U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2011, NCJ 236019 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010 By Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians --------------------------------------------------- This file is text on without graphics and many of the tables. A zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.cvs) and the full report including tables and graphs in .pdf format are available from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=2239 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all reports in the series go to http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid-32 --------------------------------------------------- During 2010, the number of adults under community supervision declined by 1.3% from 4,954,600 at the beginning of the year to 4,887,900 at yearend (figure 1). The community supervision population includes adults on probation and adults on parole or any other post-prison supervision. (See text box on page 2.) This represented the second consecutive decline in the number of adults under community supervision. The probation population decreased by 1.7%, which was also the second consecutive year of decline. The parole population increased by 0.3%. At yearend 2010, about 1 in 48 adults in the U.S. were under community supervision. Data in this report were collected through the Bureau of Justice Statistics'(BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey. Both surveys began in 1980 and collect data from U.S. probation and parole agencies that supervise adults. (See text box at the bottom of the page.) In these data, adults are persons subject to the jurisdiction of an adult trial court or corrections agency. Juveniles prosecuted as adults in a criminal court are considered adults. Respondents are asked to report the number of adults on probation or parole at the beginning and end of each reporting year, the number entering and exiting supervision during the reporting year, characteristics of the populations at yearend, and other information. The reporting methods for some probation and parole agencies have changed over time. (See Methodology.) See appendix tables for additional 2010 data by jurisdiction. *********************************************** HIGHLIGHTS * The number of adult offenders under community supervision declined by 66,700 during 2010 to reach 4,887,900 offenders at yearend 2010. * The overall decline in the community supervision population was due to a 1.7% decline in the probation population along with a 0.3% increase in the parole population. * At yearend 2010, about 4,055,500 adults were on probation, and during 2010 more than 4.4 million adults moved onto or off probation. * Probation entries (2,190,200) declined for the third consecutive year and probation exits (2,261,300) declined for the first time since 2006. * Almost two-thirds (65%) of probationers completed their terms of supervision or were discharged early during 2010, the same percentage as in 2009. * The rate of incarceration among probationers at risk of violating their conditions in 2010 (5.7%) remained at about the same level observed in 2000 (5.5%). * At yearend 2010, an estimated 840,700 adults were on parole, and about 1.1 million offenders moved onto or off parole during the year. Both parole entries (down 0.5%) and exits (down 1.8%) declined during 2010. * The state parole population declined by 0.3% during 2010. The number of adults on supervised release in the federal system increased by 4.9%, which contributed to the increase in the U.S. parole population. * The percentage of parolees who completed their terms or were discharged early during 2010 (52%) was slightly higher than the level observed for 2009 (51%). * Among parolees at risk of violating the conditions of their supervision, about 13% were reincarcerated during 2010, down from about 16% reincarcerated during 2000. ******************************************************** Community supervision population dropped to the 2004 level The number of offenders under community supervision during 2010 decreased by 66,700, dropping to slightly fewer than 4.9 million at yearend 2010 (appendix table 1). This was below the yearend 2004 level. The probation population declined for the second consecutive year, reaching about 4.1 million by yearend 2010, a level not observed since 2003 (figure 2; appendix table 2). Since probationers account for about 83% of the adults under community supervision, small percentage changes in the number of probationers can largely determine the overall growth in the community supervision population. The decrease (down 69,500) in the probation population during 2010 accounted for all of the decline in the community supervision population. The number on parole increased by nearly 2,900 during the year to reach about 840,700 (figure 3; appendix table 12). ******************************************************** BJS definition of probation and parole 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 parolees released through discretionary or mandatory supervised release from prison, those released through other types of post-custody conditional supervision, and those sentenced to a term of supervised release. ******************************************************** The decline in the community supervision population from 2008 to 2010 followed the longer-term trend of declining growth rates in the population. During the 1980s, the number of adults under community supervision grew by an average of 8.9% per year, increasing from 1,338,500 offenders at yearend 1980 to 2,977,300 at yearend 1989. The rate of growth in the community supervision population slowed to about 3.0% per year on average during the 1990s.***Footnote 1 A portion of the increase in the probation component of the community supervision population was due to the expanded coverage of probation agencies. See Methodology for a discussion on calculating the growth rate to account for the expanded coverage of probation.*** Prior to the decline observed during 2009, the number of offenders under community supervision increased an average of 1.4% each year, from 4,565,100 at yearend 2000 to 5,095,200 by yearend 2008. Since 2008, this population declined 0.9% during 2009 and 1.3% during 2010. The growth in the probation population followed a similar overall trend, as probationers make up the majority (83%) of offenders under community supervision. During the 1980s, the probation population increased from 1,118,097 probationers at yearend 1980 to 2,520,479 by yearend 1989. The 9.0% average rate of growth observed per year during the 1980s was greater than the 3.0% average annual growth rate observed during the 1990s, when the population increased from 2,670,234 probationers at yearend 1990 to 3,772,773 at yearend 1999. Growth in the probation population slowed to an average of about 1.3% per year between 2000 and 2008. After 2008, the number of probationers declined 0.9% during 2009 and 1.7% during 2010. The parole population also grew more slowly during the 2000s than during the 1980s and 1990s. Growth in this population slowed further during 2009 and 2010. Through the 1980s, the number of parolees increased by an average of about 8.1% per year, increasing from 220,438 parolees at yearend 1980 to 456,797 by yearend 1989. The growth rate in the parole population dropped to 3.3% per year between 1990 and 1999. The rate of growth in the parole population slowed to 1.7% per year between 2000 and 2008 before declining 0.7% during 2009. The population increased slightly (0.3%) again in 2010. Rate of offenders under community supervision at yearend 2010 dropped below the 2000 level The community supervision rate declined steadily after reaching a peak of 2,234 probationers or parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents at yearend 2007. From 2008 to 2010, the rate dropped from 2,201 per 100,000 U.S. adult residents to 2,074 offenders per 100,000 (or 1 in every 48 adults in the U.S.), a rate lower than was observed in 2000 (table 1). The majority (62%) of the decline in the community supervision rate from 2007 to 2010 was attributed to the decline in the number of adults under community supervision. About 38% of the decline in the community supervision rate was attributed to the increase in the U.S. adult resident population since 2007 (not shown in table).***Footnote 2 See Methodology for information about the method used to decompose the decline in the community supervision rate from 2007 to 2010.*** The changes observed in the supervision rate of probationers from 2007 to 2010 were similar to the changes observed in the community supervision rate. About 1,873 probationers per 100,000 U.S. adult residents were under supervision at yearend 2007. This rate dropped to 1,721 probationers per 100,000 (or 1 in every 58 adults in the U.S.) in 2010, a rate lower than was observed in 2000. About two-thirds of the decline in the probationer supervision rate came from the decrease in the number of adults on probation. About a third of the decline in the probationer supervision rate came from the increase in the U.S. adult resident population. The parolee supervision rate peaked at yearend 2007 with 360 parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents. The rate declined to 358 parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents by yearend 2008 and to 351 per 100,000 by yearend 2009. As the parole population increased slowly during 2010, the parolee rate increased to 357 parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents (or 1 in every 280 adults in the U.S.). However, the number of parolees per 100,000 U.S. adult residents was smaller at yearend 2010 compared to the rate observed in 2007. All of the decline in the parolee rate observed between 2007 and 2010 was attributed to the increase in the U.S. adult resident population during that period. Five states accounted for more than half of the decline in the probation population The probation population declined by 69,519 probationers during 2010, reaching 4,055,514 at yearend. Thirty three states reported declines in their probation population during 2010, amounting to a total decrease of 99,195 probationers (table 2). Declines in California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Maryland accounted for 54% of the total decrease among states whose probation population declined during 2010. California (down 18,854 probationers) and Florida (down 11,228) accounted for almost a third of the decrease. Nineteen jurisdictions Including the District of Columbia and the federal system--reported increases in their probation population during 2010, amounting to a total increase of 29,676 probationers. More than half of this increase occurred in Pennsylvania (up 7,968), Alabama (up 3,312), Georgia (up 3,273), and Arizona (up 2,667). Entries onto probation were down for the third consecutive year; exits declined for the first time since 2006 Movements onto and off probation declined during 2010, as both the number of entries and exits declined during the year. Exits from probation exceeded the number of entries, as entries onto probation (down 4.5%) declined at a faster rate than exits (down 2.8%) during the year. This marked the third consecutive year of a decrease in the number of entries to probation and the first decline in exits since 2006. More than 4.4 million combined movements onto and off probation supervision occurred during 2010, with the probation population decreasing by about 69,500 probationers. *** Footnote 3 The change of about 69,500 probationers was calculated as the difference between the probation population at the start (on January 1) and end (on December 31) of 2010, and may be different from the change calculated as the difference between entries and exits. See Methodology for more details.*** As entries onto and exits from probation diverge, a larger change is observed in the probation population while convergence of entries and exits leads to smaller changes in the population. During 2010, entries and exits diverged. This was the second consecutive year in which exits from probation (2,261,300) exceeded entries (2,190,200) (figure 4). As entries onto probation declined at a faster rate than exits from probation during 2010, the second consecutive decrease in the probation population was observed. Offenders on probation completed their supervision terms at about the same rate in 2010 as in 2009 The rate at which probationers exit supervision--the number that exit probation divided by the average probation population at the start and end of the year--provides an indication of how quickly the population turns over and an indirect measure of the average time an offender can expect to spend on probation. About 55 probationers per 100 exited supervision during 2010 (table 3). This rate has not changed since 2008. Mean length of stay on probation remained stable between 2008 (22.0 months) and 2010 (21.7 months). ***Footnote 4 Mean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See Methodology for more details.*** Since 2006, the rate of turnover in the probation population has remained relatively stable, as indicated by small increases in the probationer exit rate between 2006 (53 per 100) and 2008 (55 per 100) and the lack of change since 2008. Turnover due to probationers completing the terms of their supervision, either through a full-term completion or an early discharge, remained steady from 2009 through 2010 (36 per 100 probationers in each year). This finding was consistent with the stability observed in the percentage of probationers who were discharged after completing the terms of their supervision. Of the estimated 2,261,300 probationers who exited supervision during 2010, about 65% were discharged after completing the terms of their supervision or receiving an early discharge, unchanged from 2009 (65%) (table 4). Between 2006 (58%) and 2009 (65%), the percentage of probationers who completed their terms and were discharged increased as exits from probation increased during this period. Rate of incarceration among probationers remained steady during the last year During 2010, the rate of incarceration during the year remained at the 2009 level (5.7% each year) (figure 5). The rate at which all adults on probation during the year can be incarcerated is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers who are 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. The number who could have been incarcerated equals the sum of the start of the year population plus entries onto probation. This pool is defined as those at risk of incarceration. *** Footnote 5 See Methodology for a discussion about the at-risk measure of incarceration.***The stability in the rate of incarceration, including incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons, among probationers during 2010 was consistent with the relative stability observed since 2000 (5.5%). Most characteristics of probationers were unchanged during 2010 Most of the characteristics of the probation population remained unchanged during 2010 as the population declined. About three quarters of probationers were male at yearend 2010, while about a quarter were female (appendix table 5). More than half of the probation population was white, while 30% was black and 13% was Hispanic. Half of the probation population was under supervision for a felony at yearend 2010. About 47% were supervised for a misdemeanor and another 2% were supervised for other infractions.***Footnote 6 Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.*** At yearend 2010, property offenders represented 28% of the probation population and drug offenders represented 26%. About 19% of probationers were supervised for a violent offense, including 3% for a domestic violence offense, 3% for a sex offense, and 12% for other violent offenses. Another 18% of probationers were supervised for a public-order offense, including 15% for driving while intoxicated or under the influence and 3% for other traffic offenses. U.S. parole population rose during 2010; state parole population dropped for the second consecutive year The U.S. parole population increased by 2,858 parolees during 2010, reaching 840,676 at yearend. The 0.3% growth in the U.S. parole population masked a decline of 0.3% (down 2,096) in the number of parolees under state authority during 2010. This marked the second consecutive year that the state parole population decreased (down 1.5% or 10,758 parolees in 2009). The increase of 4,954 in the number of offenders on supervised release reported by the federal system during 2010 was the largest increase in the number of parolees observed in the nation (table 5). This marked the third consecutive year that the federal system reported the largest increase in the number of parolees in the U.S. Since 2008 (up 7.9%), the rate of growth in the federal population has slowed (up 5.4% in 2009 and up 4.9% in 2010) (not shown in table). In 2010, 19 states reported declines in their parole populations totaling 14,706 parolees. Two states, Illinois and Ohio, accounted for about two-thirds of the total decrease. In 31 states and the District of Columbia, the parole populations increased by a total of 12,610 parolees. Four states, Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia, and Mississippi, accounted for more than half of the total increase. Entries to parole exceeded exits during 2010 as exits dropped at a greater rate than entries Both the number of adult offenders entering parole (565,300) and exiting parole (562,500) declined during 2010 (figure 6). The decline in entries to parole 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. (See Prisoners in 2010, BJS Web, NCJ 236096, forthcoming.) More than 1.1 million combined movements onto and off parole supervision occurred during 2010, with the parole population increasing by about 2,900 parolees. While both parole entries and exits declined during 2010, the rate of decline in exits (down 1.8%) was faster than the rate of decline in entries (down 0.5%), resulting in fewer exits from parole compared to the number of parolees that entered supervision. This led to an increase in the U.S. parole population during 2010. Mandatory releases from prison were a smaller portion of entries to parole in 2010 compared to 2009 About 51% of parolees who entered supervision during 2010 entered through a mandatory release from prison, down from 53% in 2009 (figure 7). While the portion of all types of entries to parole have fluctuated slightly over time since 2000, mandatory releases to parole have remained the most common type. While mandatory releases to parole declined during the previous year, parolees who entered supervision through a discretionary release by a parole board comprised a slightly larger portion of entries to parole during 2010 (28%) compared to 2009 (27%). Parolees who had their parole reinstated also accounted for a slightly larger share of parole entries during 2010 (9%) compared to 2009 (8%). During 2010, another 9% of parolees entered through a term of supervised release, up slightly from 8% in 2010.*** Footnote 7 The estimates of term of supervised release reflect only data reported by the federal system. See Methodology for more details.*** About 3% of parolees entered through another type of sentence during 2010, unchanged from 2009. ***************************************************** Type of post-prison supervision in the federal system The BJS definition of parole in this report includes all types of post-prison supervision in the federal system, including a term of supervised release, mandatory release, parole, special parole, and military parole. In the federal system, a term of supervised release is a sentence to a fixed period of supervision in the community that follows a sentence to a period of incarceration in federal prison. Both are ordered at the time of sentencing by a federal judge. Of the 47,873 offenders released from federal prison to post- prison supervision during 2010, as reported to BJS through the Annual Parole Survey, the large majority (46,684 or 98%) were released to supervision through a term of supervised release, while fewer offenders were released through a discretionary (628) or mandatory (515) release from federal prison and even fewer had their original post-prison supervision sentence reinstated (46). Similarly, of the 105,552 federal offenders on some form of post-prison supervision at yearend 2010, the large majority were sentenced to a term of supervised release in the community (103,423 or 98%) while fewer were supervised after a discretionary (1,989) or mandatory (140) release from federal prison. See appendix tables 13 and 21 for detailed data and Methodology for more details. ***************************************************** Parole completion rate increased during 2010, continuing a trend observed since 2006 Between 2009 (70 per 100 parolees) and 2010 (67 per 100), the turnover rate of the parole population declined to the level observed in 2006 (67 per 100) (table 6). The mean length of stay remained relatively constant between 2006 (18.0 months) and 2010 (17.9). *** Footnote 8 Mean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate times 12 months. See Methodology for more details.*** Contributing to the decline in the turnover of the parole population was a decline in the rate of parolees that exited supervision and returned to parolees) and 2010 (22 per 100). This decline continued a trend that has been observed since 2006 (26 per 100). In 2010, 35 per 100 parolees completed the terms of their supervision or received an early discharge compared to 29 per 100 parolees in 2006. This finding was consistent with the increase between 2006 and 2010 in the percentage of parolees who completed the terms of their supervision and were discharged. Of the estimated 562,500 parolees that exited supervision during 2010, about 52% completed their terms or received an early discharge, up slightly from 51% of parole exits during 2009 and 45% of parole exits during 2006 (table 7). Rate of reincarceration among parolees declined during 2010 During 2010, about 13% of all parolees who were at risk of reincarceration were incarcerated. This was down from about 16% reincarcerated during 2000 (figure 8). The rate at which all offenders on parole during the year could be incarcerated is defined as the ratio of the number of parolees who were discharged during the year as a result of incarceration to the number of parolees who could have been incarcerated at any point during the year. The number who could have been incarcerated equals the sum at the start of the year population plus entries onto parole during the year. This pool is defined as those at risk of incarceration. Contributing to the overall decline in the rate of reincarceration was a corresponding decrease in the rate at which parolees returned to incarceration as the result of a revocation between 2000 (12%) and 2010 (9%). The rate at which parolees returned to incarceration for a new offense remained stable at about 4% between 2009 and 2010. Most characteristics of parolees were unchanged during 2010 Most of the characteristics of the parole population remained unchanged during 2010. The parole population was predominantly male (88%) at yearend 2010 (appendix table 15). White parolees represented 42% of the parole population, while black (39%) and Hispanic (18%) parolees represented a smaller share. At yearend 2010, the large majority (95%) of the parole population had been sentenced to incarceration for more than one year. The most common type of offense in which parolees were under supervision was a drug offense (35%). Twenty-seven percent of the population was on parole after serving a sentence for a violent offense, including 8% for a sex offense and 19% for other violent for a property offense. While most of the characteristics of the parole population remained unchanged, some changes were observed during 2010. Active supervision requires parolees to report regularly to a parole authority in person, by mail, or by telephone. This type of supervision decreased as a percentage of all parolees, from 85% in 2009 to 82% in 2010. A corresponding increase in the percentage of parolees on inactive status, excluded from regular reporting but still on parole, was observed between 2009(4%) and 2010 (7%). Most of the change in active and inactive parole supervision status can be attributed to changes in the status of parolees supervised in California. While California's parole population experienced a small decrease between yearend 2009 (106,035) and 2010 (105,133), California reported fewer parolees on active status in 2010 (89,178) compared to 2009 (106,035) (appendix table 18). A corresponding increase in the number of parolees on inactive status was observed in California during the last year (0 in 2009 to 15,955 in 2010). This change was related to a California law that went into effect in January 2010 that required parolees who meet specific criteria to be placed on non-revocable parole. These parolees on non-revocable parole meet BJS's definition of inactive status because they are excluded from regular reporting but are still on parole.*** Footnote 9 See Parole: Explanatory notes about California for more details.*** Methodology The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980 and collect data from probation and parole agencies in the U.S. that supervise adults. In these data, adults are persons subject to the jurisdiction of an adult court or correctional agency. Juveniles prosecuted as adults in a criminal court are considered adults. Juveniles under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court or correctional agency are excluded from these data. 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 on 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, the number of adults who enter and exit supervision during the reporting year, and characteristics of the population at yearend. See appendix tables for detailed data. Both surveys cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. BJS depends on the voluntary participation of state central reporters and separate state, county, and court agencies for these data. In 2010 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 from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States Courts through the Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP). Probation The 2010 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 465 respondents: 34 central state reporters, including the state probation agency in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for the 65 counties in Pennsylvania; 429 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), Tennessee (3), Washington (31), and West Virginia (2). One locality in Michigan and one locality in Ohio did not provide data for the 2010 collection. For the locality in Ohio, the agency's December 31, 2008, population, which was the last population count provided by this agency, was used to estimate the January 1 and December 31, 2010, populations. For the locality in Michigan, the agency's December 31, 2009, population was used to estimate the agency's January 1 and December 31, 2010, populations. Parole The 2010 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 55 respondents: 51 central state reporters, including the state parole agency in Pennsylvania, which also provided data for the 65 counties in Pennsylvania; one municipal agency in Alabama; the District of Columbia, the federal system through BJS's FJSP; and the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) within the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. DJJ (formerly the California Youth Authority) provides data on parolees who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offense but were prosecuted as an adult (i.e., in an adult trial court) and sentenced to and paroled from a DJJ facility. States with multiple reporters were Alabama (2) and California (2). Federal supervised release (as defined here) includes a term of supervised release from prison, mandatory release, parole, military parole, and special parole. A term of supervised release is ordered at the time of sentencing by a federal judge, and it is served after release from a federal prison. These data are based on the calendar year and may differ for the federal data reported in other BJS statistical series (that are based on the fiscal year). Additional information about the data collection instruments is available at http://www.bjs.gov. Population counts reflect data reported by probation and parole agencies within the specific reporting year Respondents are asked to report the number of adults supervised on probation or parole at the beginning and end of each reporting year, the number entering and exiting supervision during the reporting year, and characteristics of the populations at yearend, as well as other information. Some agencies update their probation and parole data after submitting their data to BJS. Updated data typically include data that were not entered into the information system until after the survey was submitted or data that were not fully processed by yearend. Agencies also experience changes in reporting methods over time. (See Some reporting methods changed among parole agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2010 and Some reporting methods changed among probation agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2010.) Data in this report reflect the data reported by the probation and parole agencies within the reporting year. Therefore, population counts on January 1 of the current year may differ slightly from population counts on December 31 of the prior reporting year. For this reason, annual change is calculated within the reporting year. For example, the annual change during 2010 that is included in figures 1 through 3 is the difference between the January 1 and December 31, 2010, populations. Total community supervision counts were adjusted to account for offenders with dual community correctional status Some offenders on probation or parole may have dual community correctional statuses because they were serving separate probation and parole sentences concurrently. With the yearend 2007 data, BJS began collecting data on the number of parolees who were also on probation at yearend. The total community supervision populations from 2008 through 2010 reported in figure 1 (and the 2010 counts in appendix table 1) have been adjusted based on available information to account for dual statuses. As a result, the probation and parole counts for 2008 through 2010 will not sum to the total community supervision population within the same year. All of the estimates of parolees with dual community correctional statuses are based on data reported by parole agencies that were capable of providing the information for the reporting year (table 8). Since some parole agencies were not capable of providing these data, the total number of parolees also on probation from 2008 to 2010 may be underestimated. Some reporting methods changed among probation agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2010 Sixteen reporting agencies in separate jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting probation data between 2000 and 2010 (table 9). These changes included administrative changes, such as 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 not previously reported (e.g., supervised for an offense of driving while intoxicated or under the influence, some probationers who had absconded and some on an inactive status). Without adjusting for these reporting changes, the total change in the probation population between 2000 and 2010 was an increase of 5.6% or 215,982 probationers (table 10). When the modified reporting methods are taken into account, the change in the population during this period was underestimated by about 54,000 probationers. The adjustment to the total change in the probation population methods since 2000 results in an increase in the probation population (7.0%) that is slightly larger than the increase without adjusting for changes in reporting methods. See Probation: Explanatory notes for a discussion about the 2010 reporting changes and Probation: Explanatory notes in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674, for a discussion about the reporting changes that occurred between 2000 and 2009. Some reporting methods changed among parole agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2010 Reporting agencies in ten jurisdictions changed their methods of reporting parole data between 2000 and 2010 (table 11). 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. Without adjusting for these reporting changes, the total change in the parole population between 2000 and 2010 was an increase of 15.9% or by 115,149 parolees (table 12). When the modified reporting methods are taken into account, the total change in the population during this period was overestimated by about 22,600 parolees. The adjustment to the total change in the parole population to account for the modified reporting methods since 2000 results in an increase in the parole population (12.8%) that is slightly smaller than the increase without adjusting for changes in reporting methods. See Parole: Explanatory notes for a description of the 2010 reporting changes in the following four jurisdictions: Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia. See Parole: Explanatory notes in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674, for a description of the reporting changes that occurred between 2000 and 2009. Probation coverage expanded beginning in 1998 through 1999 To address under coverage, the number of probation agencies was expanded beginning in 1998 and continued through 1999 to include misdemeanor probation agencies in a few states that fell within the scope of this survey. In 1998, survey coverage was expanded to include 35 additional probation agencies, which accounted for 27,644 additional probationers beginning with the January 1, 1998, probation population. Expansion of probation coverage continued through 1999. In that year, an additional 178 probation agencies were added to the collection, which accounted for 259,744 additional probationers beginning with the January 1, 1999, probation population. The December 31, 1999, community supervision and probation populations that were used to calculate the average annual percent change in those populations between 1990 and 1999 were adjusted to exclude the 27,644 probationers added in 1998 and the 259,744 probationers added in 1999. Estimating annual change based on population counts within the reporting year or entries and exits 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. At the national level, the discrepancy (269) between the change (2,993) in the parole population (i.e., the difference between the January 1 and December 31, 2010, populations) and the difference (2,724) between parole entries and exits during 2010 was small. For probation at the national level, the discrepancy (2,265) between the change (68,835) in the probation population (i.e., the difference between January 1 and December 31, 2010, populations) and the difference (71,100) between probation entries and exits during 2010 was also minimal. Estimates of annual change reported in figures 1 through 3 and appendix tables 1, 2, and 12 were calculated as the difference between the January 1 and December 31 populations within the reporting year. Estimates of annual change reported in figures 4 and 6 were calculated as the difference between entries and exits within the reporting year, where the focus of the discussion is the impact of entries and exits on annual change in the populations. Decomposing the decline in the community supervision, probation, and parole rates since 2007 To decompose the decline in the community supervision, probationer, and parolee rates discussed in this report, the following formula was used: ŽR = [P1 * (1/GP1)] [P0 * (1/GP0)] = [P1 * ((1/GP1) - (1/GP0))] + [(1/GP0) * (P1 P0)] = [(1/GP1) * (P1 P0)] + [P0 * ((1/ GP1) - (1/GP0)] Using the community supervision population as an example, in this formula, ŽR is the change in the community supervision rate, P1 is the community supervision population for the most recent year (4,887,900 in 2010), P0 is the community supervision probation for the earlier year (5,119,300 in 2007), GP1 is the U.S. adult resident population for the most recent year (235,693,700 in 2010), and GP0 is the U.S. adult resident population for the earlier year (229,160,900 in 2007). The components [(1/GP0) * (P1 P0)], which is [(1/229,160,900) * (4,887,900 5,119,300)], and [(1/GP1) * (P1 P0)], which is [(1/235,693,700) * (4,887,900 5,119,300)], provided the change in the community supervision rate due to the change in the community supervision population. These two components were summed, and the average was used to estimate the amount of change in the community supervision rate attributed to the change in the community supervision population during that period (from 2007 to 2010). The components [P1 * ((1/GP1) (1/GP0))], which is [4,887,900 * ((1/235,693,700) (1/229,160,900))], and [P0 * ((1/GP1) (1/GP0)], which is [5,119,300 * ((1/235,693,700) (1/229,160,900)], provided the change due to the U.S. adult resident population. These two components were summed, and the average was used to estimate the amount of change in the community supervision rate attributed to the change in the U.S. adult resident population during the period. This same method was used to decompose the decline in the probationer and parolee rates between 2007 and 2010. Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting probation agencies in 2010 BJS used three methods of ratio estimation, based on the availability of data, to impute probation entries for nonreporting agencies. BJS used a single method to impute probation exits. All parole agencies reported entries and exits in 2010; therefore, no parole entries or exits were imputed by BJS. The first method of ratio estimation was used to estimate entries and exits for probation agencies that were unable to report these data in 2010, but were able to report these data in 2009. For these agencies, the number of entries reported by the agency during 2009 was divided by the agency's probation population on January 1, 2009. This ratio was applied to the agency's January 1, 2010, population to estimate entries for 2010. BJS estimated exits from probation by adding the agency's estimated probation entries in 2010 to the agency's probation population on January 1, 2010, and then subtracting that estimate from the agency's probation population on December 31, 2010. These methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits in nonreporting county and district agencies in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington. A second method of ratio estimation was used to estimate probation entries for agencies that were unable to report entries and exits in both 2009 and 2010. Data from reporting agencies with similar numbers of probationers and within the same state were used to estimate the number of entries for the nonreporting agencies during 2010. In this case, the total number of 2010 entries among the reporting agencies of similar size was divided by the total January 1, 2010, population among those agencies. This ratio was applied to each nonreporting agency's January 1, 2010, population to estimate entries for that agency during 2010. 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 of ratio estimation was used to estimate probation entries for one state agency in West Virginia, which only reported interstate compact data. Data from reporting agencies within the same region (South) were used to estimate entries for West Virginia during 2010. The total number of 2010 entries among the reporting agencies within the South was divided by the total January, 1, 2010, population among those reporting agencies. This ratio was applied to West Virginia's January 1, 2010, population to estimate entries during 2010. To estimate probation exits for this agency, BJS used the same estimation method as previously described. Changes in estimating national entries and exits from 2000 to 2009 The 2010 reporting year was the first year during the current decade that Pennsylvania was able to report totals of probation and parole entries and exits in the Pennsylvania counties. In previous years, BJS estimated those data and also made adjustments to the national totals of probation and parole entries and exits from 2000 to 2007 based on a new estimation method implemented in 2008. (See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. See also Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, NCJ228230 for more details.) To account for the flow data reported by Pennsylvania for the counties in 2010 and to ensure that the national estimates of probation and parole entries and exits from 2000 to 2009 were comparable to the 2010 totals, the 2000 to 2009 totals were re-estimated. The BJS method of estimation implemented in 2008 was replicated for 2010, and the estimates yielded were compared to the 2010 totals reported for the Pennsylvania counties. The difference between the estimates yielded from the BJS estimation method and the reported totals for the Pennsylvania counties was used to adjust the 2000 to 2009 national totals. The BJS method of estimation yielded probation and parole entries and exits for 2010 that were larger than the reported totals from Pennsylvania; therefore, the national totals from 2000 to 2009 were adjusted by subtracting the difference. The national totals of probation entries from 2000 to 2009 were re-estimated by subtracting the difference of 20,800; the national totals of probation exits were re-estimated by subtracting the difference of 20,700. For example, the 2009 national estimate of 2,313,600 probation entries that was reported in table 2 in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674, was re-estimated by subtracting 20,800 to yield a revised 2009 estimate of 2,292,800 probation entries that is reported in figure 4 of this report. The 2009 national estimate of 2,347,500 probation exits that was reported in table 2 in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674, was re-estimated by subtracting 20,700 to yield a revised 2009 estimate of 2,326,800 probation exits that is reported in figure 4 of this report. The national totals of parole entries and exits from 2000 to 2009 that were reported in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674, were re-estimated using the same method described above, except that a difference of 6,000 was subtracted from both the parole entries and exits from 2000 to 2009. The revised national totals of parole entries and exits appear in figure 6 of this report. Calculating mean length of stay Mean length of stay is calculated as the inverse of the exit rate. Patterson and Preston (2007) provide tests of various methods for estimating expected length of stay and report the results of simulations that show that under assumptions of a stationary population with a small growth rate, the inverse of the exit rate performs well relative to a life-table approach to estimating mean time served.***Footnote 10 See Patterson, E.J., & Preston, S.H. (2007).Estimating Mean Length of Stay in Prison: Methods and Applications. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 24:33-49.*** Based on the small growth rates in the probation and parole populations in recent years, the inverse of the exit rate suffices to provide an estimate of mean stay on probation or parole in recent years. Community supervision outcome measures Outcome measures based on the number of offenders exiting supervision Historically, BJS has reported the percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees who completed supervision and the percentage of both who were incarcerated, among all probationers or parolees who exited supervision during the year, as the community supervision outcome measures. Because these outcome measures are based on the number of probationers or parolees exiting supervision (i.e., the exiting cohort) within the reference year, they are based on a cohort that comprises different types of probationers or parolees, including those who completed the terms of supervision or received an early discharge; were incarcerated either for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons; died; or were discharged for other reasons. The percentage of probationers and the percentage of parolees who completed supervision is defined as the number of supervision during the year and were discharged, among all probationers or parolees 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). In this formula, t equals the year referenced, C(t) equals the number of probationers or parolees 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 who were 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 probationers and the percentage of parolees incarcerated is calculated using the formula in the previous paragraph except the numerator is the number of probationers or parolees who were discharged from supervision during the year as the result of being incarcerated. Outcome measure based on the at-risk population The rate of incarceration (for parolees this is also referred to as the rate of return to incarceration or the rate of reincarceration) based on the at-risk probation or parole population is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers or parolees who 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 probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated during the year. The at-risk population is defined as the number of probationers or parolees under supervision at the start of the year (on January 1) plus the number who entered supervision during the year. This pool of probationers or parolees 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 probationers or parolees who 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 probationers or parolees who exit after completing their supervision, which can only be achieved after a certain period of time (i.e., after they serve a specified amount of time under supervision and/ or fulfill specific conditions of their supervision), as well as probationers or parolees who are incarcerated during the year, which can occur at any point while they are under supervision. The at-risk measure of incarceration accounts for all probationers or parolees under supervision during the year (i.e., probationers or parolees who were those who entered during the year) who are the probationers or parolees at risk of being incarcerated. This measure is not limited only to those who are discharged during the year. Second, specifically in comparison to the discharge-based completion rate, the at risk measure of incarceration allows that each probationer or each parolee can be incarcerated at any time during the year. Estimating the national total of offenders under community supervision incarcerated annually to calculate the national rate of incarceration among the at-risk populations BJS defines the rate of incarceration for probationers and parolees as the ratio of the number of probationers or parolees who were discharged from supervision during the year because they were incarcerated to the number at risk of incarceration. The number at risk of incarceration is the sum of the number of probationers or parolees 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 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, specifically incarceration. The first weight was defined as the ratio of each jurisdiction's proportionate contribution 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 agencies within jurisdictions, See the section Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting probation agencies in 2010 for more details. The second weight was defined as the ratio of each jurisdiction's total imputed exits, which was equal to the number of total reported exits within the jurisdiction if total exits were not missing, to the jurisdiction's weighted total of known reported exits. The denominator (i.e. the number of probationers or parolees at the start of the year plus those who entered during the year) of the rate of incarceration ratio included estimates generated by BJS for jurisdictions, or any reporting agencies within jurisdictions, that were not able to report total entries during the year, which only applied to probation agencies in 2010. The method used to generate the estimates is described in the section Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in 2010. Estimates of the national rate of incarceration among the at-risk probation or parole populations reported in figures 5 and 8, respectively, may be slightly different than the estimates reported in previous years. As explained in the section Changes in estimating national entries and exits from 2000 to 2009, Pennsylvania was able to report the total number of probation and parole entries and exits in the Pennsylvania counties for the first time in the 2010 reporting year. In prior years, BJS estimated these data. The estimates of the national rate of incarceration in this report reflect adjustments made to the 2000 to 2009 national total of entries and exits based on the 2010 data reported by Pennsylvania to account for the difference the totals yielded through BJS's estimation method. See Changes in estimating national entries and exits from 2000 to 2009 for more details. Generating national estimates of type of entry to parole for 2000 through 2010 In 2008, the Annual Parole Survey included a new category for type of entry to parole that is labeled term of supervised release (TSR). It is defined as a fixed period of release to the community that follows a sentence to incarceration; both are determined by a judge at the time of sentencing. The new category was added to better classify the large majority of entries to parole reported by the federal system. (Of the total 47,873 offenders that entered federal supervision following incarceration during 2010, about 46,684 entered through a term of supervised release.) In order to analyze the national trends for all types of entry to parole from 2000 to 2010, BJS generated federal estimates of TSR from 2000 to 2007. For years 2004 through 2007, BJS was informed by the federal respondent that TSR was included in other; therefore, the counts reported in this category were reclassified into TSR. To generate federal estimates of TSR from 2000 to 2003, BJS used data from the federal judiciary that were publicly available on the United States Courts Website at http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/ StatisticalTablesForTheFederalJudiciary. aspx. The website provided counts of the total number of federal offenders placed on supervised release, by type of entry including TSR. BJS was informed by the federal respondent that from 2000 to 2003, TSR had been reported in the category for discretionary releases. BJS used the method of ratio estimation, based on the data from the federal judiciary, to generate an estimate of TSR and to re-estimate discretionary entries to federal parole from 2000 to 2003. Some states began reporting TSR as a type of entry to parole in 2008 when the category was added to the survey. Because TSR data from 2000 to 2007 in those states was not readily available to BJS and to ensure comparability over time, BJS reclassified the TSR data reported by the states into the mandatory release category. This decision was based on the fact that mandatory release and TSR are similar in that they are both are based on determinate sentencing statutes. Also, BJS compared the entry data reported by those states in 2007, when TSR was not included on the survey, with their 2008 entry data. It was apparent that in 2007, almost all of those states that reported TSR data in 2008 had reported them as mandatory releases in 2007 and prior years. In general, the number of mandatory releases in those states between 2007 and 2008 dropped substantially when TSR was included as a category. Therefore, the estimates of TSR reported in figure 7 of this report represent federal data only, including federal estimates of TSR generated by BJS from 2000 through 2007. The national estimates of mandatory release from 2008 to 2010 include the TSR data reported by some states. (The total TSR count reported by the states in 2010 represented about 13% of all mandatory releases to parole in 2010.) 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, NCJ 224707. 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, NCJ 228230. Estimating the U.S. adult resident population Supervision rates for the years 2005 through 2010 were calculated using preliminary estimates of the U.S. adult resident population in each state on January 1 of each subsequent year, which were provided to BJS by the U.S. Census Bureau. The July 1 U.S. adult resident populations within the reporting year were used to calculate supervision rates from 2000 through 2004 because those were the only data available at the time those annual reports were published. Other available information Detailed information for 2010 is available in appendix tables 1 to 22. The jurisdictions in the 2010 appendix tables are in alphabetical order; region totals appear at the bottom of the appendix tables. Specific jurisdictions per region are listed as follows: 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. Probation: Explanatory notes Federal--data for the federal system were provided to BJS through the 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 89% of Alabama's total probation population, and two local agencies. Alabama's total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 4,233 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Alabama in 2006, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Alaska--total probation population on December 31, 2010, excludes an unknown number of probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2 and 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, 2010, includes an additional estimated 1,381 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Colorado--has eight reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 88% of Colorado's total probation population, and seven local agencies. on December 31, 2010, excludes 31 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2 and 8). The population includes an additional estimated 1,349 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Colorado in 2009, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Connecticut--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an estimated additional 975 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Delaware--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 775 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). District of Columbia--reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in the District of Columbia in 2008, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Florida--has 41 reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 67% of Florida's total probation population, and 40 local agencies. Florida's total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 365 probationers supervised for another agreement (appendix table 2). Georgia--has two state reporting agencies. One agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the state, representing 47% of Georgia's total probation population, an increase from the 39% reported for 2009. 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 53% of Georgia's total probation population for 2010. 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 jurisdictions. Georgia's total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Absconder represents absconders under state jurisdiction who were also on warrant status. Warrant status represents only probationers under county jurisdiction (appendix table 8). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Georgia between 2007 and 2009, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Georgia for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009. Georgia changed its method of reporting starting with the January 1, 2010, population as the result of changes made by the agency that reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the state. Changes included more complete reporting of absconders, conversion to a new data processing system, and data cleaning. The total change in Georgia's probation population was an increase of 61,199 probationers on January 1, 2010(453,887) compared to the population for December 31, 2009 (392,688). Data reported for Georgia for 2010 are not comparable to the data reported for Georgia in prior years. Hawaii--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 181 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). A total of 3,465 probationers whose offense was classified as a petty misdemeanor on December 31, 2010, were included among misdemeanants for 2010; petty misdemeanants were included in other for 2009 (appendix table 9). Idaho--has two state reporting agencies. One agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the state, representing 29% 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 71% of Idaho's total probation population. Additionally, this second Idaho agency only has the capacity to report the number of probationers who entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2010. 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 correspondence with the respondent, the December 31, 2010, population was estimated based on the total number of probationers who entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2010. Exits from county misdemeanant probation during 2010 were based on the January 1, 2010, population or the number of probationers who entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2009 (appendix table 2). Idaho's total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 423 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 unsupervised supervision and were not required to report regularly to a probation authority in person, by mail, or by telephone; these have been reported as inactive (appendix table 8). Illinois--the total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--probation data reported by Illinois for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of changes in reporting by individual counties that provided data to the state agency. The total change in Illinois' probation population was a decrease of 13,782 probationers on January 1, 2010 (130,910), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (144,692) (appendix table 2). Indiana--total probation population on December 31, 2010, excludes an unknown number of probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2 and 8). Indiana's total probation population on December 31, 2010, also includes an unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Iowa--total probation population on December 31, 2010, excludes 748 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2 and 8). Kansas--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 418 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Kentucky--has three reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 56% of Kentucky's total probation population, and two local agencies. Kentucky's total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 2,073 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Louisiana--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 2,215 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Maine--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 214 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Maryland--the total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 2,859 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Maryland in 2007, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Maryland for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of changes to its database and processing methods. Methods used by Maryland to prepare its probation data for 2010 were comparable to methods used prior to 2009 (appendix tables 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). The total change in Maryland's probation population was a decrease of 9,542 probationers on January 1, 2010 (95,017), compared to that reported for December 31, 2009 (104,541). Massachusetts--total probation population on December 31, 2010, excludes 904 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2 and 8). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Massachusetts in 2003 and 2004, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Massachusetts for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, due to reporting changes made for 2010. The estimated January 1 and December 31, 2010, probation populations represent counts of the number of adults on probation on a single day. In contrast, the December 31, 2009, probation population included adults who had been on probation at any time during 2009. The total change in the Massachusetts probation population was a decrease of 104,428 probationers on January 1, 2010 (76,249), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (180,677) (appendix table 2). Michigan--has 134 agencies--one state agency, representing 38% of Michigan's total probation population, 133 reporting local agencies, and one local agency that did not report. The adult probation population on December 31, 2009, of the nonreporting agency was used as an estimate of the agency's probation population on both January 1 and December 31, 2010. Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Michigan for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of reporting changes made by Michigan's state agency. Changes for 2010 include the reporting of offenders on absconder and warrant status, and the exclusion of probationers supervised for other states. Other undetermined differences in procedures did not permit the state agency to reconcile the count it provided for January 1, 2010 with what it previously reported for December 31, 2009 (appendix tables 2 and 8). The total change in the Michigan probation population was an increase of 10,285 probationers on January 1, 2010 (185,416), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (175,131) (appendix table 2). Minnesota--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 1,216 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Missouri--has two reporting agencies--one state agency, representing about 99% of Missouri's total probation population, and one local agency (appendix table 2). Montana--has four reporting agencies one state agency, representing 94% of Montana's total probation population, and three local agencies (appendix table 2). Nebraska--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 424 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Nebraska for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of the implementation of a new data system in August 2010, which included extensive corrections to probation records. The total change in Nebraska's probation population was a decrease of 1,088 probationers on January 1, 2010 (17,583), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (18,591) (appendix table 2). New Hampshire--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 490 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). New Mexico--has two reporting agencies one state agency, representing 75% of New Mexico's total probation population, and one local agency. New Mexico's total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in New Mexico in 2003, and from 2006 to 2007, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. New York--reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in New York in 2003, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Ohio--has 187 reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 5% of Ohio's total probation population, 185 reporting local agencies, and one local agency that did not report. One local probation agency did not provide data for 2010. The December 31, 2008, probation population reported by this agency in 2008 was used as an estimate of this agency's January 1 and December 31, 2010, probation populations. Ohio's total probation population on December 31, 2010, excludes an estimate of at least 8 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement and an unspecified number of probationers on an inactive status (appendix tables 2 and 8). Ohio's total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an estimate of at least 102 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Oklahoma--has three reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 80% 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, while the county probation population represented 97% (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2000 and2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Pennsylvania in 2004, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJSWeb, NCJ 231674. Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Pennsylvania for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009. Pennsylvania changed its method of reporting county probation data starting with the January 1, 2010 population, to exclude some parolees that had previously been classified and reported as probationers. The total change in Pennsylvania's probation population was a decrease of 20,902 probationers on January 1, 2010 (171,329), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (192,231) (appendix tables 2, 3, and 4). Rhode Island--Rhode Island's information system classifies Hispanic or Latino as a race rather than an ethnicity; therefore, probationers reported as Hispanic or Latino may also be of another race. In addition, probationers reported among other racial categories may also be Hispanic or Latino. Rhode Island's information system does not 24 Probation and Parole in the United States , 2010 include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or two or more races (appendix table 7).Active includes an unspecified number of probationers in residential/other treatment program because they could not be reported separately. Inactive includes an unspecified number of probationers who were an absconder because they could not be reported separately, and 2,104 probationers incarcerated in state or federal prison (appendix table 8). See Incarcerated-Prison in appendix table 11. South Carolina--reporting changes between 2009 and 2010 data reported by South Carolina for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of a change in South Carolina's procedures for processing probation data starting with the January 1, 2010, population. The total change in South Carolina's probation population was a decrease of 5,812 probationers on January 1, 2010 (33,876), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (39,688) (appendix table 2). Tennessee--has three reporting agencies--one state agency, representing 88% of Tennessee's total probation population, and two local agencies. The population includes an additional 3,222 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Texas--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 4,328 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Vermont--total probation population on December 31, 2010, excludes an estimated 14 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an estimated 213 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 other racial categories include Hispanic or Latino probationer 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--the total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 1,585 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Location tracked by GPS - Total and sex offenders excludes an unspecified number of low level probationers tracked using dial-in voice recognition technology (appendix table 11). Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Virginia for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009. Virginia changed its method of reporting probation data starting with the January 1, 2010, population, as the result of the implementation of the Virginia Corrections Information System (VACORIS) and the rebuilding of the offender population data used for analysis. The rebuilt data adheres to documented data definitions and better reflects actual population figures than previously released data. The total change in Virginia's probation population was an increase of 2,231 probationers on January 1, 2010 (57,876), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (55,645) (appendix table 2). Washington--has 31 reporting agencies one state agency, representing 14% of Washington's total probation population, and 30 local agencies. Washington's total probation population on December 31, 2010, excludes 26 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2 and 8). The population includes an additional unknown number of probationers supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Washington in 2004, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. 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). Wisconsin--Asian includes an unspecified number of probationers who were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander because Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander could not be reported separately (appendixtable 7). Wyoming--total probation population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 241 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2). Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Wyoming for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of a conversion to a new data processing system, and data cleaning. The total change in Wyoming's probation population was an increase of 684 probationers on January 1, 2010 (5,352), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (4,668). Parole: Explanatory notes Federal--data for the federal system were provided to BJS through the FJSP, which obtained data directly from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Federal supervised release (as defined here) includes a term of supervised release from prison, mandatory release, parole, military parole, and special parole. These data are based on the calendar year and may differ for the federal data reported in other BJS statistical series. For example, FJSP data were based on the fiscal year. Alabama--has two reporting agencies--one state agency, representing about 99% of Alabama's total parole population, and one local agency. Alabama's total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 990 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Alabama in 2006 and 2007, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Alaska--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional unknown number of parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Alaska in 2007, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Arizona--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 515 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). California--has two reporting agencies one state agency, representing about 99% of California's total parole population, and the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). California's total parole population on December 31, 2010, excludes 757 parolees supervised out of state through an interstate compact agreement and 13,395 absconders (appendix table 12). Inactive includes persons on nonrevocable parole (appendix table 18). For more information on non-revocable parole in California, including the eligibility criteria, visit the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation website at http://www. cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/Non_Revocable_Parole/index.html. The population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 1,478 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander includes an unspecified number of Filipino parolees who were classified as Pacific Islander rather than Asian (appendix table 17). Mandatory includes a small unspecified number of parolees who received a discretionary release from prison (appendix table 21). Location tracked by GPS - Total and sex offenders excludes a small unknown number of parolees tracked by the DJJ (appendix table 22). Colorado--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 304 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). These methods are not comparable to those used between 2005 and 2008. Entries to parole by reinstatement were previously classified as mandatory entries to parole (appendix table 13). Mandatory releases have increased since 2009 as the result of a legislative revision that went into effect July 1, 2009, that allows certain offenders to earn additional reductions in time. The 1,980 parolees reported as supervised out of state includes an unspecified 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--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, 2010, includes an additional 167 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Florida--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 26 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Georgia--number of parolees reported in death is an underestimate of the number of parolees who died while on parole during 2010. 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 were still on parole, some of whom were attending programs (appendix table 22). Hawaii--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 48 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Hawaii reported absconder, supervised out of state, and other supervision statuses separately from active status to meet BJS definitions; however, Hawaii considers these statuses to be active. Idaho--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 151 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Indiana--total parole population on December 31, 2010, excludes 562 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12 and 18). Iowa--total parole population on December 31, 2010, excludes 202 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12 and 18). Kansas--total parole population on December 31, 2010, excludes 178 absconders (appendix tables 12 and 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 1,150 parolees who entered supervision from absconder status after a warrant was cleared and 189 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, 2010, includes an additional 590 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Louisiana--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 783 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Maryland--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 496 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of changes to its database and processing to prepare its parole data for 2010 are comparable to methods that had been used prior to 2009 (appendix tables 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20). The total change in Maryland's parole population was a decrease of 547 parolees on January 1, 2010 (13,195) compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (13,742). Massachusetts--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 286 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Michigan--number of parolees reported as 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). Mississippi--the 18.6% increase (1,008 parolees) in Mississippi's parole population during 2010 resulted from modifications in both parole and house arrest laws and state statutes that made more offenders eligible for conditional release. (appendix table 12). Montana--reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in Montana in 2009, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. New Hampshire--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 73 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). New Mexico--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 498 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for changes in reporting methods that occurred in New Mexico in 2007, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. 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 November 2011 27 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, 2010, 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). Weapon offense is the illegal possession of a weapon, not an offense in which a weapon was used (i.e., does not include armed robbery offenses) (appendix table 20). Post-release offenders were reported in term of supervised release (appendix table 21). Ohio--the decrease (down 17.1% or 2,499 parolees) in Ohio's parole population during 2010 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. The decrease was also partially the result of database cleaning that took place during 2010 (appendix table 12). Oregon--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 456 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Pennsylvania--technically, Pennsylvania 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 29% of Pennsylvania's total parole population on December 31, 2010, while the county parole population represented 71%. Reporting changes between 2000 and 2009 for reporting changes that occurred in Pennsylvania 2004, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Pennsylvania for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009. Pennsylvania changed its method of reporting county parole data starting with the January 1, 2010, population to include some parolees that had previously been classified and reported as probationers. The total change in Pennsylvania's parole population was an increase of 20,902 parolees on January 1, 2010 (96,014), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (75,112). This is also the first year for which data on county parole entries and exits have been provided (appendix tables 12, 13, and 14). Rhode Island--total parole population on December 31, 2010, excludes 42 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 Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or two or more races (appendix table 17). South Carolina--reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by South Carolina for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009. South Carolina changed its method of reporting parole data starting with the January 1, 2010, population as the result of a change in counting procedures, the inclusion of persons on Community Supervision (who simultaneously receive both mandatory and discretionary releases), and the inclusion of Youthful Offender Act (YOA) releases (appendix table 12 and 13). Community supervision releases typically remain on mandatory release longer than on discretionary release, and have been reported as mandatory releases. YOA releases are young adults, ages 18 to 24, who receive an indeterminate sentence of up to 6 years (appendix table 13). The total change in South Carolina's parole population was an increase of 4,807 parolees on January 1, 2010 (6,419), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (1,612). Tennessee--total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional 987 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). Vermont--total parole population on December 31, 2010, excludes an estimated 11 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12 and 18). The total parole population on December 31, 2010, includes an additional estimated 34 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--reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for reporting changes in Virginia that occurred in 2007 and 2008, see Methodology and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Virginia for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009. Virginia changed its method of reporting parole data starting with the January 1, 2010, population as the result of the implementation of the Virginia Corrections Information System (VACORIS) and the rebuilding of the offender population data used for analysis. The total change in Virginia's parole population was a decrease of 2,040 parolees on January 1, 2010 (2,565), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (4,605) (appendix table 12). Washington--reporting changes between 2000 and 2009--for reporting changes that occurred in Washington in 2004, see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009, BJS Web, NCJ 231674. Wisconsin--Asian includes an unspecified number of parolees who were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander because Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander could not be reported separately (appendix table 17). Wyoming--reporting changes between 2009 and 2010--data reported by Wyoming for 2010 are not comparable to those reported for 2009, as the result of a conversion to a new data processing system, and data cleaning. The total change in Wyoming's parole population was an increase of 135 parolees on January 1, 2010 (749), compared to the population reported for December 31, 2009 (614). Appendix tables Community supervision Appendix table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2010 Probation Appendix table 2. Adults on probation, 2010 Appendix table 3. Adults entering probation, by type of sentence, 2010 Appendix table 4. Adults exiting probation, by type of exit, 2010 Appendix table 5. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2009 2010 Appendix table 6. Adults on probation, by sex, 2010 Appendix table 7. Adults on probation, by race and Hispanic or Latino origin, 2010 Appendix table 8. Adults on probation, by status of supervision, 2010 Appendix table 9. Adults on probation, by type of offense, 2010 Appendix table 10. Adults on probation, by most serious offense, 2010 Appendix table 11. Adults on probation, 2010: number tracked by a Global Positioning System (GPS), number on parole, or number incarcerated. Parole Appendix table 12. Adults on parole, 2010 Appendix table 13. Adults entering parole, by type of sentence, 2010 Appendix table 14. Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2010 Appendix table 15. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2009-2010 Appendix table 16. Adults on parole, by sex, 2010 Appendix table 17. Adults on parole, by race and Hispanic or Latino origin, 2010 Appendix table 18. Adults on parole, by status of supervision, 2010 Appendix table 19. Adults on parole, by maximum sentence to incarceration, 2010 Appendix table 20. Adults on parole, by most serious offense, 2010 Appendix table 21. Adults on parole, by type of release from prison, 2010 Appendix table 22. Adults on parole, 2010: number tracked by a Global Positioning System (GPS), number on probation, or number incarcerated ************************************************ ---------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov ---------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is the director. This Bulletin was written by Lauren Glaze and Thomas Bonczar. Laura M. Maruschak provided statistical review and verification of the report. Sheri R. Simmons provided statistical review. Heather C. West, Ph.D. carried out the data collection and processing under the supervision of Stephen Simoncini, Governments Division, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Ryan D. Driscoll provided technical assistance under the supervision of Joseph Bacon. Alonzo Johnson assisted in the data collection. Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, Barbara Quinn produced the report, and Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final printing under the supervision of Doris J. James. November 2011, NCJ 236019 The full text of each report is available in PDF and ASCII formats on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov. Tables are also available in PDF and CSV formats. Related datasets are made available on the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data website at http:// www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/index.jsp. *************************************************** 8/15/2011/JER/12:50 am