U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006 August 2008, NCJ 222180 ------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cspsa06.htm ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- By Thomas P. Bonczar BJS Statistician ------------------------------------------------------------- Overview State parole supervising agencies employed nearly 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time workers on June 30, 2006, according to findings from the 2006 Census of State Parole Supervising Agencies. The average caseload was 38 active parolees for each full-time equivalent (FTE) position devoted to parole supervision. About half of parole supervising agencies had a role in releasing prisoners to parole, setting the conditions of supervision, or conducting revocation hearings. The census collected information from 52 state agencies which included 2,287 separate administrative, regional, and other offices (table 1). These agencies reported that they supervised 660,959 adult parolees or about 83% of the 798,202 parolees reported at yearend 2006 in the Annual Parole Survey. (See Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006, available at .) Combined parole and probation agencies supervised 4 times as many offenders on probation as on parole On June 30, 2006, 35 of the reporting state parole supervising agencies also supervised adults on probation. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release following a prison term. Criminal offenders sentenced to a period of correctional supervision in the community are on probation. These combined parole-probation supervision agencies supervised about 4 times as many offenders on probation (1,200,570) as on parole (269,416). The 1.2 million probationers represented about a quarter of the estimated 4,237,023 adults on probation on December 31, 2006, as reported in the 2006 Annual Probation Survey. Among the agencies that provided information, 17 supervised paroled offenders only. These agencies had 503 offices less than a quarter of the total number of offices but they supervised more than half of the total parole population. ------------------------------------------------------------- A technical supplement has been added to this report, including an expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes ------------------------------------------------------------- Seven state agencies reported that they supervised juveniles on probation or parole in addition to adults; however, not all agencies reported the number of juveniles on supervision. State parole supervising agencies located in a department of corrections supervised a smaller percentage of parolees (69%) than probationers (77%). In comparison, agencies that were independent of a department of corrections supervised a larger share of parolees (25%) than probationers (16%). Ten independent agencies were located in the executive branch of government; one (Alabama) was in the legislative branch (see appendix table 1, forthcoming). Other parole agencies supervised nearly an equal share of parolees (7%) and probationers (8%). Five agencies supervised half of the parole population Five state agencies accounted for about half of the adults under parole supervision on June 30, 2006 (table 2). These five agencies include the Departments of Corrections in California (125,067 adults on parole); ***Footnote 1: An additional 67 parolees were under supervision by the California Juvenile Justice Division on June 30, 2006.*** Texas (101,175); and Illinois (33,354); and two independent agencies, New York (53,215) and Pennsylvania (24,956, excluding adults supervised by county parole offices). Pennsylvania also supervised adults on probation (3,777) at midyear 2006. State parole supervising agencies employed nearly 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time workers Including payroll staff, nonpayroll staff, and contract staff, an estimated 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time workers were employed by the 52 state parole supervising agencies on June 30, 2006 (table 3). This number includes imputed estimates for parole supervising agencies in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon that did not provide information on staffing in the census. Nonpayroll staff included those on the payroll of other government agencies, unpaid interns, and volunteers. In the 49 state agencies that provided information, 82% of full-time employees worked for a department of corrections, 16% worked for an independent parole agency, and 1% for another type of agency. Nearly all part-time employees (96%) worked for a department of corrections. When viewed by type of population served, 66% of full-time workers and 81% of part-time workers were employed by an agency that supervised both parolees and probationers. Among state agencies that provided information about their employees, nearly all full-time workers (94%) and about half of part-time workers (47%) were on the payroll. An equal percentage of the remaining full-time employees were nonpayroll staff and contract staff (3% each). Among part- time workers, 40% were nonpayroll staff and 13% were contractors. Men (51%) and women (49%) made up nearly equal percentages of full-time employees. Women were 58% of part-time employees. Average caseload was 38 active parolees for each FTE devoted to supervision Respondents were asked to report the portion of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions devoted to direct supervision of adult offenders on active parole on June 30, 2006. The census included directions for counting the time that full-time and part-time employees had available for supervising parolees. Respondents were also asked to count just that portion of time available for supervision of parolees among employees who divided their time between supervision of parolees and other responsibilities. An estimated 14,000 FTE staff supervised about 528,000 adults active on parole on June 30, 2006 in the 52 agencies included in the census (table 4). Staff positions allocated to supervision of offenders on active parole amounted to about 1 in 5 of the estimated 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part- time staff members. This resulted in an average caseload at midyear 2006 of 38 persons on active parole supervision for each FTE staff position devoted to adult parole supervision. An average of 49 parolees were on active supervision for each FTE position devoted to supervision in agencies that supervised only parolees (based on 16 agencies that provided information). Among agencies that had authority for both parolees and probationers, 28 parolees were on active supervision per FTE position (based on 25 agencies). These caseload calculations do not take into account differences in the offenses for which parolees had been incarcerated or differences in their required levels of supervision. Two-thirds of paroled offenders were required to meet with a parole officer at least once a month Two-thirds of adult offenders on parole were required to have face-to-face contact with a parole officer at least once a month, including 14% who were required to have weekly face-to-face contact (table 5). An additional 17% of paroled offenders were required to meet with their parole officers less than once a month or to maintain contact by mail, telephone, or other means. Thirteen percent of paroled offenders were no longer required to report on a regular basis. A reporting frequency had not yet been determined for 3% of paroled offenders. Nearly 8 in 10 adult offenders were on active parole supervision. Half of parole supervising agencies had a role in releasing prisoners to parole, setting the conditions of supervision, or conducting revocation hearings Twenty-six of the 50 state agencies providing information reported that, as of June 30, 2006, they participated in releasing persons from prison to parole supervision, setting the terms or conditions of adult parole supervision, or conducting parole revocation hearings (table 6). Of the 26 agencies that performed at least one of these functions, 14 performed all 3 functions. The remaining 24 agencies that responded performed none of these functions. Two agencies did not provide information. Nineteen of 50 parole supervising agencies reported at midyear 2006 that they considered prisoners for release. In the census, 13 parole supervising agencies reported that between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, they considered 126,641 prisoners for release and released 57,850 a rate of 46 prisoners released per 100 considered. Some prisoners considered for release may have been released after this period, and some of those released may have been considered for release before the period. North Dakota released 76 prisoners per 100 considered for release and Connecticut released 71 (table 7). Arizona released 13 per 100. The census did not collect information on the characteristics of prisoners considered for release. Paroled offenders are frequently required to abide by one or more conditions of supervision when released into the community. Such conditions may include payment of supervision fees, submission to drug testing, finding employment, and fulfilling requirements for treatment. Adult parole supervising agencies in 20 states reported that they set the terms or conditions of adult parole supervision. In 14 of these states, the parole board also had a role. The 30 parole supervising agencies reporting that they did not perform this function most frequently identified the parole board (27 jurisdictions) as the entity that set the terms or conditions of supervision. Failure to abide by the terms or conditions of supervision may result in revocation of parole. Revocation can result in the return of the paroled offender to incarceration or lead to modification of the conditions of parole supervision. Seventeen of the 18 agencies that had responsibility for conducting parole revocation hearings held 67,534 hearings between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Based on the number of adults on parole in these agencies during the year ending June 30, 2006, no more than one in five parolees had a revocation hearing.***Footnote 2: This was calculated by dividing 67,534 parole revocation hearings by an estimated 317,828 parolees at risk of re-incarceration.*** This is because some parolees may have had more than one revocation hearing. A total of 317,828 parolees were at risk of re-incarceration in these 17 agencies, including an estimated 203,125 adults on parole on June 30, 2005, plus an estimated 114,703 who entered parole supervision between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006 (not shown in table). Each of the 18 agencies that conducted parole revocation hearings reported sharing this responsibility with a parole board. Thirty of the 32 supervising agencies that did not conduct revocation hearings identified the parole board as the authority performing this function. Up to 16% of at-risk parolees in some agencies were re-incarcerated for a failed drug test All 50 parole supervising agencies that provided information reported testing paroled offenders for the use of illegal drugs during the year ending June 30, 2006. Eight agencies were able to report the number of parolees returned to incarceration between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, due to a drug violation detected during agency testing. These agencies re-incarcerated between less than 0.5% and 16% of those estimated to have been at risk of re-incarceration (table 8). The population at risk of re-incarceration in these agencies included adults who were on parole on June 30, 2005, plus those who entered parole between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Information about the number of paroled offenders tested and whether testing was done upon entry to supervision, randomly, or upon suspicion of use, was not obtained. Nearly all agencies report use of drug, sex offender, or mental health treatment programs On June 30, 2006, 47 of 49 parole supervising agencies reported having paroled offenders enrolled in a drug treatment program run by a formally trained professional (table 9). In the 21 agencies that provided enrollment counts, an average of 10.9% of all paroled offenders (28,084 of 258,652) were enrolled in such a program. Nearly all agencies (46) also reported that paroled offenders were enrolled in a self-help or drug awareness program such as Narcotics Anonymous or Cocaine Anonymous. Seven of these agencies, supervising 26,333 parolees, reported that 4,510 parolees (17.1%) were in these programs on June 30, 2006. The other agencies were unable to provide counts. Nearly all parole supervision agencies also reported having paroled adult offenders enrolled in a sex offender treatment program (46 agencies), or a mental health treatment program (47) (table 10). Twenty-six agencies reported that 3.7% of paroled offenders were enrolled in a sex offender treatment program, and 17 agencies reported that 9.0% of paroled offenders were enrolled in a mental health treatment program operated by a formally trained mental health professional. Among the agencies that provided information, a greater percentage of paroled offenders were enrolled in drug treatment programs than in sex offender or mental health programs. 2 in 5 parole supervising agencies operated or contracted a housing service for paroled offenders Respondents were asked whether their parole agency had a program that provided assistance to parolees in obtaining housing, beyond an occasional referral by a parole officer to an apartment building or landlord. Among 50 state supervising agencies that provided information, 7 reported having a working relationship with a state or county housing agency, and 6 had a contract with a private rental agency to refer paroled offenders to landlords (table 11). Four agencies operated an in-house service to provide housing referrals to paroled offenders. Ten other agencies operated other types of programs. Twenty of the 50 agencies that provided information indicated that as of June 30, 2006, they had some type of formal housing assistance program for paroled offenders (table 12). Four agencies offered two or more types of housing assistance programs. Half of parole supervising agencies offered some type of formal employment assistance Other than an occasional referral by a parole officer to a job opening or to a particular employer, the most frequent type of formal employment assistance provided by parole supervising agencies involved a working relationship with a state or county employment agency (17 agencies). Nearly equal numbers of parole supervising agencies reported that paroled offenders received employment assistance through a contract with a private employment service (8 agencies), that the parole agency operated an in-house employment service for paroled offenders (6 agencies), or that some other type of employment assistance was provided (6 agencies). Overall, 25 of the 50 adult parole supervising agencies that provided information had some type of organized program to provide employment assistance to paroled offenders at midyear 2006 (table 13). Seven agencies offered more than one type of employment assistance program. Methodology The 2006 Census of State Parole Supervising Agencies, with a reference date of June 30, 2006, was sent to 68 respondents, including 50 central state reporters, the California Juvenile Justice Division, and the District of Columbia (table 14). Sixteen local Minnesota Community Corrections Act agencies were asked to provide information on staffing and supervision not available from the state. The purpose of the census was to collect information about parole supervising organizations. In contrast with the parole census, the 2006 Annual Parole Survey (APS),with a reference date of December 31, 2006, was sent to 54 respondents, including 54 central state reporters, the California Juvenile Justice Division, and 1 municipal agency. The APS collected summary counts of the number of adults on parole at the beginning and end of the year, the number of adults entering and exiting parole supervision during the year, and characteristics of the end of year parole population. The APS has been conducted annually since 1977. Responses to the parole census included one summary response from a central respondent in the Oregon Department of Corrections based on summary data gathered from 36 county governments that independently administered all adult parole supervision in the state. Illinois provided only counts of the adult parole population on December 31, 2007 for the state as a whole and by parole office. Wisconsin provided no data. Virginia's report of 8,609 adults on parole supervision on June 30, 2006, included additional groups of offenders that were not previously reported. For the parole census, Virginia included all paroled offenders for whom the state has responsibility, paroled felons who are the responsibility of local jurisdictions in Virginia, and offenders whose parole was originally supervised by the courts that sentenced them. Restricting Virginia's parole count to the groups included in the 2006 Annual Parole Survey would result in an estimate of 4,239 adults on parole on June 30, 2006 based on an average of the state's adult parole population on January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006. Expanded Methodology Imputation of parole population for non-reporting agency Wisconsin's adult parole population on June 30, 2006, was estimated as the average of the agency's parole population on January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006, as reported to the BJS 2006 Annual Parole Survey (see Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006). Estimating the total number of parole agency offices Agencies were asked to report the number of separate offices in their parole agency on June 30, 2006, including administrative offices, regional offices, and all separate sub-offices, such as field offices. The total of 2,287 parole agency offices among the parole agencies included in the Census includes an estimated 103 separate offices in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Virginia. The number of separate offices in Illinois and Virginia were estimated from lists of individual regional or district offices these states provided. The number of separate offices in Wisconsin was estimated from a list of regional offices on the agency's website on May 2, 2006 (www.wi-doc.com/regional.htm). Estimating the total number of full-time and part-time staff The state total of 53,965 full-time and 2,478 part-time employees includes an estimated 8,065 full-time and 422 part-time employees in states that did not report this information. The number of employees in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon was estimated based on the rate of employees per adult parolee among the remaining states. Estimates were made separately for full-time and part-time employees, and by type of agency (parole-only agencies-Illinois, and combined probation and parole agencies-Wisconsin and Oregon). Estimating the average adult parole caseload per full-time equivalent (FTE) staff position The overall average caseload of 38 adult parolees on active supervision per full-time equivalent (FTE) staff position incorporates estimates of the number of FTE positions for 11 states (Maine, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Delaware, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, Alaska, and Washington). The method of estimation required that estimates first be obtained for the number of parolees on active supervision for two states which did not provide this information. Illinois and Wisconsin were estimated to have the same proportion of all parolees on active supervision on June 30, 2006, as they did when they last reported this information to the Annual Parole Survey (December 31, 2005, for Illinois; and December 31, 2006, for Wisconsin). The 11 states that did not provide FTE counts were then estimated to have the same rate of FTE positions per parolee on active supervision as did similar types of agencies in the states that reported this information. Estimates of FTE positions were made separately for parole-only agencies (Illinois) and combined probation and parole agencies (the remaining 10 agencies). Estimating the population at risk of return to incarceration For adult parole agencies that reported the number of revocation hearings conducted during the period July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, (page 5) or the number of parolees returned to incarceration as the result of a drug violation detected during agency testing, (table 8) the number of parolees at risk of re-incarceration was defined as the number of adults on parole on July 1, 2005, plus those released to parole supervision during the year ending June 30, 2006. The number of adults on parole on July 1, 2005, was estimated as the average of the agency's parole population on January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005, as reported in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005. The number released to a state agency=s parole supervision between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, was estimated as one-half of entries to parole supervision during 2005 (Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005), and one-half of entries to parole supervision during 2006 (Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006). Explanatory notes, by jurisdiction Alaska All parolee counts are estimated. A total of 71 staff in full-time equivalent positions supervised both parolees and probationers (appendix table 2). Arizona There were 411 prison inmates eligible for parole in 2006. Community corrections sets the conditions of supervision along with the parole supervising agency, courts, parole board, and Department of Corrections (appendix table 4). Other employment assistance included three job developers who worked with offenders to assist in employment, networked in the community identifying potential employers and informing them about the benefits of hiring ex-offenders, and identified job placement centers and programs aimed at enhancing job skills (appendix table 9). Arkansas The other agency administration is the Arkansas Department of Community Corrections (table 2). The other supervision status included non-reporting cases and parolees released to "detainers" (appendix table 2). A total of 364 full-time equivalent positions supervised both parolees and probationers, but the proportion who supervised adults who were active on parole is unknown (appendix table 2). Other housing assistance consisted of transitional housing grants for women on early release to allow for reunification with their children (appendix table 8). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Detailed data on gender were available for payroll staff only (table 16). California Juvenile Justice Division Data were estimated for gender of part-time employees (table 16). Colorado Colorado's parole supervision levels were determined by its classification system, statutory-driven provisions, parole conditions set by the parole board, and resource availability. Therefore, comparable data were not available (appendix table 3). The parole agency had a formal working relationship with a state or county employment agency but did not regularly receive reports on parolees from the agency (appendix table 9). Connecticut Supervision levels on June 30, 2006, were available for a total of 3,016 adult parolees including 178 parolees from other states for whom information on level of supervision was not available. Of the 3,016 adults on parole supervision, 1,700 were required to meet with their parole officer weekly, 1,046 monthly, and 17 less frequently. Another 253 parolees had an unspecified level of contact because they were under supervision in another state (appendix table 3). A total of 3,503 prisoners were considered for parole release and 2,915 were voted to parole. Fewer were released (2,470) for a variety of reasons, including the lack of a sponsor. The 2,470 released included persons whose parole was revoked and those re-paroled, but that total does not include persons discharged to special (mandatory) parole (appendix table 4). Other housing assistance signified use of a federal grant program, Access to Recovery, to help offenders obtain housing (appendix table 8). Delaware All data for parolees and others under supervision were estimated. The adult parole supervising agency set the conditions of adult parole supervision, but the Delaware Board of Parole could impose special conditions (appendix table 4). District of Columbia All data were estimated. Detailed data on gender were reported for payroll staff only (table 16). Absconders included parolees for whom warrants had been issued for technical violations and loss of contact. Other status of supervision includes five who were in monitored unsupervised status and eight who were in warrant executed status (appendix table 2). All of the sex offenders received some type of in-house treatment from community supervision officers who have received specialized training. Additionally, these offenders are assessed and, as appropriate, placed in sex offender treatment obtained through contracts with outside services (appendix table 7). Other housing assistance consisted of Faith-based Transitional Housing Program services (appendix table 8). Florida The parole board conducts adult parole revocation hearings only for prisoners who receive a discretionary release from prison. Courts make revocation decisions for prisoners who receive mandatory release (appendix table 5). Hawaii The supervision level was unknown or not reported for 347 persons who were not on active supervision (appendix table 3). Idaho Detailed data for gender were reported for payroll staff only (table 16). The supervision level was unknown or not reported for 578 persons supervised out of state (appendix table 3). Other housing assistance consisted of two formal contracts with housing providers (appendix table 8). Illinois All data were for December 31, 2007. Indiana Detailed data for gender were reported for payroll staff only (table 16). Iowa The number of parolees in a drug treatment program run by a formally trained professional included those in programs for operating [a vehicle] while intoxicated. The number of parolees in a self-help or drug-awareness program included those in Alcoholics Anonymous (appendix table 6). Kansas Other employment assistance was provided by an offender workforce development specialist on staff (appendix table 9). Louisiana Other housing assistance and other employment assistance both consisted of referrals to a community resource agency (appendix tables 8 and 9). Maryland The Division of Parole and Probation is located in the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (table 2). Massachusetts Data are estimated for gender of part-time employees (table 16). Supervision level was unknown or not reported for 814 persons not on active supervision (appendix table 3). Michigan A total of 1,096 full-time equivalent staff positions supervised both parolees and probationers (appendix table 2). The 3,721 revocation hearings held by the adult parole supervising agency were conducted during calendar year 2005 (appendix table 5). The numbers of parolees reported as enrolled in a sex offender treatment program and in a mental health treatment program may be overestimates because of undocumented terminations of parolee participation (appendix table 7). Minnesota Of the 4,444 adults on parole on June 30, 2006, there were 3,066 adults on active parole supervision in 16 Community Corrections Act (CCA) agencies serving 30 counties. The Minnesota State Department of Corrections provided direct parole supervision in the state's remaining counties (appendix table 2). Detailed data for supervision level does not include parolees supervised by CCA agencies (locally supervised offenders released from state prison) due to data reporting differences (appendix table 3). Other employment assistance provided by the state consisted of a reentry program operated by the Department of Corrections to prepare offenders seeking employment (appendix table 9). Missouri The count of full-time equivalent positions is based on a work-hour formula and does not include parole cases that are interstate supervision only (appendix table 2). Nevada Other agency administration is the State of Nevada Department of Public Safety (table 2). Detailed data for gender reported for payroll staff only (table 16). New Mexico Other housing assistance consisted of a halfway house and emergency financial assistance (appendix table 8). Other employment assistance consisted of job development at re-entry (appendix table 9). New Jersey The agency is administered by the New Jersey State Parole Board (table 2). Other housing assistance consisted of routine referrals by parole officers to county and municipal services. Based on need, parole officers also granted parolees up to $300 in financial assistance (appendix table 8). New York The chairman of the New York State Board of Parole is also the director of the New York State Division of Parole (table 2). Other supervision status includes 8,899 parolees in deportation status, and 193 incarcerated out of state (appendix table 2). The unknown or not reported supervision level includes parolees not actively under supervision, including those in delinquent, absconder, and non-reporting status and parolees who were either supervised out of state or who have been deported (appendix table 3). The number of prisoners considered for release excludes any parolee conditionally released or released by Presumptive Release under the authority of the Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services. (Presumptive release refers to a law enacted in 2003, allowing selected inmates to be released to parole supervision at the time of their parole eligibility without a parole board appearance.) Presumptive release is available to inmates who are serving sentences for certain non-violent crimes, and who have no history of violence (appendix table 4.) The 10,946 prisoners released were those granted release between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, not the number actually released during that period (appendix table 4). The parole board sets the conditions of supervision. Parole officers also have the discretion to impose conditions of parole (appendix table 4.) The Parole Board delegates its authority to conduct nearly all parole revocation hearings to administrative law judges who have a law degree. The number of revocation hearings between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, includes the total number of hearings conducted, completed, and adjourned (appendix table 5). Other housing assistance includes the New York State Division of Parole establishing contracts for temporary housing resources, and regional program services specialists developing programmatic working relationships with local providers (appendix table 8). Other employment assistance refers to specialists at regional program services developing local employment and vocational training opportunities for parolees (appendix table 9). North Carolina The number of adults on probation includes 2,827 Interstate Compact cases (table 2). The number of prisoners considered for release was restricted to supervised release cases. The number of prisoners released includes all prison exits that occurred between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, including supervised releases (appendix table 4). In addition to the parole supervising agency, the Post Release Supervision and Parole Commission sets the conditions of supervision (appendix table 4) and conducts parole revocation hearings (appendix table 5). North Dakota North Dakota does not use contact standards (appendix table 3). The parole supervising agency makes recommendations on the release of prisoners to the parole board (appendix table 4). There are three levels of parole revocation hearings: The parole supervising agency conducts preliminary parole revocation hearings, the Office of Administrative Hearings conducts second level hearings, and the parole board conducts the final hearing (appendix table 5). Ohio Detailed data on gender were available for payroll staff only (table 16). In addition to the parole supervising agency, the parole board and the Adult Parole Authority conduct parole revocation hearings (appendix table 5). Oklahoma All data are estimated. The Governor of Oklahoma is the final decision maker for parole revocations (appendix table 5). Other housing assistance consisted of an institutional re-entry program (appendix table 8). Oregon Other agency administration refers to county governments. Oregon=s 36 county governments independently administered all adult parole supervision in the state; a central respondent in the Oregon Department of Corrections provided summary data (table 2). The parole staff are county employees: The state respondent did not have this information (tables 15 and 16). A total of 5,428 parolees were enrolled in drug treatment, but the type of program was not specified (appendix table 6). Pennsylvania The supervision level, reporting frequency not yet determined, included unclassified cases of which 125 were under supervision by a District Office, and 1,288 were the responsibility of the Central Office, but were supervised by another state. Unknown or not reported includes 6,915 detainees or absconders (appendix table 3). The number of prisoners considered for release included 19,644 interviews held with 18,281 individual prisoners, some of whom were interviewed more than once during the year. The 10,368 prisoners released included 10,268 individual prisoners, some of whom were released more than once during the year (appendix table 4.) Of the total number of parole revocation hearings, 10,940, there were 1,798 second-level revocation or revocation violation hearings (appendix table 5). Rhode Island Offenders on inactive parole include adults paroled to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parolees with active warrants. Absconders are included among those reported as inactive because they have an active warrant, but cannot be separately identified (appendix table 2). The supervision level was unknown for 156 persons not on active supervision (appendix table 3). South Carolina Parole and probation officers have mixed caseloads of no set proportions. The number of full-time equivalent staff positions supervising adult parolees (55) was estimated by multiplying the total agent staff (497) by the percentage of the supervision population represented by parolees (11.1%) (appendix table 2). Tennessee The Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole administers parole supervision (table 2). Texas Detailed data on gender were available for payroll staff only (table 16). The Texas Department of Criminal Justice provided oversight of the adult probation system; however, adult probationers were supervised at the county level. There were 428,994 adults on probation on June 30, 2006 (table 2 and appendix table 1). During 2005 there were 2,120 parolees returned to incarceration on a technical violation, some of whom were returned because of a positive drug test (appendix table 6). Other housing assistance consisted of halfway houses (appendix table 8). Utah The supervision level was unknown or not reported for 2 persons on active supervision and 317 persons under supervision in another state (appendix table 3). Virginia Virginia's report of 8,609 adults on parole supervision on June 30, 2006, included additional groups of offenders that were not previously reported. For the parole census, Virginia included all paroled offenders for whom the state has responsibility, paroled felons who are the responsibility of local jurisdictions in Virginia, and offenders whose parole was originally supervised by the courts that sentenced them. There were 566 full-time staff and 15 part-time staff who supervised both parolees and probationers. The proportion of time spent by each staff member to supervise parolees was unknown (appendix table 2). The parole supervising agency makes recommendations on the release of prisoners to the parole board (appendix table 4). Parole examiners in the Department of Corrections conduct interviews with parolees. Final revocation decisions are made by the parole board (appendix table 5). Washington Washington has a determinant sentencing system. The Department of Corrections determines earned time credit to calculate a release date, but does not have a release board (appendix table 4). Parole supervising agency community corrections officers can impose conditions of supervision in addition to court ordered conditions (appendix table 4). The parole supervising agency conducts parole revocation hearings for offenders sentenced on or after July 1, 1984. The Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (parole board) also conducts parole revocation hearings (appendix table 5). Wisconsin The adult parole probation was estimated as an average of the January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006, parole population reported on the 2006 Annual Parole Survey; the adult probation population was similarly estimated from the 2006 Annual Probation Survey (table 2). The number of parole agency offices was estimated from information reported on the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Community Corrections website on May 2, 2006 (table 2). --------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is the director. This Special Report was written by Thomas P. Bonczar, statistician, and verified by William J. Sabol and Todd D. Minton. Nicole S. Adolph, Garry L. Smith, and Adam E. Bacon, Governments Division, U.S. Census Bureau, carried out data collection and processing for the 2006 Census of Adult Parole Supervising Agencies, under the supervision of Latrice M. Brogsdale-Davis and Charlene M. Sebold. Catherine Bird, Tina Dorsey, and Georgette Walsh produced and edited the report. Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final printing, under the supervision of Doris J. James. August 2008 NCJ 222180 --------------------------------------------------------- This report in portable document format ( and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: . ---------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs Innovation Partnerships Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov --------------------------------------------------------- Revised 3/17/09 JER