U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009 December 2010 NCJ 231680 Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar BJS Statisticians Fan Zhang, BJS Intern ---------------------------------------------------------- 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=2233 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- During 2009, the number of offenders under community supervision declined 0.9%, from 5,064,975 to 5,018,855 (figure 1; appendix table 1). This was the first decline observed in the community supervision population, including adults on probation or parole, since the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980.1***Footnote 1See Methodology for a discussion of the probation and parole statistical series before 1980.*** 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. It includes supervision following a discretionary or mandatory release from prison and other types of post-custody conditional supervision, such as a term of supervised release. ------------------------------------------------------------- Highlights * During 2009, the number of offenders on probation or parole--community supervision population--declined (down 0.9%) for the first time since the BJS began its Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey in 1980. * The probation population decreased by 0.9% during 2009 as probation entries declined (down 2.4%) and the number of probation exits exceeded entries by 33,900. * The percentage of probationers who completed the terms of their supervision or were discharged early increased between 2008 (63%) and 2009 (65%), contributing to the decrease observed in the probation population. * During 2009, the total parole population decreased by 0.7%. While the federal parole population increased by 5,232 during 2009, this increase was offset by a decline of 10,758 in the state parole population. * Parole entries decreased (down 1.2%) during 2009 and the number of parole exits exceeded entries by 5,200, leading to a decline in the total parole population. * The percentage of parolees who completed the terms of their supervision or were discharged early rose between 2008 (49%) and 2009 (51%), contributing to the decrease observed in the total parole population. * The rate of return to incarceration--based on all parolees who were at risk of violating the conditions of their supervision--declined between 2006 (15%) and 2009 (14%). ----------------------------------------------------------- The decrease in the community supervision population resulted from decreases in both the probation (down 0.9%) and parole (down 0.7%) populations during the year. At yearend 2009 about 1 in every 47 adults in the United States were under community supervision, a decrease from about 1 in every 45 adults observed since 2004. Most (87%) of the decrease (down 46,120) in the community supervision population during 2009 was attributed to the decline in the probation population. The parole population represented a smaller share (12%) of the decrease 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, and the total community supervision population was adjusted to account for offenders with a dual supervision status. For this reason the amount of the decrease represented by probationers (87%) and parolees (12%) does not sum to 100%*** Decline in probation population observed during 2009 as exits from probation exceeded entries The probation population decreased by 40,079 probationers during 2009, from 4,244,046 to 4,203,967 (table 1; appendix table 2). Twenty-nine states reported decreases in their probation population in 2009, with a combined total decrease of 79,801. Washington (down 13,899), California (down 13,023), and Florida (down 11,319) reported decreases of 10,000 or more probationers during the year. These three states accounted for almost half of the total decrease in the probation population. The decline in the probation population during the year in those 29 states was partially offset by a combined total increase of 39,722 probationers in 21 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. Large decreases in some states were consistent with recent legislation passed, as in Washington, and court-ordered mandates, as in California, to address current budgetary constraints by reducing community supervision populations. Washington and California were required to reduce their community supervision populations, including both the probation and parole populations, by concentrating resources primarily on high-risk, violent offenders and reducing the number of nonviolent, low-risk offenders supervised. The number of entries to probation declined for the second consecutive year. Between 2007 and 2008, entries declined by 23,000 (down 1.0%). The decline in entries was larger between 2008 and 2009 (down 55,700 or 2.4%). The decline in entries during 2009 contributed to the decrease in the probation population, as the number of exits from probation (2,347,500) exceeded the number of entries (2,313,600) for the first time since the Annual Probation Survey began in 1980 (table 2).***Footnote 3 See Methodology for a discussion on entries and exits to probation and parole and changes in the number of offenders in these populations.*** Rate at which probationers completed supervision rose during 2009, consistent with a trend observed since 2006 The exit rate of the at-risk probation population is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers who exited supervision during the year to the number of probationers who could have exited supervision at any point during the year (i.e., at-risk probation population). ***Footnote 4 The at-risk probation population is defined as the number of offenders on probation at some point during the year referenced, which is equivalent to the number under supervision at the start of the year (on January 1) plus the number that entered supervision during the year. See table 2 for the calculation of the exit rate for the at-risk probation population.*** The probation exit rate is a measure of how quickly the population turns over. A small increase in the exit rate of the at-risk probation population was observed between 2006 (34 per 100 probationers at risk of exiting) and 2009 (36 per 100). The small increase in the exit rate was not related to an increase in the percentage of probationers who were incarcerated because the percentage of probationers incarcerated declined between 2006 (18%) and 2009 (16%) (table 3). The increase in the exit rate between 2006 and 2009 was associated with an increase in the percentage of probationers who completed the terms of their supervision, through either completion of their full-term sentence or an early discharge (58% in 2006; 65% in 2009). To measure the rate at which all offenders on probation during the year could be incarcerated, the rate of incarceration of the at-risk population is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers who were discharged during the year as the result of incarceration to the number of probationers who could have been incarcerated at any point during the year (i.e., at risk of incarceration).***Footnote 5 See Methodology for a discussion of the at-risk measure of incarceration that is reported in figure 2 and the differences between this measure and the outcome measures, including the completion and incarcerated measures, based on the cohort exiting probation during each year, that are reported in table 3.*** Since 2006, the rate of incarceration, including incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, of the at-risk probation population remained relatively stable (6.1% in 2006; 5.8% in 2009) (figure 2). Felony probation population increased between 2008 and 2009, reversing a declining trend observed over the first 8 years of the decade Between 2008 and 2009 the number and percentage of probationers supervised for a felony increased. In 2008 an estimated 2,111,800 (49%) of probationers were supervised for a felony (appendix table 5). As the probation population declined during 2009, the estimated number (2,138,700) of felons on probation increased and accounted for a larger portion (51%) of the probation population at yearend 2009. The increase in the felony probation population observed between 2008 and 2009 reversed a declining trend observed between 2000 (52%) and 2008 (49%). Consistent with the increase in the felony probation population between 2008 and 2009 was a small decrease in the percentage of probationers supervised for a misdemeanor (48% in 2008; 47% in 2009), reversing an increasing trend observed since 2000 (46%). Another change in the composition of the probation population between 2008 (29%) and 2009 (26%) was a decrease in the percentage of drug offenders supervised on probation. Small increases were observed among property offenders between 2008 (25%) and 2009 (26%) and public-order offenders (17% in 2008; 18% in 2009). The percentage of violent offenders on probation remained unchanged between 2008 and 2009 (19% for both years). Decline in parole population observed in 2009 resulted from a decrease in state parole The total parole population decreased (down 5,526) from 824,834 to 819,308 during 2009. The state parole population decreased (down 10,758) during 2009 and accounted for all of the decrease in the U.S. parole population (table 4). This was the second year in a row that the state parole population declined. The decrease in the state parole population was partially offset by an increase (up 5,232) in the federal parole population. This was the second consecutive year that the federal system reported the largest increase in the nation. In 2009, 19 states reported decreases in their parole population, accounting for a total decrease of 29,488 parolees. California (down 19,923) and Washington (down 5,205) reported the largest decreases in the nation. These two states accounted for more than two-thirds of the total decrease in parolees, with California alone accounting for half of the total decrease. The decreases in the parole populations in California and Washington were consistent with the declines in the probation populations observed in these two states during the year and the recent court-ordered mandates and legislative changes discussed in the section Decline in probation population observed during 2009 as exits from probation exceeded entries on page 2. More jurisdictions (33), including the federal system, reported increases in their parole population than decreases (19) during 2009. However, the combined total decrease (down 29,488) in the 19 jurisdictions that reported declines exceeded the combined total increase (up 18,730) in the 33 jurisdictions that reported increases, and the parole population decreased for the first time. Exits from parole exceeded entries during 2009, resulting in a decline in the parole population The number of entries to parole declined by 7,100 during 2009, and the number of parole exits (579,100) exceeded entries (573,900), resulting in the decrease in the parole population during the last year (table 5). The decline in parole entries during 2009 was consistent with the decrease observed in the number of prisoners released from state or federal jurisdiction during the year, including a decrease in the number of prisoners conditionally released to community supervision. The decrease in the number of prisoners released during 2009 was the first decline observed in prison releases since 2000. (See Prisoners in 2009, BJS Web, December 2010.) Parole completion rate rose during 2009, continuing a trend observed since 2006 The exit rate of the at-risk parole population is defined as the ratio of the number of parolees who exited supervision during the year to the number of parolees who could have exited supervision at any point during the year (i.e., at-risk parole population).***Footnote 6 The at-risk parole population is defined as the number of offenders on parole at some point during the year referenced, which is equivalent to the number under supervision at the start of the year (on January 1) plus the number that entered supervision during the year. See table 5 for the calculation of the exit rate for the at-risk parole population.*** Between 2008 and 2009 the exit rate of theat-risk parole popuation remained stable (41 per 100 for both years). While the parole exit rate remained stable during 2009, the percentage of parolees who completed supervision through either completion of their full-term sentence or an early discharge increased from 49% in 2008 to 51% in 2009 (table 6). The increase in the parole completion rate during 2009 continued a trend observed since 2006 (45%). Since 2006 the rate of return to incarceration among all parolees who were at risk of violating the conditions of their supervision and being incarcerated declined from 15.4% in 2006 to 14.0% in 2009 (figure 3). The overall decline in the rate of return to incarceration among the at-risk parole population was attributed to small decreases in each of the types of return to incarceration between 2006 and 2009. The rate at which parolees were incarcerated as the result of a revocation (10.4% in 2006; 9.9% in 2009) and for a new sentence (4.4% in 2006; 3.6% in 2009) decreased by less than 1.0% (not shown). ***Footnote 7 Details do not sum to the total rate of return to incarceration because parolees were also returned to incarceration for other reasons in both years (about 0.7% in 2006; 0.5% in 2009). See Methodology for a discussion of the at-risk measure of incarceration that is reported in figure 3 and the differences between this measure and the outcome measures, including the completion and incarcerated measures, based on the cohort exiting parole during each year, that are reported in table 6.*** As the parole population declined during 2009, most of the characteristics of the parole population remained stable (appendix table 15). One change observed in the population during the last year was a small increase in the percentage of parolees supervised for a violent offense in 2009 (27%) compared to 2008 (26%). Drug offenders represented a slightly smaller percentage of the parole population in 2009 (36%) compared to 2008 (37%), while other offense types remained relatively unchanged. Methodology The Bureau of Justice Statistics's (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980. The National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, BJS's predecessor agency, began a statistical series on parole in 1976 and probation in 1979. The two surveys 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. BJS depends entirely on the voluntary participation of state central reporters and separate state, county, and court agencies for its annual data on probation and parole. In 2009 the U.S. Census Bureau served as BJS's 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, which obtained data directly from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Probation The 2009 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 466 respondents: 33 central state reporters; 431 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 (31), and West Virginia (2). One local probation agency in Washington closed during 2009. Parole The 2009 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 55 respondents: 50 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). 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 on the BJS Website at . Updating probation and parole population counts each year Some states update their probation and parole population counts for different reasons after submitting their 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, the population counts on December 31 for years ending 2000 to 2008 are based on the January 1 counts for the next reporting year. Population counts for yearend 2009 are based on December 31, 2009, data. Changes in reporting methods among probation agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2009 Ten reporting agencies in separate jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting probation data between 2000 and 2009. These changes included administrative changes, such as consolidating databases or implementing new information systems, resulting in data review and cleanup; reconciling probationer records; 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. Combined, changes in population and changes due to new reporting methods for these 10 jurisdictions accounted for about 220,100 additional probationers between 2000 and 2009, representing approximately 58% of the total change (377,800) in the nation's probation population during this period. Based on the information provided, BJS could not break out precisely the amount of change in the probation population attributable to a change in the population itself versus a change in reporting methods. See Explanatory notes for a discussion about the reporting changes since 2000 in the following ten jurisdictions: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Changes in reporting methods among parole agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2009 Reporting agencies in seven jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting parole data between 2000 and 2009. The reasons for changing their methods of reporting parole data were the same as for probation data--administrative changes, reclassification of offenders, and the addition of certain parole populations not previously reported, which can result from new, enhanced information systems that improve the tracking of all types of parolees. Combined, changes in population and changes due to new reporting methods in these seven states accounted for about 4,900 additional parolees between 2000 and 2009, representing approximately 5% of the total increase (95,410) in the nation's parole population during this period. See Explanatory notes for a discussion about the reporting changes since 2000 in the following seven jurisdictions: Alabama, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2009 BJS used one of four methods to impute probation entries for nonreporting agencies, based on the availability of data, and a single method to impute exits. The first method was used to estimate entries and exits for probation agencies that were unable to report these data in 2009 but were able to report these data in 2008. BJS estimated probation entries in 2009 by using the ratio of entries in 2008 to the agency's probation population on January 1, 2008 and applying that ratio to the agency's January 1, 2009 population. BJS estimated exits from probation by adding the agency's estimated probation entries in 2009 to the agency's probation population on January 1, 2009, and subtracting that estimate from the probation population on December 31, 2009. These methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits in nonreporting county and district agencies in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Washington. A second method was used to estimate probation entries for agencies that were unable to report entries and exits in both 2008 and 2009. The ratio of 2009 entries to the January 1, 2009 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 same estimation method as described in the previous paragraph. These methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits for nonreporting county and district agencies in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. A third method was used to estimate probation entries for one state agency in West Virginia, which only reported interstate compact data. BJS estimated the number of entries for this agency by using the ratio of 2009 entries to the January 1, 2009 probation population among reporting agencies within the same region (South). To estimate probation exits for this agency, BJS used the same estimation method as described above. Fourth, to estimate entries to and exits from probation and parole supervision in Pennsylvania counties, BJS used additional data from Pennsylvania's County Adult Probation and Parole, Annual Statical Report, 2009, including the number of combined county probation and parole entries and exits by county. Using this additional information, the 2009 probation and parole entries and exits in Pennsylvania counties were estimated in two steps and the methodology was provided to the Pennsylvania respondent for review. Sixty of the sixty-five counties in Pennsylvania were able to provide combined probation and parole entries and exits to the Pennsylvania county respondent during 2009. In the first estimation step, data for the five nonreporting counties were estimated; the method that was used depended on the availability of data. To estimate the 2009 data for two of the nonreporting counties, the first method discussed in this section was applied to either the 2007 or 2008 data provided by those counties, depending on the availability of data. For the fourth nonreporting county, which also could not provide 2008 data, exits were estimated based on the ratio of 2007 exits to this county's December 31, 2007 community supervision population and was applied to the county's December 31, 2009 population to estimate exits during 2009. Using the ratio of 2007 entries to the county's January 1, 2007 population and applying it to the county's January 1, 2009 population would have yielded a negative number of entries given the increase (52% or 50 additional offenders) in this county's community supervision population during 2009. To estimate entries in this county, the county's total community supervision population on December 31, 2009 was added to the estimated number of exits, then the county's total community supervision population on January 1, 2009 was subtracted from that sum. For the last nonreporting county, entries and exits were estimated based on data provided by other counties in Pennsylvania that had a similar number of probationers and parolees and also had a similar increase in their combined probation and parole population during 2009. The estimates of probation and parole entries and exits for these counties were added to the combined probation and parole entries and exits for the other 60 counties, yielding a total number of probation and parole entries and exits for all 65 counties. In the second estimation step, the total number of probation and parole entries and exits for all 65 counties were estimated separately. The Pennsylvania respondent was able to provide separate January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009 counts of county probationers and county parolees. The percentage of the total combined probation and parole population on January 1, 2009 attributable to probation only was applied to the total number of combined probation and parole entries in the 65 counties during 2009 to estimate the number of entries to probation. The residual was used to estimate the number of entries to parole during 2009. Probation exits were estimated by adding the estimated 2009 county probation entries to the January 1, 2009 county probation population and subtracting the December 31, 2009 county probation population. County parole exits were estimated using the same method. Changes in estimating Pennsylvania county and national entries and exits from 2000 to 2007 See Methodology in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8 December 2009, for a discussion of the changes in estimating probation and parole entries and exits from 2000 through 2007 that were implemented in 2008. The estimation method changed in 2008 because the Pennsylvania county respondent was able to provide BJS with additional information to impute probation and parole entries and exits for Pennsylvania counties. Consequently, in 2008, the national estimates of probation and parole entries and exits from 2000 to 2007 were re-estimated to account for the change in the Pennsylvania estimation method and to ensure that the 2000 through 2007 national estimates were comparable with the 2008 estimates. The 2009 national and Pennsylvania county estimates of probation and parole entries and exits are comparable to the estimates published in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8 December 2009. Community supervision outcome measures Outcome measures based on exiting cohort. Historically, BJS has reported the percentage of offenders who completed supervision and the percentage of offenders who were incarcerated, among all offenders who exited supervision during the year, as the community supervision outcome measures. Because these outcome measures are based on the number of offenders exiting supervision (i.e., the exiting cohort) within the reference year, they are based on a cohort that comprises different types of offenders, including those who completed the terms of their supervision or received an early discharge; were incarcerated again either for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons; died; or were discharged for other reasons. The percentage of offenders who completed supervision is defined as the number of offenders that completed supervision during the year and were discharged, among all offenders who were discharged from supervision during the year. The formula used to calculate this outcome measure is C(t)/D(t), where D(t) = C(t) + I(t) + O(t). Within this formula, t equals the year referenced, C(t) equals the number of offenders who were discharged from supervision during the year after completing their terms or who received an early discharge, and D(t) equals the total number of offenders discharged from supervision during the year. D(t) includes C(t), the number of offenders who completed supervision; I(t), the number who were incarcerated during the year; and O(t), the number who were discharged during the year for other reasons. The percentage of offenders incarcerated is defined as the number of offenders who were discharged from supervision during the year as the result of being incarcerated, among all offenders who were discharged during the year. The formula used to calculate this outcome measure is I(t)/D(t), where D(t) = C(t) + I(t) + O(t). Within this formula, t equals the reference year; I(t) equals the number of offenders that were discharged during the year as the result of an incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons; and D(t) equals the total number of offenders that were discharged from supervision during the year defined as in the paragraph above. Outcome measure based on at-risk population. The rate of incarceration (for parolees this is also referred to as the "rate of return to incarceration") based on the at-risk offender population is defined as the ratio of the number of offenders that were discharged from supervision during the year because they were incarcerated for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, to the number of all offenders at risk of being incarcerated during the year. The at-risk population is defined as the number of offenders under supervision at the start of the year (on January 1) plus all offenders who entered supervision during the year. All of these offenders could be incarcerated at any time during the year; hence, they were at risk of incarceration.The formula used to calculate this outcome measure is I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t)), where t equals the year referenced, P(t-1) equals the start of the year population, and E(t) equals the number of offenders that entered supervision during the year. There are distinct differences between the rate of incarceration measure based on the at-risk population and the discharge-based outcome measures. First, because both the discharge-based completion and incarcerated outcome measures are based on the exiting cohort, the two measures include a population (i.e., denominator) that has different risk periods. For example, the exiting cohort includes offenders who exited after completing their supervision, which can only be achieved after a certain period of time (i.e., after an offender serves a specified amount of time under supervision and/or fulfills specific conditions of their supervision), as well as offenders who were incarcerated during the year, which can occur at any point while an offender is under supervision. The at-risk measure of incarceration accounts for all offenders under supervision during the year (i.e., offenders who were under supervision on January 1 plus those who entered during the year), who are the offenders "at risk" of being incarcerated; this measure is not limited to only offenders who were discharged during the year. Second, specifically in comparison to the discharge-based completion rate, the at-risk measure of incarceration allows that each offender can be incarcerated at any time during the year. A nonincarceration measure, which can also be interpreted as a nonfailure measure, based on the at-risk population can be calculated using the formula 1 [I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t))], where I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t)) is the rate of incarceration among the at-risk population and subtracted rate from 1. The nonincarceration rate includes offenders who were still under supervision at the end of the year (i.e., did not fail as the result of an incarceration) and offenders who were discharged during the year for reasons other than incarceration, including offenders who completed the terms of their supervision or received an early discharge. Estimating the national total of offenders under community supervision incarcerated annually to calculate the national rate of incarceration among the at-risk population BJS defines the rate of incarceration for probationers and parolees as the ratio of the number of offenders who were discharged from supervision during the year because they were incarcerated to the number of offenders at-risk of incarceration. The number at-risk of incarceration is the sum of the number of offenders on probation or parole at the start of the year plus the number that entered supervision during the year. See the section Community supervision outcome measures, Outcome measure based on at-risk population above for more details. To generate estimates for the numerator of this ratio, post-stratification weighting methods were used to weight reporting jurisdictions' data on type of exit (i.e., incarceration). The first weight was defined as the ratio of each jurisdiction's proportionate contribution to the national total of known reported exits, which included all types of exits except those reported as unknown type, to the jurisdiction's contribution to the national total of all reported exits, which included all types of exits including those reported as unknown type. This weighted total was then weighted up to the BJS total of imputed exits; total exits were estimated for jurisdictions, or any reporting agency within a jurisdiction, that were not able to report total exits. See the section Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2009 for more details. The second weight was defined as the ratio of each jurisdiction's weighted total of known reported exits to the jurisdiction's total imputed exits, which was equal to the number of total reported exits within the jurisdiction if total exits were not missing. The denominator of the rate of incarceration ratio included estimates generated by BJS for jurisdictions, or any reporting agency within a jurisdiction, that were not able to report total entries during the year. The method used to generate the estimates is described in this methodology in the section Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2009. 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, those numbers may not be equal. Some probation and parole information systems track the number of cases that enter and exit community supervision, not the number of offenders. This means that entries and exits may include case counts as opposed to counts of offenders, while the beginning and yearend 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. Estimating 2007 and 2008 community supervision and prison data for nonreporting jurisdictions In 2007 Oklahoma could 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, BJS Web, 11 December 2008.Nevada could not provide prison data for 2007, so BJS estimated prison data for Nevada. See Prisoners in 2007, BJS Web, 11 December 2008. Virginia could not provide parole data for January 1, 2008, although Virginia did provide parole data for December 31, 2008. BJS estimated Virginia's January 1, 2008 parole population. See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8 December 2009. Estimating the adult resident population The U.S. Census Bureau provided BJS with preliminary estimates of the adult resident population in each state on January 1, 2010. Other available information Detailed information for 2009 is available in appendix tables 1 to 22. The 2009 appendix tables are in alphabetical order; region totals appear at the bottom of the appendix tables. Specific jurisdictions per region are listed below: Northeast--Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Midwest--Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin. South--Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. West--Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Explanatory notes for probation and parole are also available and appear after the appendix tables. Appendix Tables Community supervision Appendix Table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2009 Probation Appendix Table 2. Adults on probation, 2009 Appendix Table 3. Adults entering probation, by type of sentence, 2009 Appendix Table 4. Adults exiting probation, by type of exit, 2009 Appendix Table 5. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2008 -2009 Appendix Table 6. Adults on probation, by sex, 2009 Appendix Table 7. Adults on probation, by race and Hispanic or Latino origin, 2009 Appendix Table 8. Adults on probation, by status of supervision, 2009 Appendix Table 9. Adults on probation, by type of offense, 2009 Appendix Table 10. Adults on probation, by most serious offense, 2009 Appendix Table 11. Adults on probation, 2009: number tracked by a Global Positioning System (GPS), number on parole, or number incarcerated, Parole Appendix Table 12. Adults on parole, 2009 Appendix Table 13. Adults entering parole, by type of sentence, 2009 Appendix Table 14. Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2009 Appendix Table 15. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2008-2009 Appendix Table 16. Adults on parole, by sex, 2009 Appendix Table 17. Adults on parole, by race and Hispanic or Latino origin, 2009 Appendix Table 18. Adults on parole, by status of supervision, 2009 Appendix Table 19. Adults on parole, by maximum sentence to incarceration, 2009 Appendix Table 20. Adults on parole, by most serious offense, 2009 Appendix Table 21. Adults on parole, by type of release from prison, 2009 Appendix Table 22. Adults on parole, 2009: number tracked by a Global Positioning System (GPS), number on probation, or number incarcerated, Probation: Explanatory notes Federal--data for the federal system were provided 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. Alabama--has three reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 90% of Alabama's total probation population, and two local agencies. Alabama's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 2,483 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes since 2000--Alabama's state agency changed its method of reporting probation data beginning with its January 1, 2006 population by including certain probationers in the population whose status had 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 an increase of about 9,800 probationers between 2000 and 2009. Alaska--total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes an unknown number of probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). Arizona--has two reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 97% of Arizona's total probation population, and one local agency. Arizona's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional estimated 1,316 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Colorado--has eight reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 87% of Colorado's total probation population, and seven local agencies. Due to changes in reporting, probation data reported by Colorado's state agency in 2009 may not be comparable to data reported by this agency in previous years (appendix table 2).See Reporting changes since 2000 below Colorado's total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes 35 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an additional estimated 1,066 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes since 2000--Colorado's state agency changed its method of reporting probation data beginning with its January 1, 2009 population. This reporting change resulted from the reconciliation of probation records, including converting case records to individual records for some newly admitted probationers, and eliminating records for some probationers who had their supervision terminated through a drug court. The reporting change resulted in a reduction of about 14,789 probationers in Colorado's total population reported between December 31, 2008 (88,912) and January 1, 2009 (74,123). The total change in Colorado's probation population was about 27,700 additional probationers between 2000 and 2009. Connecticut--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an estimated additional 1,023 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Delaware--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 755 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). District of Columbia--some of the increase (up 16.2% or 1,249 probationers) in the District of Columbia's probation population during 2009 was associated with a slowing rate of discharge. For example, more probationers had their term extended due to non-compliant behavior, such as not fulfilling all sentence conditions. This resulted in fewer probationers discharged compared to the number that entered supervision during the year, which contributed to the increase during 2009 (appendix table 2). Reporting changes since 2000 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 2009 was a decline of about 1,700 probationers. Florida--has 41 reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 66% of Florida's total probation population, and 40 local agencies. Florida's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 378 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Georgia--as two state reporting agencies. One agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the state, representing 39% of Georgia's total probation population. The second agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the counties, including county probationers who were under supervision for a misdemeanor and supervised by private probation agencies. The county probation population represented 61% of Georgia's total probation population. Because the agency that reports the county data has the capacity to report probation cases and not the number of individuals under supervision, the counts may overstate the number of individuals under probation supervision in Georgia. Probationers with multiple sentences could potentially have one or more cases with one or more private probation agencies in one jurisdiction and/or one or more private probation agencies within another jurisdiction. Additionally, as part of continued effort to enhance reporting methods, this Georgia agency changed its method of reporting probation data in 2009, See Reporting changes since 2000 below. For this reason, data are notcomparable to the data reported by Georgia in prior years (appendix table 2). Georgia's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes since 2000--Georgia's state agency that provides misdemeanant data for 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). In 2009, as part of continued effort to enhance reporting methods, this state agency experienced another reporting change for reasons similar to those explained for the 2008 change. The 2009 reporting change resulted in a decline of 7,100 probationers in Georgia's total probation population reported between December 31, 2008 (397,081) and January 1, 2009 (389,901). The total change in Georgia's probation population was about 71,300 additional probationers between 2000 and 2009. Hawaii--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 174 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Idaho--has two state reporting agencies. One agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the state, representing 24% of Idaho's total probation population. The second agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the counties and under supervision for a misdemeanor. The county probation population represented 76% of Idaho's total probation population. Additionally, this Idaho agency only has the capacity to report the number of probationers who entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2009. The respondent was able to provide an estimate of time served on misdemeanor probation within the counties, which was estimated at one year or less. With this additional information and through additional correspondence with the respondent, the December 31, 2009 population was estimated based on the total number of probationers who entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2008. Exits from county misdemeanant probation during 2009 were based on the January 1, 2009 population or the number of probationers who entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2008 (appendix table 2). Idaho's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 441 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). About 55% of the probationers who were under county supervision for a misdemeanor were on inactive supervision and were not required to regularly report to a probation authority in person, by mail, or by telephone (appendix table 8). Illinois--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Indiana--total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes an unknown number of probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2, 8). Iowa--total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes 744 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). Kansas--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 400 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Kentucky--has three reporting agencies--ne state agency, representing 56% of Kentucky's total probation population, and two local agencies. Kentucky's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 1,779 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Louisiana--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 1,638 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Maine--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 233 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Maryland--changes in reporting related to the classification of certain types of offenders and limited access to information systems occurred during 2009. For these reasons, probation data may not be comparable to data reported by Maryland in previous years (appendix tables 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). Reporting changes since 2000--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. 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 23,000 additional probationers between 2000 and 2009. Massachusetts--total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes 1,483 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). Reporting changes since 2000--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's probation population between 2000 and 2009 was an increase of about 129,900. Michigan--has 134 reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 34% of Michigan's total probation population, and 133 local agencies. Michigan's total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes 171 probationers on warrant status in addition to an unknown number of probationers on warrant status (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an additional 1,620 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Minnesota--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 1,064 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Minnesota classifies Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity rather than a race. There were 6,170 Hispanic or Latino probationers under supervision on December 31, 2009, but they were reported among the other racial categories (appendix table 7). Missouri--has two reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 99% of Missouri's total probation population, and one local agency (appendix table 2). Montana--has four reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 95% of Montana's total probation population, and three local agencies (appendix table 2) . New Hampshire--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 476 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). New Mexico--has two reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 74% of New Mexico's total probation population, and one local agency. New Mexico's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes since 2000--New Mexico's 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 9,600 between 2000 and 2009. New York--Reporting changes since 2000--changed its method of reporting probation data, beginning with its January 1, 2003 population, for two different reasons. 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, 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 67,300 between 2000 and 2009. Ohio--has 187 reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 7% of Ohio's total probation population, and 186 local agencies. One local probation agency did not provide data for 2009. The December 31, 2008 probation population reported by this agency in 2008 was used as an estimate of this agency's January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009 probation populations. Ohio's total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes an estimate of at least 16 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement and an unspecified number of probationers on an inactive status (appendix tables 2, 8). Ohio's total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an estimate of at least 73 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Oklahoma--has three reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 85% of Oklahoma's total probation population, and two local agencies (appendix table 2). Pennsylvania--technically, Pennsylvania has one reporting agency, which is the state agency. The state agency reports both state and county data. However, the county data are reported separately from the state data. The state probation population represented 3% of Pennsylvania's total probation population on December 31, 2009, while the county probation population represented 97% (appendix table 2). Reporting changes since 2000--Pennsylvania 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 71,100 probationers between 2000 and 2009. Rhode Island--Rhode Island's information system classifies Hispanic or Latino as a race rather than an ethnicity; therefore, parolees reported in Hispanic or Latino may also be of another race. In addition, parolees reported among other racial categories may also be Hispanic or Latino. Rhode Island's information system does not include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or two or more races (appendix table 7). Active includes an unknown number of probationers in residential/other treatment program because they could not be reported separately. Inactive includes an unknown number of probationers who were an absconder because they could not be reported separately, and 2,397 probationers incarcerated in state or federal prison (appendix table 8). See incarcerated prison in appendix table 11. Tennessee--has three reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 85% of Tennessee's total probation population, and two local agencies. The population includes an additional 3,010 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Texas--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 6,039 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Vermont--total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes an estimated 17 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an estimated 22 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Vermont's information system does not include a racial category for Hispanic or Latino and does not collect any ethnicity data; therefore, the number of Hispanic or Latino probationers could not be reported and whether or not other racial categories include Hispanic or Latino probationers could not be determined. Vermont's information system also does not include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or two or more races (appendix table 7). Virginia--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Location tracked by GPS--total includes an unknown number of parolees tracked by GPS because the number of probationers could not be reported separately (appendix table 11). Washington--has 31 reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 14% of Washington's total probation population, and 30 local agencies. One local probation agency in Washington closed during 2009. All of the decrease in Washington's total probation population (down 12.6% or down 13,899 probationers) during 2009 resulted from a decline in the state agency's probation population (down 50.9% or down 14,408 probationers). The decrease in the state agency's probation population was associated with legislation passed in 2009 that changed sentencing and supervision laws in order to reduce caseloads to address budgetary constraints. The legislation resulted in focusing resources primarily on high-risk, violent offenders; the number of offenders supervised by the state agency for misdemeanors and non-violent offenses was reduced significantly (appendix table 2). Washington's total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes 3,096 probationers on warrant status and an estimated 49 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an additional 10 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes since 2000--Washington's 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 53,300 probationers between 2000 and 2009. West Virginia--has two state reporting agencies. One state agency represented 97% of West Virginia's total probation population and reported all probationers under the jurisdiction of the state except some probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement. This agency does not have jurisdiction over those probationers. The second state agency has jurisdiction over probationers supervised out of state through an interstate compact agreement, and this agency only reported those probationers (appendix table 2). On parole includes probationers who were also on parole and under home incarceration (appendix table 11). Wisconsin--Asian includes an unknown number of parolees who were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander because Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander could not be reported separately (appendix table 7). Wyoming--total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 246 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement(appendix table 2). Parole: Explanatory notes Federal--data for the federal system were provided 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. 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. Alabama--has two reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 100% of Alabama's total parole population, and one local agency. Alabama's total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 618 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Reporting changes since 2000--Alabama's state agency changed its method of reporting parole data beginning with the January 1, 2006 population by including certain offenders whose status had 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 2,900 between 2000 and 2009. Alaska--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Reporting changes since 2000--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 1,400 parolees between 2000 and 2009. Arizona--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional estimated 521 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). California--has two reporting agencies one state agency, representing 99.9% of California's total parole population, and the California Youth Authority (CYA). California's total parole population on December 31, 2009 excludes 916 parolees supervised out of state through an interstate compact agreement and 15,633 absconders (appendix tables 12, 18). The population includes an additional 1,466 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Asian excludes an unknown number of Filipino parolees because they were classified as Pacific Islander and therefore reported in Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (appendix table 17). Mandatory includes a small, unknown number of parolees who received a discretionary release from prison (appendix table 21). Colorado--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 313 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). The 2009 reporting methods and classification of types of entry to parole were enhanced compared to 2005 through 2008; therefore, the 2009 data report for discretionary and mandatory entries to parole may not be comparable to the 2005 through 2008 data reported (appendix table 13). The 2,150 parolees reported in supervised out of state includes an unknown number of parolees released to a detainer for other charges and some who were detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency for deportation (appendix table 18). Connecticut--in September of 2007, Connecticut's Governor mandated immediate changes to the parole hearing policies used by Connecticut's Board of Pardons and Paroles in response to a tragic crime that occurred in July of 2007. The mandated changes resulted in an immediate decrease in the parole population, but since that time the parole population increased steadily. The increase (up 23.4% or 545 additional parolees) in Connecticut's parole population during 2009 resulted from additional staff that have addressed hearing backlogs and expedited the hearing process (appendix table 12). More than one year includes parolees with a maximum sentence to incarceration of more than two years because Connecticut statute stipulates that parole eligible sentences are sentences of more than two years (appendix table 19). Delaware--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 150 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). District of Columbia--some of the increase (up 9.6% or 552 parolees) in the District of Columbia's parole population during 2009 was associated with a slowing rate of discharge. For example, more parolees who had their parole term extended due to non-compliant behavior. This resulted in fewer parolees discharged compared to the number that entered supervision during the year, which contributed to the increase during 2009 (appendix table 12). Florida--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 27 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Georgia--all parolees reported in reinstatement were originally released from prison through a discretionary release (appendix table 13). Number of parolees reported in death is an underestimate of the number of parolees who died while on parole during 2009. Parolees who died are reported as part of Georgia's parole population until the death certificate is received; then, the parolee is discharged as of the day the death occurred (appendix table 14). Incarcerated-prison includes parole violators who were held in short-term correctional facilities but still on parole, some of whom were attending programs (appendix table 22). Hawaii--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 42 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Idaho--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 165 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Indiana--total parole population on December 31, 2009 excludes 464 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12, 18). Iowa--total parole population on December 31, 2009 excludes 269 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12, 18). Kansas--total parole population on December 31, 2009 excludes 212 absconders (appendix tables 12, 18). The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act with its determinate sentencing structure became effective July 1, 1993. Previously, Kansas had indeterminate sentencing. As a result, a number of entries to parole involved offenders with "guidelines" or "new law" sentences (which have determinate periods of post-incarceration supervision). In 2007 and previous years, it was not possible for Kansas to differentiate between entries to parole of "old law" and "new law" offenders. For example, releases to post-incarceration supervision (for a determinate period under new law) were included with regular parole releases (for an indeterminate period under old law) in discretionary entries to parole. For these reasons, types of entries to parole reported by Kansas in 2007 and previous years may not be comparable to types of entries to parole reported by Kansas beginning in 2008. Other entries include 1,184 parolees who entered supervision from absconder status after a warrant was cleared and 174 other parolees (appendix table 13). Absconder includes parolees who could not be located and had a warrant issued for their arrest. Other exits include parolees who exited supervision because a warrant had been issued for other reasons (appendix table 14). More than one year includes a relatively small but unknown number of parolees who were sentenced for a felony, but the incarceration portion of their sentence was one year or less (appendix table 19). Kentucky--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 480 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Louisiana--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 625 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Maryland--changes in reporting related to the classification of certain types of offenders and limited access to information systems occurred during 2009. For these reasons, parole data may not be comparable to data reported by Maryland in previous years (appendix tables 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 22). Massachusetts--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 284 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Michigan--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 1,175 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Number of parolees reported in Hispanic or Latino is an underestimate because Michigan's information system does not include a category which directly tracks and measures parolees who are Hispanic or Latino (appendix table 17). Violent includes an unknown number of parolees supervised for a weapon offense (appendix table 20). Mississippi--the increase (up 85.7% or 2,504 parolees) in Mississippi's parole population during 2009 resulted from legislation passed in 2008 which amended parole law to make all offenders never convicted of a violent crime or crime with enhanced penalty parole eligible regardless of the number of prior convictions. The 2008 legislation also made the sale or manufacture of a controlled substance parole eligible unless the crime had an enhanced penalty or involved over one kilogram of marijuana (appendix table 12). Montana--data reported by Montana in 2009 may not be comparable to data reported by Montana in previous years due to changes in reporting (appendix tables 12-14 and 16-22). See Reporting changes since 2000 below. Reporting changes since 2000--Montana changed its method of reporting parole data beginning with the January 1, 2009 population. The state implemented a new, enhanced information system that improved the tracking of all types of parolees, some of whom were not reported in previous years. The change resulted in an additional 177 parolees between the December 31, 2008 (885) and January 1, 2009 (1,062) parole populations reported by Montana. The total change in Montana's parole population was an increase of about 400 parolees between 2000 and 2009. New Hampshire--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 68 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). New Mexico--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Reporting changes since 2000--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 1,500 parolees between 2000 and 2009. New York--other entries include parolees released from prison at the time of their eligibility without an appearance before a parole board. New York refers to this type of release as a presumptive release. Inmates who served sentences for non-violent offenses and who had no history of violence were eligible for a presumptive release. New York's presumptive release law was enacted in 2003, implemented at the end of 2003, and became fully operational during 2004. Other entries also include parolees who were sentenced directly to parole supervision with the requirement that they complete a 90-day drug and alcohol treatment program. New York refers to this type of entry as judicially sanctioned and it falls under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1995. Certain drug and property offenders were eligible for a judicially sanctioned entry to parole supervision. Other entries also include parolees released from local jails. In 2006 the New York Division of Parole resumed the responsibility for supervising selected inmates released from local jails after serving a sentence of less than one year. These parolees remain under parole supervision for one year (appendix table 13). Returned to incarceration-to receive treatment includes select parole violators who were sent to a 30-day or 90-day treatment program in a state correctional facility in lieu of a revocation and return to prison. Prior to 2009, these data were reported in returned to incarceration--other/unknown (appendix table 14). Special conditional type of release from prison includes inmates who were released to "medical parole" because that type of parole permits the release of certain terminally ill inmates prior to serving their full sentence. Other type of release from prison includes the same classifications of parolees who had been reported in the other entries category (appendix table 21). North Carolina--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes offenders under post-release supervision. Post-release supervision is defined under North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Act of 1993 as a reintegration program for serious offenders who served extensive prison terms (appendix table 12). Post-release offenders were reported in term of supervised release (appendix table 21). Ohio--the decrease (down 23.8% or down 4,544 parolees) in Ohio's parole population during 2009 was related to an Ohio Supreme Court case from October 2009. The result was a mandate to discharge certain post-prison persons from parole, which was first implemented in November 2009 and continued through February 2010 (appendix table 12). Pennsylvania--technically has one reporting agency, which is the state agency. The state agency reports both state and county parole data. However, these data are reported separately. The state parole population represented 34% of Pennsylvania's total parole population on December 31, 2009, while the county parole population represented 66% (appendix table 12). Reporting changes since 2000--Pennsylvania 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 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 7,200 parolees between 2000 and 2009. Rhode Island--total parole population on December 31, 2009 excludes 40 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12, 18). Rhode Island's information system classifies Hispanic or Latino as a race rather than an ethnicity; therefore, parolees reported as Hispanic or Latino may also be of another race. In addition parolees reported among other racial categories may also be Hispanic or Latino. Rhode Island's information system does not include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or two or more races (appendix table 17). South Carolina--the decrease (down13.2% or down 245 parolees) in South Carolina's parole population during 2009 was related to both the implementation of South Carolina's "no parole" law (for most violent offenses) passed in 1995, which reduced the number of inmates eligible for parole, and a decrease in the percentage of inmates paroled by the Board of Paroles and Pardons (appendix table 12). Tennessee--increase (up 11.1% or 1,163 parolees) in Tennessee's parole population during 2009 was associated with both a Tennessee statute that permitted prisons operating at 90% capacity or greater to extend parole eligibility to low-risk, non-violent inmates and a lower revocation rate which resulted in some parolees remaining under supervision longer to receive treatment. Total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 956 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Vermont--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional estimated 47 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12). Vermont's information system does not include a racial category for Hispanic or Latino and does not collect any ethnicity data; therefore, the number of Hispanic or Latino parolees could not be reported and whether or not other racial categories include Hispanic or Latino parolees could not be determined. Vermont's information system also does not include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or two or more races (appendix table 17). Virginia--total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Location tracked by GPS--total includes an unknown number of probationers tracked by GPS because the number of parolees could not be reported separately (appendix table 22). Reporting changes since 2000--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 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 led to 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 500 parolees between 2000 and 2009. Washington--the decrease (down 44.4% or down 5,205 parolees) in Washington's parole population during 2009 was associated with legislation passed in 2009 that changed sentencing and supervision laws in order to reduce caseloads to address budgetary constraints. The legislation resulted in focusing resources primarily on high-risk, violent offenders; the number of offenders supervised for misdemeanors and non-violent offenses was reduced significantly (appendix table 12). Reporting changes since 2000 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 6,400 parolees between 2000 and 2009. Wisconsin--Asian includes an unknown number of parolees who were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander because Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander could not be reported separately (appendix table 17). A change in reporting the number of parolees tracked by GPS occurred during 2009; therefore, data may not be comparable to data reported by Wisconsin in 2008. Incarcerated--prison only includes parolees incarcerated in a state prison in Wisconsin; the count does not include parolees, if any, incarcerated in a federal prison (appendix table 22). ------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director. BJS Bulletins present the first release of findings from permanent data collection programs. Lauren E. Glaze, Thomas P. Bonczar, and Fan Zhang wrote this report. Lauren E. Glaze, Thomas P. Bonczar, and Fan Zhang analyzed the data and prepared the graphs and tables. Laura M. Maruschak, William J. Sabol, and Todd D. Minton provided statistical verification. Sheri R. Simmons provided statistical review. Jorgelina A. Arroyo carried out the data collection and processing under the supervision of Nicole S. Adolph, Governments Division, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Ryan D. Driscoll provided technical assistance under the supervision of Duane H. Cavanaugh. Janean Darden and Angel Johnson assisted in the data collection. Brian R. Higgins (Lockheed Martin) and Jill Thomas 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. December 2010, NCJ 231674 --------------------------------------------------------- This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS website: . ---------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov --------------------------------------------------------- 12/9/2010/JER 10:18 am(new changes)