total number of individuals under probation supervision in Georgia. Maryland changed its method of reporting probationers beginning with its January 1, 2007 population when it expanded the scope of its probation population to include certain DWI offenders who had previously been excluded from its population. The reporting change resulted in a difference of about 18,400 additional probationers between the December 31, 2006 (75,698) and January 1, 2007 (94,100) populations reported by the state. The total change in Maryland's probation population was approximately 14,800 additional probationers between 2000 and 2008. Massachusetts changed its method of reporting probationers beginning with its January 1, 2003 population when it classified certain types of offenders, who had been previously excluded from the state's probation data, as probationers based on new guidelines. The reporting change resulted in a difference of about 87,300 additional probationers between the December 31, 2002 (44,013) and January 1, 2003 (131,319) populations reported by Massachusetts. The state experienced a similar change in reporting methods beginning with its January 1, 2004 population. This reporting change resulted in a difference of approximately 39,300 additional probationers between the December 31, 2003 (127,135) and January 1, 2004 (166,464) populations reported by the state. The total change in Massachusetts' probation population between 2000 and 2008 was an increase of about 139,100. Two New Mexico agencies respond to the Annual Probation Survey. The state agency changed its method of reporting probation data beginning with its January 1, 2003 population when its information system was modified to include certain probationers who had been previously excluded from its population. The reporting change resulted in a difference of approximately 4,700 additional probationers in New Mexico's total population reported between December 31, 2002 (11,626) and January 1, 2003 (16,287). The state agency experienced another reporting change beginning with its January 1, 2006 population because the agency's information system did not have the capacity to report probationers on statuses other than active supervision. This reporting change resulted in a decline of about 3,700 in New Mexico's total probation population reported between December 31, 2005 (18,706) and January 1, 2006 (14,982). The state agency changed its method of reporting probationers again beginning with its January 1, 2007 population when its capacity to report data, including probationers on different types of supervision statuses, was enhanced. The reporting change resulted in a difference of nearly 1,400 additional probationers in New Mexico's total population reported between December 31, 2006 (16,493) and January 1, 2007 (17,878). The total change in New Mexico's probation population was an increase of about 10,400 between 2000 and 2008. New York changed its method of reporting probation data for two different reasons beginning with its January 1, 2003 population. First, the state reconciled the status of certain probationers in its information system based on new guidelines. Second, the probation data reported prior to January 1, 2003 were case counts, and not counts of individuals. The reporting change resulted in a decrease of nearly 65,100 probationers between the December 31, 2002 (198,042) and January 1, 2003 (132,966) populations reported by New York. The total change in New York's probation population was a decrease of about 67,600 between 2000 and 2008. Pennsylvania's state agency provides both state and county probation data. The agency changed its method of reporting county probation data, starting with the December 31, 2004 population, by reconciling the status of certain offenders who were previously classified as being on a dual probation and parole status. The reporting change resulted in a difference of nearly 30,000 additional probationers in Pennsylvania's total population reported between January 1, 2004 (137,206) and December 31, 2004 (167,180). The total change in Pennsylvania's probation population was an increase of approximately 65,800 probationers between 2000 and 2008. Washington has 32 agencies that respond to the Annual Probation Survey. The state agency changed its method of reporting probation data beginning with its January 1, 2004 population when the agency reclassified certain offenders on supervised release following a prison term from probationers to parolees. The change resulted in a decrease of nearly 25,100 in Washington's total probation population reported between December 31, 2003 (172,814) and January 1, 2004 (147,741). The total change in Washington's probation population was a decrease of about 41,300 probationers between 2000 and 2008. Changes in reporting methods among parole agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2008 Six reporting agencies in separate jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting parole data between 2000 and 2008 for the same reasons as those agencies that changed their methods of reporting probation data adminstrative changes, reclassification of offenders, and the addition of certain parole populations not previously reported. This section discusses those six reporting agencies. It also discusses the year the change occurred and the change in the state's total parole population, as well as the total change in the state's parole population between 2000 and 2008. Combined, changes in population and changes due to new reporting methods in these six states accounted for 7,400 additional parolees between 2000 and 2008, representing approximately 7% of the total change (104,271) in the nation's parole population during this period. Two Alabama agencies respond to the Annual Parole Survey. The state agency changed its method of reporting parole data beginning with the January 1, 2006 population by including certain offenders whose statuses had previously been classified as other than a parolee in prior years. The reporting change resulted in a difference of approximately 500 additional parolees in Alabama's total parole population reported between December 31, 2005 (7,252) and January 1, 2006 (7,795). The state agency changed its reporting method again beginning with the January 1, 2007 population when it consolidated data sources. The change resulted in a decline of about 1,200 parolees in Alabama's total parole population reported between December 31, 2006 (8,685) and January 1, 2007 (7,508). The total change in Alabama's parole population was an increase of about 2,600 between 2000 and 2008. Alaska made improvements to its method of reporting parole data starting with its January 1, 2007 population. The reporting change resulted in a difference of nearly 500 additional parolees between the December 31, 2006 (1,044) and January 1, 2007 (1,527) populations reported by Alaska. The total change in Alaska's parole population was an increase of about 1,200 parolees between 2000 and 2008. New Mexico changed its method of reporting parole data beginning with its January 1, 2007 population because its information system was enhanced, which resulted in an increased capacity to report data, including parolees on different types of supervision statuses. The reporting change resulted in a difference of almost 600 additional parolees in New Mexico's total parole population reported between December 31, 2006 (2,922) and January 1, 2007 (3,517). The total change in New Mexico's parole population was an increase of nearly 2,100 parolees between 2000 and 2008. Pennsylvania's state agency provides both state and county parole data. The agency changed its method of reporting county parole data, starting with its December 31, 2004 population, by reconciling the status of certain offenders who were previously classified as being on a dual probation and parole status. The reporting change resulted in a decline of approximately 25,100 parolees in Pennsylvania's total population reported between January 1, 2004 (102,244) and December 31, 2004 (77,175). The total change in Pennsylvania's parole population was a decrease of nearly 9,400 parolees between 2000 and 2008. Virginia changed its method of reporting parolees starting with its January 1, 2007 population when it expanded the scope of its parole population based on new guidelines. The change included post-release offenders who had been previously excluded from the parole counts reported by the state in prior years. The reporting change resulted in a difference of approximately 3,200 additional parolees between the December 31, 2006 (3,978) and January 1, 2007 (7,201) populations reported by the state. In 2008 Virginia consolidated its databases, which resulted in subsequent data review and cleanup. This reporting change resulted in a decrease of an estimated 2,200 parolees between the December 31, 2007 population (6,850) reported by the state and the imputed January 1, 2008 population (estimated at 4,700). The total change in Virginia's parole population was a decline of nearly 700 parolees between 2000 and 2008. The state of Washington changed its method of reporting parole data starting with its January 1, 2004 population when it reclassified certain offenders on supervised release following a prison term from a probation status to a parole status. The change in the state's parole population was a difference of 24,800 additional parolees between the December 31, 2003 (105) and January 1, 2004 (24,905) populations reported by the state. The total change in Washington's parole population was an increase of about 11,600 parolees between 2000 and 2008. Imputing probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2008 BJS used one of four methods to impute probation entries for nonreporting agencies and a single method to impute exits. The method used to impute entries was dependent on the data available. The first method was used to estimate entries and exits for nonreporting county and district agencies in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. BJS estimated probation entries in 2008 by using the ratio of entries in 2007 to the agency's probation population on January 1, 2007 and applying that ratio to the agency's January 1, 2008 population. BJS estimated exits from supervision by adding the agency's estimated probation entries in 2008 to the agency's probation population on January 1, 2008, and subtracting that estimate from the probation population on December 31, 2008. Estimating probation entries in 2008 for one agency in Arizona required BJS to use data from 2004 because the growth observed in the agency's probation population during that year was similar to the growth observed in 2008. The agency provided probation entries and exits for 2007; however, growth in the agency's probation population in 2007 was significantly larger than the growth observed during 2008. The second method was used to estimate probation entries for nonreporting county and district agencies in Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. These agencies were also unable to report probation entries and exits in 2007. The ratio of 2008 entries to the January 1, 2008 population among reporting agencies in the same state was used to estimate the number of entries for nonreporting agencies with similar numbers of probationers. To estimate probation exits for these agencies, BJS used the first estimation method. BJS used a third method to estimate probation entries for one state agency in West Virginia. This agency reported interstate compact data only. BJS estimated the number of entries for this agency by using the ratio of 2008 entries to the January 1, 2008 probation population among reporting agencies within the same region. To estimate probation exits for this agency, BJS used the first estimation method. BJS used a fourth method to estimate entries to and exits from probation and parole supervision in Pennsylvania counties. This method is discussed in Changes in estimating probation and parole entries and exits in Pennsylvania counties. Changes in estimating probation and parole entries and exits in Pennsylvania counties From 1999 to 2007 probation and parole entries and exits were estimated in Pennsylvania counties based on the last year (1998) the state was able to provide the data. In 2008 the method changed because the Pennsylvania respondent was able to provide additional information, including the number of combined probation and parole entries to county supervision, by county, and the number of combined probation and parole exits from county supervision, by county. The 2008 data were estimated in two steps and the methodology was provided to the Pennsylvania respondent for review. Sixty-two of the 65 counties in Pennsylvania were able to provide combined probation and parole entries and exits to the Pennsylvania county respondent in 2008. In the first step of estimation, data for the three nonreporting counties were estimated. To estimate the 2008 data for two of those nonreporting counties, the first method (See Imputing probation entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2008) was applied to the 2007 data provided by those counties. The third county was also unable to provide probation and parole entries and exits in 2007. For the third county, entries and exits were estimated based on data provided by other counties in Pennsylvania with a similar number of probationers and parolees and that had a similar increase in their combined probation and parole population during 2008. The estimates of probation and parole entries and probation and parole exits for these three counties were added to the combined probation and parole entries and the combined probation and parole exits for the other 62 counties, yielding a total number of probation and parole entries and exit for all 65 counties. In the second step of estimation, the total number of probation entries and exits for all 65 counties and the total number of parole entries and exits for all 65 counties were estimated separately. The Pennsylvania respondent was able to provide separate January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008 counts of county probationers and county parolees. The percentage of the total combined probation and parole population on January 1, 2008 attributable to probation only was applied to the total number of combined probation and parole entries in the 65 counties to estimate the number of entries to probation. The residual was used as an estimate of the number of entries to parole during 2008. Probation exits were estimated by adding the estimated 2008 county probation entries to the January 1, 2008 county probation population and subtracting the December 31, 2008 county probation population. County parole exits were estimated using the same method. National estimates of probation and parole entries and exits from 2000 to 2008 Probation and parole entries and exits are estimated for nonreporting agencies and the estimation method for Pennsylvania counties changed in 2008 because the Pennsylvania respondent was able to provide additional information. The national estimates of entries and exits are based on estimation methods for Pennsylvania counties from 2000 to 2007 that are comparable to 2008. The 2007 estimates of entries and exits nationwide were re-estimated using the same method as 2008 because the Pennsylvania was able to provide the same additional information for 2007. For years 2000 to 2006, the national totals of probation entries were re-estimated by adding the difference (28,400) of probation entries in Pennsylvania counties in 2007 between the old and new methods of estimation. The national totals of probation exits (difference of 28,400) and parole entries (difference of 14,400) and exits (difference of 14,500) from 2000 to 2006 were re-estimated using the same method. Estimating national change in entries and exits and the nation's probation and parole populations Technically, the change in the probation and parole populations from the beginning of the year to the end of the year should equal the difference between entries and exits during the year. However, the differences may not be equal. Some probation and parole information systems track the number of cases that enter and exit community supervision versus the number of offenders. This means that entries and exits may include case counts as opposed to counts of offenders, while the beginning and end of year population counts represent individuals. Additionally, all the data on entries and exits may not have been logged into the information systems or the information systems may not have fully processed all of the data before the data were submitted to BJS. Calculating growth in the total correctional population and accounting for offenders on dual correctional statuses Some offenders in prison or jail remained under the jurisdiction of a probation or parole agency. In order to calculate the contributions of both the community supervision and incarcerated populations to the growth in the total correctional population, offenders with dual correctional statuses were excluded from the community supervision population. If offenders with dual correctional statuses had been excluded from the incarcerated population, the community supervision population would have accounted for 63% of the total growth in the correctional population between 2000 and 2008; the incarcerated population would have accounted for 37%. Estimating 2007 community supervision and prison data for nonreporting jurisdictions In 2007 Oklahoma did not provide community supervision data. Community supervision data for Oklahoma were estimated by BJS. See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2007 Statistical Tables, available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus07st.htm>. Maine and Nevada did not provide prison data for 2007. Prison data for Maine and Nevada were estimated by BJS. See Prisoners in 2007, available online at (last accessed October 20, 2009). Estimating the adult resident population The U.S. Census Bureau provided BJS with provisional estimates of the adult resident population in each state on January 1, 2009. Other available information Detailed information for 2008 is available in appendix tables 1 to 22. Explanatory notes for probation and parole are also available. Appendix tables include-- Community supervision *Appendix Table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2008 Probation *Appendix Table 2. Adults on probation, 2008 *Appendix Table 3. Adults entering probation, by type of sentence, 2008 *Appendix Table 4. Adults exiting probation, by type of exit, 2008 *Appendix Table 5. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2004, 2008 *Appendix Table 6. Adults on probation, by gender, 2008 *Appendix Table 7. Adults on probation, by race and Hispanic origin, 2008 *Appendix Table 8. Adults on probation, by status of supervision, 2008 *Appendix Table 9. Adults on probation, by type of offense, 2008 *Appendix Table 10. Adults on probation, by most serious offense, 2008 *Appendix Table 11. Adults on probation tracked by a Global Positioning System (GPS), also on parole, or incarcerated, 2008 Parole *Appendix Table 12. Adults on parole, 2008 *Appendix Table 13. Adults entering parole, by type of sentence, 2008 *Appendix Table 14. Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2008 *Appendix Table 15. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2004, 2008 *Appendix Table 16. Adults on parole, by gender, 2008 *Appendix Table 17. Adults on parole, by race and Hispanic origin, 2008 *Appendix Table 18. Adults on parole, by status of supervision, 2008 *Appendix Table 19. Adults on parole, by maximum sentence to incarceration, 2008 *Appendix Table 20. Adults on parole, by most serious offense, 2008 *Appendix Table 21. Adults on parole, by type of release from prison, 2008 *Appendix Table 22. Adults on parole tracked by a Global Positioning System (GPS), also on probation, or incarcerated, 2008 Explanatory notes include-- Probation--Explanatory notes, 2008 Parole--Explanatory notes, 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Michael D. Sinclair is the acting director. Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar wrote this report. Lauren E. Glaze, Thomas P. Bonczar, and Matthew S. Cooper analyzed the data and prepared the tables. William J. Sabol and Matthew S. Cooper provided statistical verification. Sheri R. Simmons and Todd Minton provided statistical review. Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced the report and Jayne Robinson prepared it for final printing under the supervision of Doris J. James. Nicole S. Adolph and Jorgelina A. Arroyo carried out the data collection and processing under the supervision of Latrice M. Brogsdale-Davis, Governments Division, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Ryan D. Driscoll provided technical assistance under the supervision of Duane H. Cavanaugh. December 2009, NCJ 228230 ------------------------------------------------------------- This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: ------------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs Innovation  Partnerships  Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov ------------------------------------------------------------- 12/8/2009 JER/11:12am