Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin
December 2010, NCJ 231674

Probation and Parole in the
United States, 2009
Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar
BJS Statisticians
Fan Zhang, BJS Intern

D

uring 2009, the number of offenders
under community supervision declined
0.9%, from 5,064,975 to 5,018,855 (figure
1; appendix table 1). This was the first decline
observed in the community supervision population,
including adults on probation or parole, since the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Annual Probation
Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980.1
Probation is a court-ordered period of correctional
supervision in the community, generally as an alternative to incarceration. In some cases, probation
can be a combined sentence of incarceration followed by a period of community supervision.
Parole is a period of conditional supervised release
in the community following a prison term. It
includes supervision following a discretionary or
mandatory release from prison and other types of
post-custody conditional supervision, such as a
term of supervised release.
1

See Methodology for a discussion of the probation and parole
statistical series before 1980.

Figure 1.
Total adults under community supervision and on probation or parole,
2000-2009
Number of adults under community supervision
and on probation or parole
5,500,000

Community supervision
5,000,000

4,500,000

Probation
4,000,000

Parole times 5
3,500,000

2000

2001 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Note: The scale along the vertical axis has been adjusted and the parole population is represented
as 5 times its size to illustrate the change in each group over time. The reporting methods for
some probation and parole agencies changed over time. See Methodology.

The data discussed in this report and additional 2009 data are available by
jurisdiction in the appendix tables, following Methodology.

Highlights
• During 2009, the number of offenders on probation or parole
—community supervision population—declined (down 0.9%)
for the first time since the BJS began its Annual Probation
Survey and Annual Parole Survey in 1980.
• The probation population decreased by 0.9% during 2009 as
probation entries declined (down 2.4%) and the number of
probation exits exceeded entries by 33,900.
• The percentage of probationers who completed the terms of
their supervision or were discharged early increased between
2008 (63%) and 2009 (65%), contributing to the decrease
observed in the probation population.
• During 2009, the total parole population decreased by 0.7%.
While the federal parole population increased by 5,232 during

2009, this increase was offset by a decline of 10,758 in the state
parole population.
• Parole entries decreased (down 1.2%) during 2009 and the
number of parole exits exceeded entries by 5,200, leading to a
decline in the total parole population.
• The percentage of parolees who completed the terms of their
supervision or were discharged early rose between 2008 (49%)
and 2009 (51%), contributing to the decrease observed in the
total parole population.
• The rate of return to incarceration—based on all parolees who
were at risk of violating the conditions of their supervision—
declined between 2006 (15%) and 2009 (14%).

For a list of publications in this series, go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=42.

The decrease in the community supervision population resulted from decreases in both the probation
(down 0.9%) and parole (down 0.7%) populations
during the year. At yearend 2009 about 1 in every 47
adults in the United States were under community
supervision, a decrease from about 1 in every 45
adults observed since 2004.
Most (87%) of the decrease (down 46,120) in the
community supervision population during 2009
was attributed to the decline in the probation population. The parole population represented a smaller
share (12%) of the decrease in the community
supervision population.2

Decline in probation population observed
during 2009 as exits from probation exceeded
entries
The probation population decreased by 40,079 probationers during 2009, from 4,244,046 to 4,203,967
(table 1; appendix table 2). Twenty-nine states
reported decreases in their probation population in
2009, with a combined total decrease of 79,801.
Washington (down 13,899), California (down
13,023), and Florida (down 11,319) reported
decreases of 10,000 or more probationers during the
year. These three states accounted for almost half of
the total decrease in the probation population. The
decline in the probation population during the year
in those 29 states was partially offset by a combined
total increase of 39,722 probationers in 21 states,
the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
2A small number (less than 1%) of the community supervision

population was known to be on both probation and parole, and
the total community supervision population was adjusted to
account for offenders with a dual supervision status. For this reason the amount of the decrease represented by probationers
(87%) and parolees (12%) does not sum to 100%

Large decreases in some states were consistent with
recent legislation passed, as in Washington, and
court-ordered mandates, as in California, to address
current budgetary constraints by reducing community supervision populations. Washington and California were required to reduce their community
supervision populations, including both the probation and parole populations, by concentrating
resources primarily on high-risk, violent offenders
and reducing the number of nonviolent, low-risk
offenders supervised.
The number of entries to probation declined for the
second consecutive year. Between 2007 and 2008,
entries declined by 23,000 (down 1.0%). The
decline in entries was larger between 2008 and 2009
(down 55,700 or 2.4%). The decline in entries during 2009 contributed to the decrease in the probation population, as the number of exits from probation (2,347,500) exceeded the number of entries
(2,313,600) for the first time since the Annual Probation Survey began in 1980 (table 2).3

Rate at which probationers completed
supervision rose during 2009, consistent with
a trend observed since 2006
The exit rate of the at-risk probation population is
defined as the ratio of the number of probationers
who exited supervision during the year to the number of probationers who could have exited supervision at any point during the year (i.e., at-risk probation population).4 The probation exit rate is a
3See Methodology for a discussion on entries and exits to probation and parole and changes in the number of offenders in these
populations.
4

The at-risk probation population is defined as the number of
offenders on probation at some point during the year referenced,
which is equivalent to the number under supervision at the start
of the year (on January 1) plus the number that entered supervision during the year. See table 2 for the calculation of the exit rate
for the at-risk probation population.

TABLE 1.
Change in the number of probationers in selected jurisdictions, 2009
Total change
Total change in jurisdictions with increases*
Total change in jurisdictions with decrease
Jurisdictions with decreases of 10,000 or more
Washington
California
Florida
Other jurisdictions with decreases

Change in number
-40,079
39,722
-79,801
-38,241
-13,899
-13,023
-11,319
-41,560

Percent of total change
100 %
100 %
100 %
47.9
17.4
16.3
14.2
52.1

Number of jurisdictions
52
23
29
3
1
1
1
26

Note: See appendix table 2 for the change in the number of probationers in all 52 jurisdictions.
*Includes the District of Columbia and the federal system.

2 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

measure of how quickly the population turns over.
A small increase in the exit rate of the at-risk probation population was observed between 2006 (34 per
100 probationers at risk of exiting) and 2009 (36 per
100).
The small increase in the exit rate was not related to
an increase in the percentage of probationers who

were incarcerated because the percentage of probationers incarcerated declined between 2006 (18%)
and 2009 (16%) (table 3). The increase in the exit
rate between 2006 and 2009 was associated with an
increase in the percentage of probationers who
completed the terms of their supervision, through
either completion of their full-term sentence or an
early discharge (58% in 2006; 65% in 2009).

TABLE 2.
Estimated at-risk probation population, number of entries and exits, and exit rate per 100 probationers at
risk of exiting, 2000-2009

Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average annual percent change,
2000-08
Percent change, 2008-09

At-risk
probation
populationa
5,961,600
5,965,200
6,089,200
6,282,200
6,365,800
6,400,300
6,467,500
6,607,700
6,603,800
6,557,600

Probation entries
2,181,700
2,139,000
2,157,500
2,258,100
2,245,800
2,256,500
2,300,700
2,392,300
2,369,300
2,313,600

:
:

Probation exits
2,123,700
2,025,600
2,092,900
2,208,200
2,224,100
2,238,300
2,230,200
2,315,800
2,340,800
2,347,500

1.0 %
-2.4

Exit rate per 100
probationers at
risk of exitingb
36
34
34
35
35
35
34
35
35
36

1.2 %
0.3

:
:

Note: See Methodology in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8 December 2009 for a discussion about changes
in estimating probation entries and exits from 2000-2008.
: Not calculated.
aNumber of offenders on probation at some point during the year, which is equivalent to the number under supervision at the start
of the year (on January 1) plus the number that entered supervision during the year.
bCalculated by dividing the number of estimated probation exits by the at-risk probation population and multiplying by 100.

TABLE 3.
Percent and estimated number of probationers who exited supervision, by type of exit, 2006-2009
Type of exit
Total
Completion
Incarcerationa
Absconder
Discharged to custody, detainer, or warrant
Other unsatisfactoryb
Transferred to another probation agency
Death
Otherc
Estimated number

2006
100 %
58 %
18
4
1
13
1
1
5
2,230,200

2007
100 %
62 %
16
3
1
11
1
1
5
2,315,800

2008
100 %
63 %
17
4
1
10
1
1
4
2,340,800

2009
100 %
65 %
16
3
1
10
-1
4
2,347,500

Note: Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. Distributions are based on probationers for which type of exit was known.
For 2009 data by jurisdiction, see appendix table 4. See Methodology in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web,
8 December 2009 for a discussion about changes in estimating probation exits from 2000-2008.
-- Less than 0.5%.
aIncludes probationers who were incarcerated for a new offense, those who had their current probation sentence revoked (e.g. violat-

ing a condition of their sentence), and those incarcerated from unspecified reasons.
bIncludes probationers discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, including some with only

financial conditions remaining, some who had their probation sentence revoked but were not incarcerated because their sentence
was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits; includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.
c

Includes probationers discharged through a legislative mandate, because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement, had their sentence dismissed or overturned by the court through an appeal, had their sentence closed administratively, deferred, or terminated by
the court, were awaiting a hearing, were released on bond, some who elected jail time in lieu of probation, and other types of exits.

3 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

To measure the rate at which all offenders on probation during the year could be incarcerated, the rate
of incarceration of the at-risk population is defined
as the ratio of the number of probationers who were
discharged during the year as the result of incarceration to the number of probationers who could have
been incarcerated at any point during the year (i.e.,
at risk of incarceration). 5 Since 2006, the rate of
incarceration, including incarceration for a new
offense, a revocation, or other reasons, of the at-risk
probation population remained relatively stable
(6.1% in 2006; 5.8% in 2009) (figure 2).

Felony probation population increased
between 2008 and 2009, reversing a declining
trend observed over the first 8 years of the
decade
Between 2008 and 2009 the number and percentage
of probationers supervised for a felony increased. In
2008 an estimated 2,111,800 (49%) of probationers
were supervised for a felony (appendix table 5). As
the probation population declined during 2009, the
estimated number (2,138,700) of felons on probation increased and accounted for a larger portion
(51%) of the probation population at yearend 2009.
The increase in the felony probation population
observed between 2008 and 2009 reversed a declining trend observed between 2000 (52%) and 2008
(49%).
Consistent with the increase in the felony probation
population between 2008 and 2009 was a small
decrease in the percentage of probationers supervised for a misdemeanor (48% in 2008; 47% in
2009), reversing an increasing trend observed since
2000 (46%).
5See Methodology for a discussion of the at-risk measure of incar-

ceration that is reported in figure 2 and the differences between
this measure and the outcome measures, including the completion and incarcerated measures, based on the cohort exiting probation during each year, that are reported in table 3.

Another change in the composition of the probation population between 2008 (29%) and 2009
(26%) was a decrease in the percentage of drug
offenders supervised on probation. Small increases
were observed among property offenders between
2008 (25%) and 2009 (26%) and public-order
offenders (17% in 2008; 18% in 2009). The percentage of violent offenders on probation remained
unchanged between 2008 and 2009 (19% for both
years).

Decline in parole population observed in
2009 resulted from a decrease in state parole
The total parole population decreased (down 5,526)
from 824,834 to 819,308 during 2009. The state
parole population decreased (down 10,758) during
2009 and accounted for all of the decrease in the
U.S. parole population (table 4). This was the second year in a row that the state parole population
declined. The decrease in the state parole population was partially offset by an increase (up 5,232) in
the federal parole population. This was the second
consecutive year that the federal system reported
the largest increase in the nation.
Figure 2.
Estimated percent of the at-risk probation
population incarcerated, 2000-2009
Percent incarcerated
10.0%
8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note: See Methodology for a discussion about the at-risk measure of
incarceration, including the method of estimation.

4 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

In 2009, 19 states reported decreases in their parole
population, accounting for a total decrease of
29,488 parolees. California (down 19,923) and
Washington (down 5,205) reported the largest
decreases in the nation. These two states accounted
for more than two-thirds of the total decrease in
parolees, with California alone accounting for half
of the total decrease. The decreases in the parole
populations in California and Washington were
consistent with the declines in the probation populations observed in these two states during the year
and the recent court-ordered mandates and legislative changes discussed in the section Decline in probation population observed during 2009 as exits from
probation exceeded entries on page 2.
More jurisdictions (33), including the federal system, reported increases in their parole population
than decreases (19) during 2009. However, the combined total decrease (down 29,488) in the 19 jurisdictions that reported declines exceeded the combi ne d tot a l i nc re a s e ( up 1 8 , 7 3 0 ) i n t he 3 3
jurisdictions that reported increases, and the parole
population decreased for the first time.

Exits from parole exceeded entries during
2009, resulting in a decline in the parole
population
The number of entries to parole declined by 7,100
during 2009, and the number of parole exits
(579,100) exceeded entries (573,900), resulting in
the decrease in the parole population during the last
year (table 5). The decline in parole entries during
2009 was consistent with the decrease observed in
the number of prisoners released from state or federal jurisdiction during the year, including a
decrease in the number of prisoners conditionally
released to community supervision. The decrease in
the number of prisoners released during 2009 was
the first decline observed in prison releases since
2000. (See Prisoners in 2009, BJS Web, December
2010.)

Parole completion rate rose during 2009,
continuing a trend observed since 2006
The exit rate of the at-risk parole population is
defined as the ratio of the number of parolees who
exited supervision during the year to the number of
parolees who could have exited supervision at any
point during the year (i.e., at-risk parole population).6 Between 2008 and 2009 the exit rate of the
6

The at-risk parole population is defined as the number of
offenders on parole at some point during the year referenced,
which is equivalent to the number under supervision at the start
of the year (on January 1) plus the number that entered supervision during the year. See table 5 for the calculation of the exit rate
for the at-risk parole population.

TABLE 4.
Change in the number of parolees in selected jurisdictions, 2009

Total change
Federal
State*
Total change in jurisdictions with increases*
Jurisdictions with increases of 2,000 or more
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Texas
Other jurisdictions with increases
Total change in jurisdictions with decreases
Jurisdictions with decreases of 5,000 or more
California
Washington
Other jurisdictions with decreases

Change in Percent of
Number of
number
total change jurisdictions
-5,526
100 %
52
5,232
-94.7
1
-10,758
194.7
51
18,730
100 %
32
6,687
35.7
3
2,504
13.4
1
2,161
11.5
1
2,022
10.8
1
12,043
64.3
29
-29,488
100 %
19
-19,923
67.6
2
-14,718
49.9
1
-5,205
17.7
1
-9,565
32.4
17

Note: See appendix table 12 for the change in the number of parolees in all 52 jurisdictions.
*Includes the District of Columbia.

TABLE 5.
Estimated at-risk parole population, number of entries and exits, and exit rate
per 100 parolees at risk of exiting, 2000-2009
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Average annual percent
change, 2000-08
Percent change, 2008-09

At-risk
parole
populationa
1,199,300
1,212,000
1,215,200
1,258,000
1,291,500
1,302,300
1,329,700
1,368,900
1,402,200
1,398,700
:
:

Parole entries
484,800
488,100
482,900
507,100
521,600
530,400
549,100
569,000
581,000
573,900

Parole exits
473,900
479,200
462,500
486,100
515,700
517,900
532,200
543,600
574,000
579,100

2.3 %
-1.2

2.4 %
0.9

Exit rate per
100 parolees at
risk of exitingb
40
40
38
39
40
40
40
40
41
41
:
:

Note: See Methodology in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8 December
2009 for a discussion about changes in estimating parole exits from 2000-2008.
: Not calculated.
aNumber of offenders on parole at some point during the year, which is equivalent to the number
under supervision at the start of the year (on January 1) plus the number that entered supervision
during the year.
bCalculated by dividing the number of estimated parole exits by the at-risk parole population and

multiplying by 100.

5 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

at-risk parole popuation remained stable (41 per
100 for both years).
While the parole exit rate remained stable during
2009, the percentage of parolees who completed
supervision through either completion of their fullterm sentence or an early discharge increased from
49% in 2008 to 51% in 2009 (table 6). The increase
in the parole completion rate during 2009 continued a trend observed since 2006 (45%).
Since 2006 the rate of return to incarceration among
all parolees who were at risk of violating the conditions of their supervision and being incarcerated
declined from 15.4% in 2006 to 14.0% in 2009 (figure 3). The overall decline in the rate of return to
incarceration among the at-risk parole population
was attributed to small decreases in each of the
types of return to incarceration between 2006 and
2009. The rate at which parolees were incarcerated
as the result of a revocation (10.4% in 2006; 9.9% in
2009) and for a new sentence (4.4% in 2006; 3.6% in
2009) decreased by less than 1.0% (not shown).7
As the parole population declined during 2009,
most of the characteristics of the parole population
remained stable (appendix table 15). One change
observed in the population during the last
7Details do not sum to the total rate of return to incarceration

Figure 3.
Estimated percent of the at-risk parole population
returned to incarceration, 2000-2009
Percent returned to incarceration
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note: See Methodology for a discussion about the at-risk measure of
returned incarceration, including the method of estimation.

year was a small increase in the percentage of parolees supervised for a violent offense in 2009 (27%)
compared to 2008 (26%). Drug offenders represented a slightly smaller percentage of the parole
population in 2009 (36%) compared to 2008 (37%),
while other offense types remained relatively
unchanged.

because parolees were also returned to incarceration for other
reasons in both years (about 0.7% in 2006; 0.5% in 2009). See
Methodology for a discussion of the at-risk measure of incarceration that is reported in figure 3 and the differences between this
measure and the outcome measures, including the completion
and incarcerated measures, based on the cohort exiting parole
during each year, that are reported in table 6.

TABLE 6.
Percent and estimated number of parolees who exited supervision, by type of exit, 2006-2009
Type of exit
Total
Completion
Incarcerated
With new sentence
With revocation
Other/unknown
Absconder
Other unsatisfactorya
Transferred to another state
Death
Otherb
Estimated number

2006
100 %
45 %
38
11
26
2
11
2
1
1
3
532,200

2007
100 %
46 %
38
10
27
1
11
2
1
1
2
543,600

2008
100 %
49 %
36
9
25
1
11
2
1
1
1
574,000

2009
100 %
51 %
34
9
24
1
9
2
1
1
3
579,100

Note: Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. Distributions are based on parolees for which type of exit was known. For 2009
data by jurisdiction, see appendix table 14. See Methodology in Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8 December
2009 for a discussion about changes in estimating parole exits from 2000-2008.
a

Includes parolees discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, had their parole sentence rescinded,
or had their parole sentence revoked but were not returned to incarceration because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and
other types of unsatisfactory exits; includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.

b

Includes parolees who were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had their
sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, were transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement or discharged to probation supervision, and other types of exits.

6 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Methodology
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’s (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in
1980. The National Criminal Justice Information
and Statistics Service of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, BJS’s predecessor agency,
began a statistical series on parole in 1976 and probation in 1979.
The two surveys collect data on the total number of
adults supervised in the community on January 1
and December 31 each year and data on the number
of adults who enter and exit supervision during
each year. Both surveys cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. BJS
depends entirely on the voluntary participation of
state central reporters and separate state, county,
and court agencies for its annual data on probation
and parole.
In 2009 the U.S. Census Bureau served as BJS’s collection agent for the 50 states and the District of
Columbia. Data for the federal system were provided directly to BJS through the BJS Federal Justice
Statistics Program, which obtained data directly
from the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services,
Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
Probation
The 2009 Annual Probation Survey was sent to 466
respondents: 33 central state reporters; 431 separate
state, county, or court agencies; the District of
Columbia; and the federal system. States with multiple reporters were Alabama (3), Arizona (2), Colorado (8), Florida (41), Georgia (2), Idaho (2), Kentucky (3), Michigan (134), Missouri (2), Montana
(4), New Mexico (2), Ohio (187), Oklahoma (3),
Pennsylvania (2), Tennessee (3), Washington (31),
and West Virginia (2). One local probation agency
in Washington closed during 2009.
Parole
The 2009 Annual Parole Survey was sent to 55
respondents: 50 central state reporters, the California Youth Authority; one municipal agency in Alabama; the state agency in Pennsylvania, which also
provided county data; and the federal system. States
with multiple reporters were Alabama (2), California (2), and Pennsylvania (2).

Additional information about the data collection
instruments is available on the BJS Website at
.
Updating probation and parole population counts
each year
Some states update their probation and parole population counts for different reasons after submitting
their data to BJS. Updated population counts usually include data that were not entered into the
information system before the survey was submitted or data that were not fully processed by yearend.
For these reasons, the population counts on December 31 for years ending 2000 to 2008 are based on
the January 1 counts for the next reporting year.
Population counts for yearend 2009 are based on
December 31, 2009, data.
Changes in reporting methods among probation
agencies within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to
2009
Ten reporting agencies in separate jurisdictions
changed their methods of reporting probation data
between 2000 and 2009. These changes included
administrative changes, such as consolidating databases or implementing new information systems,
resulting in data review and cleanup; reconciling
probationer records; reclassifying offenders, including those on probation to parole and offenders on
dual community supervision statuses; and including certain probation populations that were not previously reported.
Combined, changes in population and changes due
to new reporting methods for these 10 jurisdictions
accounted for about 220,100 additional probationers between 2000 and 2009, representing approximately 58% of the total change (377,800) in the
nation’s probation population during this period.
Based on the information provided, BJS could not
break out precisely the amount of change in the
probation population attributable to a change in the
population itself versus a change in reporting methods.
See Explanatory notes for a discussion about the
reporting changes since 2000 in the following ten
jurisdictions: Alabama, Colorado, District of
Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Federal parole (as defined here) includes a term of
supervised release from prison, mandatory release,
parole, military parole, and special parole. Definitional differences exist between parole reported
here and in other BJS data series.

7 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Changes in reporting methods among parole agencies
within certain jurisdictions from 2000 to 2009
Reporting agencies in seven jurisdictions changed
their methods of reporting parole data between
2000 and 2009. The reasons for changing their
methods of reporting parole data were the same as
for probation data—administrative changes, reclassification of offenders, and the addition of certain
parole populations not previously reported, which
can result from new, enhanced information systems
that improve the tracking of all types of parolees.
Combined, changes in population and changes due
to new reporting methods in these seven states
accounted for about 4,900 additional parolees
between 2000 and 2009, representing approximately
5% of the total increase (95,410) in the nation’s
parole population during this period.
See Explanatory notes for a discussion about the
reporting changes since 2000 in the following seven
jurisdictions: Alabama, Alaska, Montana, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.
Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies
in 2009
BJS used one of four methods to impute probation
entries for nonreporting agencies, based on the
availability of data, and a single method to impute
exits.
The first method was used to estimate entries and
exits for probation agencies that were unable to
report these data in 2009 but were able to report
these data in 2008. BJS estimated probation entries
in 2009 by using the ratio of entries in 2008 to the
agency’s probation population on January 1, 2008
and applying that ratio to the agency’s January 1,
2009 population. BJS estimated exits from probation by adding the agency’s estimated probation
entries in 2009 to the agency’s probation population
on January 1, 2009, and subtracting that estimate
from the probation population on December 31,
2009. These methods were used to estimate probation entries and exits in nonreporting county and
district agencies in Florida, Michigan, Missouri,
Ohio, and Washington.
A second method was used to estimate probation
entries for agencies that were unable to report
entries and exits in both 2008 and 2009. The ratio of
2009 entries to the January 1, 2009 population
among reporting agencies in the same state was
used to estimate the number of entries for nonreporting agencies with similar numbers of probationers. To estimate probation exits for these agencies, BJS used the same estimation method as
described in the previous paragraph. These methods were used to estimate probation entries and
8 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

exits for nonreporting county and district agencies
in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington.
A third method was used to estimate probation
entries for one state agency in West Virginia, which
only reported interstate compact data. BJS estimated the number of entries for this agency by
using the ratio of 2009 entries to the January 1, 2009
probation population among reporting agencies
within the same region (South). To estimate probation exits for this agency, BJS used the same estimation method as described above.
Fourth, to estimate entries to and exits from probation and parole supervision in Pennsylvania counties, BJS used additional data from Pennsylvania’s
County Adult Probation and Parole, Annual Statical
Report, 2009, including the number of combined
county probation and parole entries and exits by
county. Using this additional information, the 2009
probation and parole entries and exits in Pennsylvania counties were estimated in two steps and the
methodology was provided to the Pennsylvania
respondent for review.
Sixty of the sixty-five counties in Pennsylvania were
able to provide combined probation and parole
entries and exits to the Pennsylvania county respondent during 2009. In the first estimation step, data
for the five nonreporting counties were estimated;
the method that was used depended on the availability of data.
To estimate the 2009 data for two of the nonreporting counties, the first method discussed in this section was applied to either the 2007 or 2008 data provided by those counties, depending on the
availability of data. For the fourth nonreporting
county, which also could not provide 2008 data,
exits were estimated based on the ratio of 2007 exits
to this county’s December 31, 2007 community
supervision population and was applied to the
county’s December 31, 2009 population to estimate
exits during 2009. Using the ratio of 2007 entries to
the county’s January 1, 2007 population and applying it to the county’s January 1, 2009 population
would have yielded a negative number of entries
given the increase (52% or 50 additional offenders)
in this county’s community supervision population
during 2009. To estimate entries in this county, the
county’s total community supervision population
on December 31, 2009 was added to the estimated
number of exits, then the county’s total community
supervision population on January 1, 2009 was subtracted from that sum. For the last nonreporting
county, entries and exits were estimated based on
data provided by other counties in Pennsylvania
that had a similar number of probationers and
parolees and also had a similar increase in their
December 2010

combined probation and parole population during
2009. The estimates of probation and parole entries
and exits for these counties were added to the combined probation and parole entries and exits for the
other 60 counties, yielding a total number of probation and parole entries and exits for all 65 counties.
In the second estimation step, the total number of
probation and parole entries and exits for all 65
counties were estimated separately. The Pennsylvania respondent was able to provide separate January
1, 2009 and December 31, 2009 counts of county
probationers and county parolees. The percentage
of the total combined probation and parole population on January 1, 2009 attributable to probation
only was applied to the total number of combined
probation and parole entries in the 65 counties during 2009 to estimate the number of entries to probation. The residual was used to estimate the number
of entries to parole during 2009. Probation exits
were estimated by adding the estimated 2009
county probation entries to the January 1, 2009
county probation population and subtracting the
December 31, 2009 county probation population.
County parole exits were estimated using the same
method.
Changes in estimating Pennsylvania county and
national entries and exits from 2000 to 2007
See Methodology in Probation and Parole in the
United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8 December 2009, for
a discussion of the changes in estimating probation
and parole entries and exits from 2000 through
2007 that were implemented in 2008. The estimation method changed in 2008 because the Pennsylvania county respondent was able to provide BJS
with additional information to impute probation
and parole entries and exits for Pennsylvania counties. Consequently, in 2008, the national estimates
of probation and parole entries and exits from 2000
to 2007 were re-estimated to account for the change
in the Pennsylvania estimation method and to
ensure that the 2000 through 2007 national estimates were comparable with the 2008 estimates.
The 2009 national and Pennsylvania county estimates of probation and parole entries and exits are
comparable to the estimates published in Probation
and Parole in the United States, 2008, BJS Web, 8
December 2009.
Community supervision outcome measures
Outcome measures based on exiting cohort. Historically, BJS has reported the percentage of offenders who completed supervision and the percentage
of offenders who were incarcerated, among all
offenders who exited supervision during the year, as
the community supervision outcome measures.
9 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Because these outcome measures are based on the
number of offenders exiting supervision (i.e., the
exiting cohort) within the reference year, they are
based on a cohort that comprises different types of
offenders, including those who completed the terms
of their supervision or received an early discharge;
were incarcerated again either for a new offense, a
revocation, or other reasons; died; or were discharged for other reasons.
The percentage of offenders who completed supervision is defined as the number of offenders that
completed supervision during the year and were
discharged, among all offenders who were discharged from supervision during the year. The formula used to calculate this outcome measure is C(t)/
D(t), where D(t) = C(t) + I(t) + O(t). Within this formula, t equals the year referenced, C(t) equals the
number of offenders who were discharged from
supervision during the year after completing their
terms or who received an early discharge, and D(t)
equals the total number of offenders discharged
from supervision during the year. D(t) includes C(t),
the number of offenders who completed supervision; I(t), the number who were incarcerated during
the year; and O(t), the number who were discharged
during the year for other reasons.
The percentage of offenders incarcerated is defined
as the number of offenders who were discharged
from supervision during the year as the result of
being incarcerated, among all offenders who were
discharged during the year. The formula used to
calculate this outcome measure is I(t)/D(t), where
D(t) = C(t) + I(t) + O(t). Within this formula, t equals
the reference year; I(t) equals the number of offenders that were discharged during the year as the
result of an incarceration for a new offense, a revocation, or other reasons; and D(t) equals the total
number of offenders that were discharged from
supervision during the year defined as in the paragraph above.
Outcome measure based on at-risk population.
The rate of incarceration (for parolees this is also
referred to as the “rate of return to incarceration”)
based on the at-risk offender population is defined
as the ratio of the number of offenders that were
discharged from supervision during the year
because they were incarcerated for a new offense, a
revocation, or other reasons, to the number of all
offenders at risk of being incarcerated during the
year. The at-risk population is defined as the number of offenders under supervision at the start of the
year (on January 1) plus all offenders who entered
supervision during the year. All of these offenders
could be incarcerated at any time during the year;
hence, they were at risk of incarceration.The for-

December 2010

mula used to calculate this outcome measure is I(t)/
(P(t-1) + E(t)), where t equals the year referenced, P(t1) equals the start of the year population, and E(t)
equals the number of offenders that entered supervision during the year.

the start of the year plus the number that entered
supervision during the year. See the section Community supervision outcome measures, Outcome
measure based on at-risk population above for more
details.

There are distinct differences between the rate of
incarceration measure based on the at-risk population and the discharge-based outcome measures.
First, because both the discharge-based completion
and incarcerated outcome measures are based on
the exiting cohort, the two measures include a population (i.e., denominator) that has different risk
periods. For example, the exiting cohort includes
offenders who exited after completing their supervision, which can only be achieved after a certain
period of time (i.e., after an offender serves a specified amount of time under supervision and/or fulfills specific conditions of their supervision), as well
as offenders who were incarcerated during the year,
which can occur at any point while an offender is
under supervision. The at-risk measure of incarceration accounts for all offenders under supervision
during the year (i.e., offenders who were under
supervision on January 1 plus those who entered
during the year), who are the offenders “at risk” of
being incarcerated; this measure is not limited to
only offenders who were discharged during the
year. Second, specifically in comparison to the discharge-based completion rate, the at-risk measure
of incarceration allows that each offender can be
incarcerated at any time during the year.

To generate estimates for the numerator of this
ratio, post-stratification weighting methods were
used to weight reporting jurisdictions’ data on type
of exit (i.e., incarceration). The first weight was
defined as the ratio of each jurisdiction’s proportionate contribution to the national total of known
reported exits, which included all types of exits
except those reported as unknown type, to the jurisdiction’s contribution to the national total of all
reported exits, which included all types of exits
including those reported as unknown type. This
weighted total was then weighted up to the BJS total
of imputed exits; total exits were estimated for jurisdictions, or any reporting agency within a jurisdiction, that were not able to report total exits. See the
section Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting
agencies in 2009 for more details. The second weight
was defined as the ratio of each jurisdiction’s
weighted total of known reported exits to the jurisdiction’s total imputed exits, which was equal to the
number of total reported exits within the jurisdiction if total exits were not missing.

A nonincarceration measure, which can also be
interpreted as a nonfailure measure, based on the
at-risk population can be calculated using the formula 1 – [I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t))], where I(t)/(P(t-1) + E(t)).
This is the rate of incarceration among the at-risk
population subtracted from 1. The nonincarceration rate includes offenders who were still under
supervision at the end of the year (i.e., did not fail as
the result of an incarceration) and offenders who
were discharged during the year for reasons other
than incarceration, including offenders who completed the terms of their supervision or received an
early discharge.
Estimating the national total of offenders under
community supervision incarcerated annually to
calculate the national rate of incarceration among the
at-risk population
BJS defines the rate of incarceration for probationers and parolees as the ratio of the number of
offenders who were discharged from supervision
during the year because they were incarcerated to
the number of offenders at-risk of incarceration.
The number at-risk of incarceration is the sum of
the number of offenders on probation or parole at
10 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

The denominator of the rate of incarceration ratio
included estimates generated by BJS for jurisdictions, or any reporting agency within a jurisdiction,
that were not able to report total entries during the
year. The method used to generate the estimates is
described in this methodology in the section Imputing entries and exits for nonreporting agencies in
2009.
Estimating national change in entries and exits and
the nation’s probation and parole populations
Technically, the change in the probation and parole
populations from the beginning of the year to the
end of the year should equal the difference between
entries and exits during the year. However, those
numbers may not be equal. Some probation and
parole information systems track the number of
cases that enter and exit community supervision,
not the number of offenders. This means that
entries and exits may include case counts as
opposed to counts of offenders, while the beginning
and yearend population counts represent individuals. Additionally, all the data on entries and exits
may not have been logged into the information systems or the information systems may not have fully
processed all of the data before the data were submitted to BJS.

December 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, 11 December 2008. Nevada could
not provide prison data for 2007, so BJS estimated
prison data for Nevada. See Prisoners in 2007, BJS
Web, 11 December 2008. Virginia could not provide
parole data for January 1, 2008, although Virginia
did provide parole data for December 31, 2008. BJS
estimated Virginia’s January 1, 2008 parole population. See Probation and Parole in the United States,
2008, BJS Web, 8 December 2009.
Estimating the adult resident population
The U.S. Census Bureau provided BJS with preliminary estimates of the adult resident population in
each state on January 1, 2010.

Other available information
Detailed information for 2009 is available in appendix tables 1 to 22. The 2009 appendix tables are in
alphabetical order; region totals appear at the bottom of the appendix tables. Specific jurisdictions
per region are listed below:
Northeast—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Midwest—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin.
South—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
West Virginia.
West—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Explanatory notes for probation and parole are also
available and appear after the appendix tables.

11 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 20. Adults on parole, by most
serious offense, 2009

Community supervision

Appendix Table 21. Adults on parole, by type
of release from prison, 2009

Appendix Table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2009
Probation

Appendix Table 22. Adults on parole, 2009: number tracked by a Global Positioning System (GPS),
number on probation, or number incarcerated,

Appendix Table 2. Adults on probation, 2009
Appendix Table 3. Adults entering probation,
by type of sentence, 2009
Appendix Table 4. Adults exiting probation,
by type of exit, 2009
Appendix Table 5. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000, 2008–2009
Appendix Table 6. Adults on probation, by sex,
2009
Appendix Table 7. Adults on probation, by race and
Hispanic or Latino origin, 2009
Appendix Table 8. Adults on probation, by status
of supervision, 2009
Appendix Table 9. Adults on probation, by type
of offense, 2009
Appendix Table 10. Adults on probation, by most
serious offense, 2009
Appendix Table 11. Adults on probation, 2009:
number tracked by a Global Positioning System
(GPS), number on parole, or number incarcerated,
Parole
Appendix Table 12. Adults on parole, 2009
Appendix Table 13. Adults entering parole, by type
of sentence, 2009
Appendix Table 14. Adults exiting parole, by type
of exit, 2009
Appendix Table 15. Characteristics of adults
on parole, 2000, 2008–2009
Appendix Table 16. Adults on parole, by sex, 2009
Appendix Table 17. Adults on parole, by race and
Hispanic or Latino origin, 2009

Probation: Explanatory notes
Federal—data for the federal system were provided
to BJS through the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP), which obtained data directly from the
Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, administrative Office of the United States Courts.
Alabama—has three reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 90% of Alabama’s total probation population, and two local agencies. Alabama’s
total probation population on December 31, 2009
includes an additional 2,483 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Reporting changes since 2000—Alabama’s state
agency changed its method of reporting probation
data beginning with its January 1, 2006 population
by including certain probationers in the population
whose status had been classified as other than a probationer in prior years. The reporting change
resulted in a difference of about 9,600 additional
probationers in Alabama’s total population reported
between December 31, 2005 (38,995) and January 1,
2006 (48,607). The total change in Alabama’s probation population was an increase of about 9,800 probationers between 2000 and 2009.
Alaska—total probation population on December
31, 2009 excludes an unknown number of probationers supervised by another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8).
Arizona—has two reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 97% of Arizona’s total probation population, and one local agency. Arizona’s
total probation population on December 31, 2009
includes an additional estimated 1,316 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).

Appendix Table 18. Adults on parole, by status
of supervision, 2009
Appendix Table 19. Adults on parole, by maximum
sentence to incarceration, 2009

12 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Colorado—has eight reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 87% of Colorado’s total probation population, and seven local agencies. Due to
changes in reporting, probation data reported by
Colorado’s state agency in 2009 may not be comparable to data reported by this agency in previous
years (appendix table 2). See Reporting changes since
2000 below.
Colorado’s total probation population on December
31, 2009 excludes 35 probationers supervised by
another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). The population
includes an additional estimated 1,066 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Reporting changes since 2000—Colorado’s state
agency changed its method of reporting probation
data beginning with its January 1, 2009 population.
This reporting change resulted from the reconciliation of probation records, including converting case
records to individual records for some newly admitted probationers, and eliminating records for some
probationers who had their supervision terminated
through a drug court. The reporting change
resulted in a reduction of about 14,789 probationers
in Colorado’s total population reported between
December 31, 2008 (88,912) and January 1, 2009
(74,123). The total change in Colorado’s probation
population was about 27,700 additional probationers between 2000 and 2009.
Connecticut—total probation population on
December 31, 2009 includes an estimated additional 1,023 probationers supervised for another
state through an interstate compact agreement
(appendix table 2).
Delaware—total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 755 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
District of Columbia—some of the increase (up
16.2% or 1,249 probationers) in the District of
Columbia’s probation population during 2009 was
associated with a slowing rate of discharge. For
example, more probationers had their term
extended due to non-compliant behavior, such as
not fulfilling all sentence conditions. This resulted
in fewer probationers discharged compared to the
number that entered supervision during the year,
which contributed to the increase during 2009
(appendix table 2).
Reporting changes since 2000—District of Columbia
changed its method of reporting probationers

13 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

beginning with its January 1, 2008 population,
because probationers who were on active supervision and awaiting approval for a transfer through an
interstate compact agreement were excluded from
the prior years’ data. The reporting change resulted
in a difference of nearly 1,600 additional probationers between the December 31, 2007 (6,485) and January 1, 2008 (8,073) populations reported by the
District of Columbia. The total change in the District of Columbia’s probation population between
2000 and 2009 was a decline of about 1,700 probationers.
Florida—has 41 reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 66% of Florida’s total probation population, and 40 local agencies. Florida’s
total probation population on December 31, 2009
includes an additional 378 probationers supervised
for another state through an interstate compact
agreement (appendix table 2).
Georgia—has two state reporting agencies. One
agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction
of the state, representing 39% of Georgia’s total probation population. The second agency reported
probationers under the jurisdiction of the counties,
including county probationers who were under
supervision for a misdemeanor and supervised by
private probation agencies. The county probation
population represented 61% of Georgia’s total probation population.
Because the agency that reports the county data has
the capacity to report probation cases and not the
number of individuals under supervision, the
counts may overstate the number of individuals
under probation supervision in Georgia. Probationers with multiple sentences could potentially have
one or more cases with one or more private probation agencies in one jurisdiction and/or one or
more private probation agencies within another
jurisdiction.
Additionally, as part of continued effort to enhance
reporting methods, this Georgia agency changed its
method of reporting probation data in 2009. See
Reporting changes since 2000 below. For this reason,
data are not comparable to the data reported by
Georgia in prior years (appendix table 2).
Georgia’s total probation population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number
of probationers super vised for another state
through an interstate compact agreement (appendix
table 2).
Reporting changes since 2000—Georgia’s state
agency that provides misdemeanant data for proba-

December 2010

tioners supervised by private agencies changed its
reporting methods beginning with its January 1,
2007 population, when it expanded coverage. The
reporting change resulted in a difference of about
9,600 additional probationers in Georgia’s total
population reported between December 31, 2006
(422,790) and January 1, 2007 (432,436).
The same agency experienced another reporting
change beginning with its January 1, 2008 population when it excluded probationers under supervision for a minor traffic citation. This reporting
change resulted in a decline of nearly 56,200 probationers in Georgia’s total population reported
between December 31, 2007 (435,361) and January
1, 2008 (379,204).
In 2009, as part of continued effort to enhance
reporting methods, this state agency experienced
another reporting change for reasons similar to
those explained for the 2008 change. The 2009
reporting change resulted in a decline of 7,100 probationers in Georgia’s total probation population
reported between December 31, 2008 (397,081) and
January 1, 2009 (389,901). The total change in
Georgia’s probation population was about 71,300
additional probationers between 2000 and 2009.
Hawaii—total probation population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 174 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Idaho—has two state reporting agencies. One
agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction
of the state, representing 24% of Idaho’s total probation population. The second agency reported probationers under the jurisdiction of the counties and
under supervision for a misdemeanor. The county
probation population represented 76% of Idaho’s
total probation population.
Additionally, this Idaho agency only has the capacity to report the number of probationers who
entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2009. The respondent was able to provide an
estimate of time served on misdemeanor probation
within the counties, which was estimated at one
year or less. With this additional information and
through additional correspondence with the
respondent, the December 31, 2009 population was
estimated based on the total number of probationers who entered county supervision for a misdemeanor during 2008. Exits from county misdemeanant probation during 2009 were based on the
January 1, 2009 population or the number of probationers who entered county supervision for a mis-

14 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

demeanor during 2008 (appendix table 2). Idaho’s
total probation population on December 31, 2009
includes an additional 441 probationers supervised
for another state through an interstate compact
agreement (appendix table 2).
About 55% of the probationers who were under
county supervision for a misdemeanor were on
inactive supervision and were not required to regularly report to a probation authority in person, by
mail, or by telephone (appendix table 8).
Illinois—total probation population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number
of probationers super vised for another state
through an interstate compact agreement (appendix
table 2).
Indiana—total probation population on December
31, 2009 excludes an unknown number of probationers supervised by another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2, 8).
Iowa—total probation population on December 31,
2009 excludes 744 probationers supervised by
another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8).
Kansas—total probation population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 400 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Kentucky—has three reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 56% of Kentucky’s total probation population, and two local agencies. Kentucky’s
total probation population on December 31, 2009
includes an additional 1,779 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Louisiana—total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 1,638 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Maine—total probation population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 233 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Maryland—changes in reporting related to the classification of certain types of offenders and limited
access to information systems occurred during
2009. For these reasons, probation data may not be
comparable to data reported by Maryland in previous years (appendix tables 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Reporting changes since 2000—Maryland changed
its method of reporting probationers beginning

December 2010

with its January 1, 2007 population, when it
expanded the scope of its probation population to
include certain DWI offenders who had previously
been excluded. The reporting change resulted in a
difference of about 18,400 additional probationers
between the December 31, 2006 (75,698) and January 1, 2007 (94,100) populations reported by the
state. The total change in Maryland’s probation
population was approximately 23,000 additional
probationers between 2000 and 2009.
Massachusetts—total probation population on
December 31, 2009 excludes 1,483 probationers
supervised by another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8).
Reporting changes since 2000—Massachusetts
changed its method of reporting probationers
beginning with its January 1, 2003 population when
it classified certain types of offenders, who had been
previously excluded from the state’s probation data,
as probationers based on new guidelines. The
reporting change resulted in a difference of about
87,300 additional probationers between the December 31, 2002 (44,013) and January 1, 2003 (131,319)
populations reported by Massachusetts.
The state experienced a similar change in reporting
methods beginning with its January 1, 2004 population. This reporting change resulted in a difference
of approximately 39,300 additional probationers
between the December 31, 2003 (127,135) and January 1, 2004 (166,464) populations reported by the
state. The total change in Massachusetts’s probation
population between 2000 and 2009 was an increase
of about 129,900.
Michigan—has 134 reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 34% of Michigan’s total probation population, and 133 local agencies. Michigan’s
total probation population on December 31, 2009
excludes 171 probationers on warrant status in
addition to an unknown number of probationers on
warrant status (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an additional 1,620 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Minnesota—total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 1,064 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Minnesota classifies Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity rather than a race. There were 6,170 Hispanic
or Latino probationers under supervision on
December 31, 2009, but they were reported among
the other racial categories (appendix table 7).

15 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Missouri—has two reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 99% of Missouri’s total probation population, and one local agency (appendix
table 2).
Montana—has four reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 95% of Montana’s total probation population, and three local agencies (appendix
table 2).
New Hampshire—total probation population on
December 31, 2009 includes an additional 476 probationers supervised for another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
New Mexico—has two reporting agencies—one
state agency, representing 74% of New Mexico’s
total probation population, and one local agency.
New Mexico’s total probation population on
D ecemb er 31, 200 9 includes an addit ional
unknown number of probationers supervised for
another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Reporting changes since 2000—New Mexico’s state
agency changed its method of reporting probation
data beginning with its January 1, 2003 population
when its information system was modified to
include certain probationers who had been previously excluded from its population. The reporting
change resulted in a difference of approximately
4,700 additional probationers in New Mexico’s total
population reported between December 31, 2002
(11,626) and January 1, 2003 (16,287).
The state agency experienced another reporting
change beginning with its January 1, 2006 population because the agency’s information system did
not have the capacity to report probationers on statuses other than active supervision. This reporting
change resulted in a decline of about 3,700 in New
Mexico’s total probation population reported
between December 31, 2005 (18,706) and January 1,
2006 (14,982).
The state agency changed its method of reporting
probationers again beginning with its January 1,
2007 population, when its capacity to report data,
including probationers on different types of supervision statuses, was enhanced. The reporting
change resulted in a difference of nearly 1,400 additional probationers in New Mexico’s total population reported between December 31, 2006 (16,493)
and January 1, 2007 (17,878). The total change in

December 2010

New Mexico’s probation population was an increase
of about 9,600 between 2000 and 2009.
New York—Reporting changes since 2000—changed
its method of reporting probation data, beginning
with its January 1, 2003 population, for two different reasons. First, the state reconciled the status of
certain probationers in its information system
based on new guidelines. Second, the probation
data reported prior to January 1, 2003 were case
counts, not counts of individuals. The reporting
change resulted in a decrease of nearly 65,100 probationers between the December 31, 2002 (198,042)
and January 1, 2003 (132,966) populations reported
by New York. The total change in New York’s probation population was a decrease of about 67,300
between 2000 and 2009.
Ohio—has 187 reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 7% of Ohio’s total probation
population, and 186 local agencies. One local probation agency did not provide data for 2009. The
December 31, 2008 probation population reported
by this agency in 2008 was used as an estimate of
this agency’s January 1, 2009 and December 31,
2009 probation populations.
Ohio’s total probation population on December 31,
2009 excludes an estimate of at least 16 probationers
supervised by another state through an interstate
compact agreement and an unspecified number of
probationers on an inactive status (appendix tables
2, 8). Ohio’s total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an estimate of at least 73 probationers supervised for another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Oklahoma—has three reporting agencies—one
state agency, representing 85% of Oklahoma’s total
probation population, and two local agencies
(appendix table 2).
Pennsylvania—technically, Pennsylvania has one
reporting agency, which is the state agency. The
state agency reports both state and county data.
However, the county data are reported separately
from the state data. The state probation population
represented 3% of Pennsylvania’s total probation
population on December 31, 2009, while the county
probation population represented 97% (appendix
table 2).
Reporting changes since 2000—Pennsylvania
changed its method of reporting county probation
data, starting with the December 31, 2004 population, by reconciling the status of certain offenders
who were previously classified as being on a dual
probation and parole status. The reporting change
resulted in a difference of nearly 30,000 additional
probationers in Pennsylvania’s total population
reported between January 1, 2004 (137,206) and
16 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 31, 2004 (167,180). The total change in
Pennsylvania’s probation population was an
increase of approximately 71,100 probationers
between 2000 and 2009.
Rhode Island—Rhode Island’s information system
classifies Hispanic or Latino as a race rather than an
ethnicity; therefore, parolees reported in Hispanic
or Latino may also be of another race. In addition,
parolees reported among other racial categories
may also be Hispanic or Latino. Rhode Island’s
information system does not include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or
two or more races (appendix table 7). Active includes
an unknown number of probationers in residential/
other treatment program because they could not be
reported separately. Inactive includes an unknown
number of probationers who were an absconder
because they could not be reported separately, and
2,397 probationers incarcerated in state or federal
prison (appendix table 8). See incarcerated—prison
in appendix table 11.
Tennessee—has three reporting agencies—one
state agency, representing 85% of Tennessee’s total
probation population, and two local agencies. The
population includes an additional 3,010 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Texas—total probation population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 6,039 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Vermont—total probation population on December
31, 2009 excludes an estimated 17 probationers
supervised by another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an estimated 22 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact
agreement (appendix table 2). Vermont’s information
system does not include a racial category for Hispanic
or Latino and does not collect any ethnicity data;
therefore, the number of Hispanic or Latino probationers could not be reported and whether or not
other racial categories include Hispanic or Latino
probationers could not be determined. Vermont’s
information system also does not include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or
two or more races (appendix table 7).
Virginia—total probation population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number
of probationers super vised for another state
through an interstate compact agreement (appendix
table 2). Location tracked by GPS—total includes an
unknown number of parolees tracked by GPS
because the number of probationers could not be
reported separately (appendix table 11).
December 2010

Washington—has 31 reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 14% of Washington’s total probation population, and 30 local agencies. One local
probation agency in Washington closed during
2009. All of the decrease in Washington’s total probation population (down 12.6% or down 13,899
probationers) during 2009 resulted from a decline
in the state agency’s probation population (down
50.9% or down 14,408 probationers). The decrease
in the state agency’s probation population was associated with legislation passed in 2009 that changed
sentencing and supervision laws in order to reduce
caseloads to address budgetary constraints. The legislation resulted in focusing resources primarily on
high-risk, violent offenders; the number of offenders supervised by the state agency for misdemeanors and non-violent offenses was reduced significantly (appendix table 2).
Washington’s total probation population on December 31, 2009 excludes 3,096 probationers on warrant status and an estimated 49 probationers supervised by another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix tables 2, 8). The population includes an additional 10 probationers
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 2).
Reporting changes since 2000—Washington’s state
agency changed its method of reporting probation
data beginning with its January 1, 2004 population
when the agency reclassified certain offenders on
supervised release following a prison term from
probationers to parolees. The change resulted in a
decrease of nearly 25,100 in Washington’s total probation population reported between December 31,
2003 (172,814) and January 1, 2004 (147,741). The
total change in Washington’s probation population
was a decrease of about 53,300 probationers
between 2000 and 2009.
West Virginia—has two state reporting agencies.
One state agency represented 97% of West Virginia’s
total probation population and reported all probationers under the jurisdiction of the state except
some probationers supervised by another state
through an interstate compact agreement. This
agency does not have jurisdiction over those probationers. The second state agency has jurisdiction
over probationers supervised out of state through
an interstate compact agreement, and this agency
only reported those probationers (appendix table
2). On parole includes probationers who were also
on parole and under home incarceration (appendix
table 11).
Wisconsin—Asian includes an unknown number of
parolees who were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander because Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
17 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Islander could not be reported separately (appendix
table 7).
Wyoming—total probation population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 246 probationers supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 2).

Parole: Explanatory notes
Federal—data for the federal system were provided
to BJS through the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP), which obtained data directly from the
Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Federal
parole (as defined here) includes a term of supervised release from prison, mandatory release,
parole, military parole, and special parole. Definitional differences exist between parole reported
here and in other BJS data series.
Alabama—has two reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 100% of Alabama’s total parole
population, and one local agency. Alabama’s total
parole population on December 31, 2009 includes
an additional 618 parolees supervised for another
state through an interstate compact agreement
(appendix table 12).
Reporting changes since 2000—Alabama’s state
agency changed its method of reporting parole data
beginning with the January 1, 2006 population by
including certain offenders whose status had been
classified as other than a parolee in prior years. The
reporting change resulted in a difference of approximately 500 additional parolees in Alabama’s total
parole population reported between December 31,
2005 (7,252) and January 1, 2006 (7,795).
The state agency changed its reporting method
again beginning with the January 1, 2007 population when it consolidated data sources. The change
resulted in a decline of about 1,200 parolees in Alabama’s total parole population reported between
December 31, 2006 (8,685) and January 1, 2007
(7,508). The total change in Alabama’s parole population was an increase of about 2,900 between 2000
and 2009.
Alaska—total parole population on December 31,
2009 includes an additional unknown number of
parolees supervised for another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
Repor ting changes since 2000—Alaska made
improvements to its method of reporting parole
data starting with its January 1, 2007 population.
The reporting change resulted in a difference of
nearly 500 additional parolees between the December 31, 2006 (1,044) and January 1, 2007 (1,527)
populations reported by Alaska. The total change in
December 2010

Alaska’s parole population was an increase of about
1,400 parolees between 2000 and 2009.
Arizona—total parole population on December 31,
2009 includes an additional estimated 521 parolees
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 12).
California—has two reporting agencies—one state
agency, representing 99.9% of California’s total
parole population, and the California Youth
Authority (CYA). California’s total parole population on December 31, 2009 excludes 916 parolees
supervised out of state through an interstate compact agreement and 15,633 absconders (appendix
tables 12, 18). The population includes an additional 1,466 parolees supervised for another state
through an interstate compact agreement (appendix
table 12). Asian excludes an unknown number of
Filipino parolees because they were classified as
Pacific Islander and therefore reported in Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (appendix table
17). Mandatory includes a small, unknown number
of parolees who received a discretionary release
from prison (appendix table 21).
Colorado—total parole population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 313 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12). The 2009
reporting methods and classification of types of
entry to parole were enhanced compared to 2005
through 2008; therefore, the 2009 data report for
discretionary and mandatory entries to parole may
not be comparable to the 2005 through 2008 data
reported (appendix table 13). The 2,150 parolees
reported in supervised out of state includes an
unknown number of parolees released to a detainer
for other charges and some who were detained by
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) agency for deportation (appendix table 18).
Connecticut—in September of 2007, Connecticut’s
Governor mandated immediate changes to the
parole hearing policies used by Connecticut’s Board
of Pardons and Paroles in response to a tragic crime
that occurred in July of 2007. The mandated
changes resulted in an immediate decrease in the
parole population, but since that time the parole
population increased steadily. The increase (up
23.4% or 545 additional parolees) in Connecticut’s
parole population during 2009 resulted from additional staff that have addressed hearing backlogs
and expedited the hearing process (appendix table
12). More than one year includes parolees with a
maximum sentence to incarceration of more than
two years because Connecticut statute stipulates
that parole eligible sentences are sentences of more
than two years (appendix table 19).
18 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Delaware—total parole population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 150 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
District of Columbia—some of the increase (up
9.6% or 552 parolees) in the District of Columbia’s
parole population during 2009 was associated with
a slowing rate of discharge. For example, more
parolees who had their parole term extended due to
non-compliant behavior. This resulted in fewer
parolees discharged compared to the number that
entered supervision during the year, which contributed to the increase during 2009 (appendix table
12).
Florida—total parole population on December 31,
2009 includes an additional 27 parolees supervised
for another state through an interstate compact
agreement (appendix table 12).
Georgia—all parolees reported in reinstatement
were originally released from prison through a discretionary release (appendix table 13). Number of
parolees reported in death is an underestimate of
the number of parolees who died while on parole
during 2009. Parolees who died are reported as part
of Georgia’s parole population until the death certificate is received; then, the parolee is discharged as of
the day the death occurred (appendix table 14).
Incarcerated-prison includes parole violators who
were held in short-term correctional facilities but
still on parole, some of whom were attending programs (appendix table 22).
Hawaii—total parole population on December 31,
2009 includes an additional 42 parolees supervised
for another state through an interstate compact
agreement (appendix table 12).
Idaho—total parole population on December 31,
2009 includes an additional 165 parolees supervised
for another state through an interstate compact
agreement (appendix table 12).
Indiana—total parole population on December 31,
2009 excludes 464 parolees supervised by another
state through an interstate compact agreement
(appendix tables 12, 18).
Iowa—total parole population on December 31,
2009 excludes 269 parolees supervised by another
state through an interstate compact agreement
(appendix tables 12, 18).
Kansas—total parole population on December 31,
2009 excludes 212 absconders (appendix tables 12,
18). The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act with its
determinate sentencing structure became effective
July 1, 1993. Previously, Kansas had indeterminate

December 2010

sentencing. As a result, a number of entries to
parole involved offenders with “guidelines” or “new
law” sentences (which have determinate periods of
post-incarceration supervision). In 2007 and previous years, it was not possible for Kansas to differentiate between entries to parole of “old law” and “new
law” offenders. For example, releases to post-incarceration supervision (for a determinate period
under new law) were included with regular parole
releases (for an indeterminate period under old
law) in discretionary entries to parole. For these reasons, types of entries to parole reported by Kansas
in 2007 and previous years may not be comparable
to types of entries to parole reported by Kansas
beginning in 2008.
Other entries include 1,184 parolees who entered
supervision from absconder status after a warrant
was cleared and 174 other parolees (appendix table
13). Absconder includes parolees who could not be
located and had a warrant issued for their arrest.
Other exits include parolees who exited supervision
because a warrant had been issued for other reasons
(appendix table 14). More than one year includes a
relatively small but unknown number of parolees
who were sentenced for a felony, but the incarceration portion of their sentence was one year or less
(appendix table 19).
Kentucky—total parole population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 480 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
Louisiana—total parole population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 625 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
Maryland—changes in reporting related to the classification of certain types of offenders and limited
access to information systems occurred during
2009. For these reasons, parole data may not be
comparable to data reported by Maryland in previous years (appendix tables 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and
22).
Massachusetts—total parole population on December 31, 2009 includes an additional 284 parolees
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 12).
Michigan—total parole population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional 1,175 parolees
supervised for another state through an interstate
compact agreement (appendix table 12). Number of

19 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

parolees reported in Hispanic or Latino is an underestimate because Michigan’s information system
does not include a category which directly tracks
and measures parolees who are Hispanic or Latino
(appendix table 17). Violent includes an unknown
number of parolees supervised for a weapon offense
(appendix table 20).
Mississippi—the increase (up 85.7% or 2,504 parolees) in Mississippi’s parole population during 2009
resulted from legislation passed in 2008 which
amended parole law to make all offenders never
convicted of a violent crime or crime with enhanced
penalty parole eligible regardless of the number of
prior convictions. The 2008 legislation also made
the sale or manufacture of a controlled substance
parole eligible unless the crime had an enhanced
penalty or involved over one kilogram of marijuana
(appendix table 12).
Montana—data reported by Montana in 2009 may
not be comparable to data reported by Montana in
previous years due to changes in reporting (appendix tables 12-14 and 16-22). See Reporting changes
since 2000 below.
Reporting changes since 2000—Montana changed its
method of reporting parole data beginning with the
January 1, 2009 population. The state implemented
a new, enhanced information system that improved
the tracking of all types of parolees, some of whom
were not reported in previous years. The change
resulted in an additional 177 parolees between the
December 31, 2008 (885) and January 1, 2009
(1,062) parole populations reported by Montana.
The total change in Montana’s parole population
was an increase of about 400 parolees between 2000
and 2009.
New Hampshire—total parole population on
December 31, 2009 includes an additional 68 parolees supervised for another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
New Mexico—total parole population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional unknown number of
parolees supervised for another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
Repor ting changes since 2000—New Mexico
changed its method of reporting parole data beginning with its January 1, 2007 population because its
information system was enhanced, which resulted
in an increased capacity to report data, including
parolees on different types of supervision statuses.

December 2010

The reporting change resulted in a difference of
almost 600 additional parolees in New Mexico’s
total parole population reported between December
31, 2006 (2,922) and January 1, 2007 (3,517). The
total change in New Mexico’s parole population was
an increase of nearly 1,500 parolees between 2000
and 2009.
New York—other entries include parolees released
from prison at the time of their eligibility without
an appearance before a parole board. New York
refers to this type of release as a presumptive release.
Inmates who served sentences for non-violent
offenses and who had no history of violence were
eligible for a presumptive release. New York’s presumptive release law was enacted in 2003, implemented at the end of 2003, and became fully operational during 2004. Other entries also include
parolees who were sentenced directly to parole
supervision with the requirement that they complete a 90-day drug and alcohol treatment program.
New York refers to this type of entry as judicially
sanctioned and it falls under the Sentencing Reform
Act of 1995. Certain drug and property offenders
were eligible for a judicially sanctioned entry to
parole supervision. Other entries also include parolees released from local jails. In 2006 the New York
Division of Parole resumed the responsibility for
supervising selected inmates released from local
jails after serving a sentence of less than one year.
These parolees remain under parole supervision for
one year (appendix table 13).
Returned to incarceration—to receive treatment
includes select parole violators who were sent to a
30-day or 90-day treatment program in a state correctional facility in lieu of a revocation and return
to prison. Prior to 2009, these data were reported in
returned to incarceration—other/unknown (appendix table 14). Special conditional type of release
from prison includes inmates who were released to
“medical parole” because that type of parole permits
the release of certain terminally ill inmates prior to
serving their full sentence. Other type of release
from prison includes the same classifications of
parolees who had been reported in the other entries
category (appendix table 21).
North Carolina—total parole population on
December 31, 2009 includes offenders under postrelease supervision. Post-release supervision is
defined under North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Act of 1993 as a reintegration program for serious offenders who served extensive prison terms
(appendix table 12). Post-release offenders were
reported in term of supervised release (appendix
table 21).
Ohio—the decrease (down 23.8% or down 4,544
parolees) in Ohio’s parole population during 2009
20 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

was related to an Ohio Supreme Court case from
October 2009. The result was a mandate to discharge certain post-prison persons from parole,
which was first implemented in November 2009
and continued through February 2010 (appendix
table 12).
Pennsylvania—technically has one reporting
agency, which is the state agency. The state agency
reports both state and county parole data. However,
these data are reported separately. The state parole
population represented 34% of Pennsylvania’s total
parole population on December 31, 2009, while the
county parole population represented 66% (appendix table 12).
Reporting changes since 2000—Pennsylvania
changed its method of reporting county parole data,
starting with its December 31, 2004 population, by
reconciling the status of certain offenders who were
previously classified as being on a dual probation
and parole status. The change resulted in a decline
of approximately 25,100 parolees in Pennsylvania’s
total population reported between January 1, 2004
(102,244) and December 31, 2004 (77,175). The
total change in Pennsylvania’s parole population
was a decrease of nearly 7,200 parolees between
2000 and 2009.
Rhode Island—total parole population on December 31, 2009 excludes 40 parolees supervised by
another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12, 18). Rhode Island’s information system classifies Hispanic or Latino as a race
rather than an ethnicity ; therefore, parolees
reported as Hispanic or Latino may also be of
another race. In addition parolees reported among
other racial categories may also be Hispanic or
Latino. Rhode Island’s information system does not
include a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander or two or more races (appendix table
17).
South Carolina—the decrease (down13.2% or
down 245 parolees) in South Carolina’s parole population during 2009 was related to both the implementation of South Carolina’s “no parole” law (for
most violent offenses) passed in 1995, which
reduced the number of inmates eligible for parole,
and a decrease in the percentage of inmates paroled
by the Board of Paroles and Pardons (appendix
table 12).
Tennessee—increase (up 11.1% or 1,163 parolees)
in Tennessee’s parole population during 2009 was
associated with both a Tennessee statute that permitted prisons operating at 90% capacity or greater
to extend parole eligibility to low-risk, non-violent
inmates and a lower revocation rate which resulted
in some parolees remaining under supervision lonDecember 2010

ger to receive treatment. Total parole population on
December 31, 2009 includes an additional 956
parolees supervised for another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
Vermont—total parole population on December
31, 2009 includes an additional estimated 47 parolees supervised by another state through an interstate compact agreement (appendix tables 12). Vermont’s information system does not include a racial
category for Hispanic or Latino and does not collect
any ethnicity data; therefore, the number of Hispanic or Latino parolees could not be reported and
whether or not other racial categories include Hispanic or Latino parolees could not be determined.
Vermont’s information system also does not include
a racial category for Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander or two or more races (appendix table 17).
Virginia—total parole population on December 31,
2009 includes an additional unknown number of
parolees supervised for another state through an
interstate compact agreement (appendix table 12).
Location tracked by GPS—total includes an
unknown number of probationers tracked by GPS
because the number of parolees could not be
reported separately (appendix table 22).
Reporting changes since 2000—Virginia changed its
method of reporting parolees starting with its January 1, 2007 population when it expanded the scope
of its parole population based on new guidelines.
The change included post-release offenders who
had been excluded from the parole counts reported
by the state in prior years. The reporting change
resulted in a difference of approximately 3,200 additional parolees between the December 31, 2006
(3,978) and January 1, 2007 (7,201) populations
reported by the state.

meanors and non-violent offenses was reduced significantly (appendix table 12).
Reporting changes since 2000—Washington changed
its method of reporting parole data starting with its
January 1, 2004 population, when it reclassified certain offenders on supervised release following a
prison term from a probation status to a parole status. The change in the state’s parole population was
a difference of 24,800 additional parolees between
the December 31, 2003 (105) and January 1, 2004
(24,905) populations reported by the state. The total
change in Washington’s parole population was an
increase of about 6,400 parolees between 2000 and
2009.
Wisconsin—Asian includes an unknown number of
parolees who were Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander because Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander could not be reported separately (appendix
table 17). A change in reporting the number of
parolees tracked by GPS occurred during 2009;
therefore, data may not be comparable to data
r e p o r t e d b y Wi s c o n s i n i n 2 0 0 8 . In c a rc e rated—prison only includes parolees incarcerated in
a state prison in Wisconsin; the count does not
include parolees, if any, incarcerated in a federal
prison (appendix table 22).

In 2008 Virginia consolidated its databases, which
led to subsequent data review and cleanup. This
reporting change resulted in a decrease of an estimated 2,200 parolees between the December 31,
2007 population (6,850) reported by the state and
the imputed January 1, 2008 population (estimated
at 4,700). The total change in Virginia’s parole population was a decline of nearly 500 parolees between
2000 and 2009.
Washington—the decrease (down 44.4% or down
5,205 parolees) in Washington’s parole population
during 2009 was associated with legislation passed
in 2009 that changed sentencing and supervision
laws in order to reduce caseloads to address budgetary constraints. The legislation resulted in focusing
resources primarily on high-risk, violent offenders;
the number of offenders supervised for misde-

21 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 1. Adults under community supervision, 2009
Community
supervision
population,

Community
supervision
population,
12/31/2009 a

Number under community
Exits
Entries
Percent
supervision per 100,000
b
b
1/1/2009
Reported
Imputed
Reported
Imputed
Region and jurisdiction
Change, 2009 change, 2009 adult residents, 12/31/2009
U.S. total
5,064,975
2,689,000
2,887,500
2,733,332
2,926,600
5,018,855
-46,120
-0.9 %
2,147
Federal
119,493
57,670
57,670
52,138
52,138
125,025
5,532
4.6 %
53
State
4,945,482
2,631,330
2,829,800
2,681,194
2,874,500
4,893,830
-51,652
-1.0 %
2,094
c
Alabama
61,292
26,701
26,701
29,609
29,609
58,384
-2,908
-4.7
1,624
Alaskad
8,403
1,787
1,787
1,567
1,567
8,686
283
3.4
1,675
c,e
Arizona
89,749
32,416
32,416
35,713
35,713
86,452
-3,297
-3.7
1,764
Arkansas
50,626
18,970
18,970
18,300
18,300
51,296
670
1.3
2,343
d,e
California
445,822
344,450
344,450
372,191
372,191
418,081
-27,741
-6.2
1,509
d,e,f
Colorado
85,777
61,686
62,100
57,858
58,300
89,769
3,992
4.7
2,344
Connecticutc,e
58,483
31,380
31,380
30,654
30,654
59,209
726
1.2
2,175
Delawarec
17,767
14,938
14,938
15,355
15,355
17,350
-417
-2.3
2,545
District of Columbiac
13,162
9,731
9,731
7,930
7,930
14,889
1,727
13.1
3,035
Floridac,e,f
283,585
225,722
230,300
237,810
243,000
272,061
-11,524
-4.1
1,871
e,g
Georgia
413,349
241,326
241,326
237,958
237,958
416,717
3,368
0.8
5,714
Hawaiic,e
21,001
6,582
6,582
6,283
6,283
21,300
299
1.4
2,113
Idahoe,h
52,874
48,951
48,951
41,403
41,403
60,422
7,548
14.3
5,333
Illinoisc,e
178,587
93,481
93,481
94,214
94,214
177,854
-733
-0.4
1,820
d,e
Indiana
140,831
109,899
109,899
109,996
109,996
140,734
-97
-0.1
2,900
d,e
Iowa
26,117
20,831
20,831
20,482
20,482
26,466
349
1.3
1,148
d
Kansas
21,221
26,120
26,120
25,095
25,095
22,246
1,025
4.8
1,047
Kentuckyc,e
63,493
40,351
40,351
37,410
37,410
66,400
2,907
4.6
2,004
c
Louisiana
64,589
29,971
29,971
26,690
26,690
67,811
3,222
5.0
2,001
c
Maine
7,535
3,649
3,649
3,837
3,837
7,347
-188
-2.5
701
Maryland
114,178
57,653
57,653
53,548
53,548
118,283
4,105
3.6
2,708
d
Massachusetts
187,192
93,057
93,057
96,207
96,207
184,042
-3,150
-1.7
3,546
d,e,f
Michigan
197,944
138,835
150,400
134,189
146,200
199,505
1,561
0.8
2,616
c
Minnesota
133,056
76,146
76,146
82,321
82,321
126,881
-6,175
-4.6
3,153
c
Mississippi
25,189
14,715
14,715
10,202
10,202
29,702
4,513
17.9
1,355
c,e,f
Missouri
76,572
34,866
35,000
33,733
34,200
77,338
766
1.0
1,690
Montanac,e
11,484
4,041
4,041
4,433
4,433
11,092
-392
-3.4
1,462
Nebraska
20,452
14,633
14,633
15,671
15,671
19,414
-1,038
-5.1
1,436
Nevada
17,245
10,433
10,433
11,192
11,192
16,486
-759
-4.4
836
c
New Hampshire
6,210
3,688
3,688
3,569
3,569
6,329
119
1.9
610
New Jersey
143,092
50,431
50,431
53,991
53,991
139,532
-3,560
-2.5
2,085
c,f
New Mexico
23,609
4,630
7,400
6,234
8,700
22,206
-1,403
-5.9
1,473
New York
171,039
60,564
60,564
61,996
61,996
169,607
-1,432
-0.8
1,117
c,e
North Carolina
112,676
69,402
69,402
72,364
72,364
109,703
-2,973
-2.6
1,534
North Dakota
4,652
3,533
3,533
3,655
3,655
4,530
-122
-2.6
895
d,e,f
Ohio
279,696
151,484
167,300
157,125
177,900
269,524
-10,172
-3.6
3,045
Oklahomac,e
31,013
13,257
13,257
14,233
14,233
30,037
-976
-3.1
1,078
Oregon
62,883
24,156
24,156
23,921
23,921
63,118
235
0.4
2,124
c,f
Pennsylvania
259,924
14,171
145,000
13,795
133,300
267,343
7,419
2.9
2,708
d,e
Rhode Island
27,223
5,849
5,849
5,464
5,464
26,509
-714
-2.6
3,200
c
South Carolina
42,478
14,410
14,410
15,588
15,588
41,300
-1,178
-2.8
1,179
South Dakota
8,866
5,636
5,636
5,152
5,152
9,350
484
5.5
1,516
c
Tennessee
68,015
29,699
29,699
27,523
27,523
71,185
3,170
4.7
1,475
c,e
Texas
530,935
207,368
207,368
207,029
207,029
531,274
339
0.1
2,942
Utah
14,596
8,059
8,059
7,923
7,923
14,732
136
0.9
762
d,e
Vermont
8,021
4,471
4,471
4,572
4,572
7,920
-101
-1.3
1,595
c,e
Virginia
58,085
28,448
28,448
26,283
26,300
60,250
2,165
3.7
992
Washingtond,e,f
122,036
61,640
93,900
80,128
112,500
102,932
-19,104
-15.7
2,005
c,e,f
West Virginia
10,288
2,899
3,000
2,904
3,000
10,298
10
0.1
716
Wisconsine
66,417
30,749
30,749
32,150
32,150
64,652
-1,765
-2.7
1,482
c
Wyoming
6,153
3,465
3,465
3,744
3,744
5,282
-871
-14.2
1,269
Northeast
868,719
267,260
398,100
274,085
393,500
867,838
-881
-0.1 %
2,015
Midwest
1,154,411
706,213
733,700
713,783
747,000
1,138,494
-15,917
-1.4
2,233
South
1,960,720
1,045,561
1,050,300
1,040,736
1,046,000
1,966,940
6,220
0.3
2,290
West
961,632
612,296
647,700
652,590
687,900
920,558
-41,074
-4.3
1,712
Note: Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the community supervision population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2009, does not equal the population on January 1, plus
entries, minus exits. Rates were computed using the estimated adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2009. See Methodology for more detail.
a
The January 1 (3,905) and December 31 (4,420) populations exclude a small number of offenders under community supervision who were on both probation and parole. The December 31,
2008 total (3,905) was used as an estimate of the January 1, 2009 total. See appendix table 22 for December 31, 2009 totals by jurisdiction.
b
Reflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.
c
See probation, parole, or both Explanatory notes for more details.
d
Population excludes probationers or parolees in one of the following categories: warrant, inactive, or supervised out of state. See probation or paroleExplanatory notes for more detail.
e
Some or all detailed data are estimated.
f
Data for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology for more detail.
g
Probation counts include private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. See Explanatory notes for more detail.
h
Probation counts include estimates for misdemeanors based on entries. See Explanatory notes for more detail.
a

22 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 2. Adults on probation, 2009
Number on probation
Probation
Probation
Entries
Exits
per 100,000 adult
population,
population,
Percent change,
a
a
Reported Imputed
Reported Imputed
residents, 12/31/2009
Region and jurisdiction
1/1/2009
12/31/2009
Change, 2009 2009
U.S. total
4,244,046
2,143,734 2,313,600
2,180,721 2,347,500
4,203,967
-40,079
-0.9 %
1,799
Federal
22,483
11,322
11,322
11,022
11,022
22,783
300
1.3 %
10
State
4,221,563
2,132,412 2,302,200
2,169,699 2,336,500
4,181,184
-40,379
-1.0 %
1,789
b
Alabama
53,250
23,520
23,520
26,815
26,815
49,955
-3,295
-6.2
1,389
Alaskac
6,689
1,171
1,171
1,113
1,113
6,747
58
0.9
1,301
b,d
Arizona
82,212
18,273
18,273
22,242
22,242
78,243
-3,969
-4.8
1,597
Arkansas
30,939
9,059
9,059
9,868
9,868
30,130
-809
-2.6
1,376
Californiad
325,069
168,610
168,610
181,633
181,633
312,046
-13,023
-4.0
1,126
c,d,e
Colorado
74,123
51,705
52,100
47,878
48,300
78,114
3,991
5.4
2,040
b,d
Connecticut
56,155
28,026
28,026
27,845
27,845
56,336
181
0.3
2,070
b
Delaware
17,216
14,512
14,512
14,897
14,897
16,831
-385
-2.2
2,469
b
District of Columbia
7,706
7,405
7,405
6,156
6,156
8,955
1,249
16.2
1,825
b,d,e
Florida
279,057
218,729
223,300
230,612
235,800
267,738
-11,319
-4.1
1,841
Georgiad,f
389,901
228,318
228,318
225,531
225,531
392,688
2,787
0.7
5,385
Hawaiib,d
19,097
5,849
5,849
5,477
5,477
19,469
372
1.9
1,932
Idahod,g
49,513
47,195
47,195
39,733
39,733
56,975
7,462
15.1
5,029
b,d
Illinois
144,904
58,788
58,788
59,000
59,000
144,692
-212
-0.1
1,480
c,d
Indiana
130,178
98,619
98,619
98,590
98,590
130,207
29
0.0
2,683
c,d
Iowa
22,958
18,325
18,325
18,082
18,082
23,201
243
1.1
1,007
b
Kansas
16,263
21,317
21,317
20,344
20,344
17,236
973
6.0
811
Kentuckyb,d
51,424
33,719
33,719
30,938
30,938
54,205
2,781
5.4
1,636
Louisianab
40,025
16,311
16,311
14,077
14,077
42,259
2,234
5.6
1,247
b
Maine
7,504
3,648
3,648
3,836
3,836
7,316
-188
-2.5
698
Maryland
100,958
50,190
50,190
46,607
46,607
104,541
3,583
3.5
2,393
c
Massachusetts
184,079
88,341
88,341
91,743
91,743
180,677
-3,402
-1.8
3,481
c,d,e
Michigan
175,421
125,217
136,800
122,422
134,400
175,131
-290
-0.2
2,296
Minnesotab
127,963
70,504
70,504
77,021
77,021
121,446
-6,517
-5.1
3,018
Mississippi
22,267
10,637
10,637
8,628
8,628
24,276
2,009
9.0
1,108
Missourib,d,e
57,360
22,932
23,000
22,260
22,700
57,665
305
0.5
1,260
b,d
Montana
10,422
3,493
3,493
3,830
3,830
10,085
-337
-3.2
1,329
Nebraska
19,606
13,589
13,589
14,604
14,604
18,591
-1,015
-5.2
1,375
Nevada
13,337
6,231
6,231
7,268
7,268
12,300
-1,037
-7.8
624
b
New Hampshire
4,549
2,581
2,581
2,621
2,621
4,509
-40
-0.9
434
New Jersey
127,560
41,934
41,934
45,318
45,318
124,176
-3,384
-2.7
1,856
New Mexicob,e
20,883
4,354
7,100
5,391
7,900
20,086
-797
-3.8
1,332
New York
118,814
36,340
36,340
35,497
35,497
119,657
843
0.7
788
d
North Carolina
109,678
65,725
65,725
68,822
68,822
106,581
-3,097
-2.8
1,490
North Dakota
4,266
2,806
2,806
2,899
2,899
4,173
-93
-2.2
825
Ohioc,d,e
260,577
142,773
158,600
143,870
164,700
254,949
-5,628
-2.2
2,880
b,d
Oklahoma
27,940
12,363
12,363
13,236
13,236
27,067
-873
-3.1
972
Oregon
40,921
15,169
15,169
15,366
15,366
40,724
-197
-0.5
1,371
b,e
Pennsylvania
186,973
3,064
105,300
2,756
95,700
192,231
5,258
2.8
1,947
Rhode Islandd
26,754
5,223
5,223
4,954
4,954
25,924
-830
-3.1
3,129
South Carolina
40,621
14,034
14,034
14,967
14,967
39,688
-933
-2.3
1,133
South Dakota
6,146
3,869
3,869
3,413
3,413
6,602
456
7.4
1,071
Tennesseeb
57,605
24,619
24,619
23,907
23,907
59,558
1,953
3.4
1,234
Texasb
428,014
172,666
172,666
174,349
174,349
426,331
-1,683
-0.4
2,361
Utah
11,030
5,915
5,915
5,417
5,417
11,528
498
4.5
596
c,d
Vermont
6,940
3,865
3,865
3,972
3,972
6,833
-107
-1.5
1,376
b,d
Virginia
53,614
27,572
27,572
25,541
25,541
55,645
2,031
3.8
917
c,d,e
Washington
110,268
55,529
87,800
68,812
101,200
96,369
-13,899
-12.6
1,877
West Virginia b,d,e
8,283
1,558
1,700
1,447
1,500
8,409
126
1.5
585
Wisconsind
49,093
23,051
23,051
24,723
24,723
47,421
-1,672
-3.4
1,087
Wyomingb
5,438
3,169
3,169
3,371
3,371
4,668
-770
-14.2
1,121
Northeast
719,328
213,022
315,200
218,542
311,500
717,659
-1,669
-0.2 %
1,666
Midwest
1,014,735
601,790
629,300
607,228
640,500
1,001,314
-13,421
-1.3
1,964
South
1,718,498
930,937
935,600
936,398
941,700
1,714,857
-3,641
-0.2
1,997
West
769,002
386,663
422,100
407,531
442,900
747,354
-21,648
-2.8
1,390
Note: Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the probation population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2009, does not equal the population on January 1, plus entries,
minus exits. Rates were computed using the estimated adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2009. See Methodology for more detail.
a
Reflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.
b
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
c
Population excludes probationers in one of the following categories: inactive, warrant, supervised out of jurisdiction, or probationers who had their location tracked by GPS. See
Explanatory notes for more detail.
d
Some or all detailed data are estimated.
e
Data for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting agencies. See Methodology for more detail.
f

Counts include private agency cases and may overstate the number of persons under supervision. See Explanatory notes for more detail.
Counts include estimates for misdemeanors based on entries during the year. See Explanatory notes for more detail.

g

23 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 3. Adults entering probation, by type of sentence, 2009
Probation without
Probation with
Unknown or not
Total reported
incarceration
incarceration
Othera
reported
Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
2,143,734
649,634
211,854
145,725
1,136,521
Federal
11,322
11,322
0
0
0
State
2,132,412
638,312
211,854
145,725
1,136,521
Alabama
23,520
8,474
13,687
**
1,359
Alaska
1,171
**
**
**
1,171
Arizonab
18,273
11,203
7,070
0
0
Arkansas
9,059
8,312
**
747
0
California
168,610
**
**
**
168,610
Coloradob
51,705
30,174
207
16,207
5,117
Connecticutb
28,026
21,844
6,182
**
0
Delaware
14,512
**
**
**
14,512
District of Columbia
7,405
6,299
1,106
0
0
Floridab
218,729
150,067
8,399
2,192
58,071
Georgiab
228,318
28,395
12,247
771
186,905
Hawaii
5,849
**
**
**
5,849
Idahob
47,195
2,635
1,407
29
43,124
Illinois
58,788
**
**
**
58,788
Indianab
98,619
3,318
83,292
12,009
0
Iowa
18,325
**
**
**
18,325
Kansas
21,317
**
**
**
21,317
Kentucky b
33,719
23,818
9,069
832
0
Louisiana
16,311
14,967
863
481
0
Maine
3,648
2,450
1,000
160
38
Maryland
50,190
42,646
7,544
0
0
Massachusetts
88,341
**
**
**
88,341
Michiganb
125,217
20,785
3,854
5,250
95,328
Minnesota
70,504
**
**
70,504
0
Mississippi
10,637
2,441
8,196
0
0
Missouri
22,932
20,592
**
2,340
0
Montana
3,493
1,524
1,495
**
474
Nebraska
13,589
9,546
4,043
0
0
Nevada
6,231
**
**
**
6,231
New Hampshire
2,581
1,841
364
0
376
New Jersey
41,934
**
**
**
41,934
New Mexico
4,354
**
**
**
4,354
New York
36,340
32,020
4,320
0
0
North Carolina
65,725
65,688
37
0
0
North Dakota
2,806
2,806
0
0
0
Ohiob
142,773
49,968
8,769
9,720
74,316
Oklahomab
12,363
8,296
2,118
**
1,949
Oregon
15,169
7,077
7,170
**
922
Pennsylvaniac
3,064
3,064
0
0
0
Rhode Island
5,223
**
**
**
5,223
South Carolina
14,034
11,971
2,063
0
0
South Dakota
3,869
**
**
**
3,869
Tennessee
24,619
17,159
7,315
145
0
Texas
172,666
**
**
**
172,666
Utah
5,915
2,782
3,133
0
0
Vermontb
3,865
3,191
508
166
0
Virginiab
27,572
21,670
5,602
300
0
Washingtonb
55,529
1,289
794
23,872
29,574
West Virginia
1,558
**
**
**
1,558
Wisconsin
23,051
**
**
**
23,051
Wyoming
3,169
**
**
**
3,169
Northeast
213,022
64,410
12,374
326
135,912
Midwest
601,790
107,015
99,958
99,823
294,994
South
930,937
410,203
78,246
5,468
437,020
West
386,663
56,684
21,276
40,108
268,595
Note: Based on reported data only. For imputed entries to probation, see appendix table 2.
**Not known.
a
Includes probationers who entered supervision through a deferred sentence, after a bench warrant was served, a reinstatement
of their original sentence, placement in a drug court program, a transfer from another agency or state, sentence to a private
probation agency, a transfer from parole, or other types of sentences.
b
Some or all detailed data are estimated for type of sentence.
c
Data represent state probationers only. Data are not available for county probationers.

24 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 4. Adults exiting probation, by type of exit, 2009
Discharged
Incarcerated
Total
With new
Under current To receive Other/
Unknown or
to warrant Other
a
reported
Completion sentence
sentence
treatment unknown
not reported
Death
Otherb
Region and jurisdiction
Absconder or detainer unsatisfactory
U.S. total
2,180,721
1,082,974
66,209
128,969
715
75,527
57,290
14,061
167,703
9,130
72,225
505,918
Federal
11,022
8,962
112
1,054
**
9
144
0
221
98
33
389
State
2,169,699
1,074,012
66,097
127,915
715
75,518
57,146
14,061
167,482
9,032
72,192
505,529
Alabama
26,815
10,020
8,158
773
**
5,407
**
**
**
278
798
1,381
Alaska
1,113
599
43
**
**
236
50
27
**
24
61
73
c
Arizona
22,242
15,137
**
5,022
**
**
118
**
109
228
275
1,353
Arkansas
9,868
6,167
984
1,451
**
**
576
**
0
188
502
0
c
California
181,633
85,534
**
**
**
**
**
**
69,992
**
26,107
0
c
Colorado
47,878
34,372
**
1,457
**
4,567
5,160
108
445
301
504
964
c
Connecticut
27,845
27,845
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
0
Delaware
14,897
7,797
**
**
10
**
**
**
5,866
95
1,129
0
District of Columbia
6,156
3,842
**
**
**
1,380
0
0
769
44
121
0
c
Florida
230,612
110,286
17,789
38,257
421
3,066
267
8,493
3,829
1,220
9,086
37,898
c
Georgia
225,531
162,542
2,578
6,186
**
**
13,407
**
35,536
128
5,154
0
Hawaiic
5,477
4,513
167
281
**
**
**
**
**
48
110
358
c
Idaho
39,733
2,421
564
**
**
**
**
**
819
44
**
35,885
Illinois
59,000
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
59,000
c
Indiana
98,590
64,829
8,755
11,172
~
~
7,184
~
~
~
6,650
0
c
Iowa
18,082
11,513
**
**
**
2,957
78
**
56
103
2,307
1,068
Kansas
20,344
14,995
**
**
**
113
**
**
2,997
**
2,239
0
c
Kentucky
30,938
20,677
2,078
5,596
0
0
1,315
45
82
167
978
0
Louisiana
14,077
7,788
912
3,354
~
70
~
~
1,443
172
338
0
c
Maine
3,836
2,461
**
**
**
1,143
**
**
**
**
**
232
Marylandd
46,607
36,962
**
**
**
**
0
0
9,200
427
18
0
Massachusetts
91,743
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
91,743
c
Michigan
122,422
49,288
1,665
5,231
57
226
699
1,587
2,628
240
604
60,197
Minnesota
77,021
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
77,021
Mississippi
8,628
4,699
828
677
0
0
905
0
0
56
1,463
0
Missouri
22,260
9,613
1,324
4,144
**
**
6,535
**
249
374
**
21
Montana
3,830
1,872
267
1,035
**
**
**
**
**
79
1
576
Nebraska
14,604
11,711
916
672
0
0
23
4
925
45
133
175
Nevada
7,268
4,388
**
**
**
**
207
**
2,618
55
**
0
New Hampshire
2,621
1,685
426
**
0
0
0
0
0
**
0
510
New Jersey
45,318
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
45,318
New Mexico
5,391
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
5,391
New York
35,497
23,182
3,674
~
~
~
**
~
8,191
364
86
0
North Carolina
68,822
32,882
4,469
13,219
~
0
10,360
**
5,864
633
0
1,395
North Dakota
2,899
1,434
489
640
**
**
101
**
187
34
**
14
c
Ohio
143,870
53,659
3,747
5,775
219
487
9,361
796
1,781
341
6,289
61,415
Oklahoma
13,236
10,431
610
697
**
**
**
**
**
186
**
1,312
Oregon
15,366
9,746
611
3,921
**
**
270
**
116
172
20
510
e
Pennsylvania
2,756
1,641
317
346
0
0
0
35
377
40
0
0
c
Rhode Island
4,954
**
**
**
**
170
**
**
**
**
**
4,784
South Carolina
14,967
9,505
550
4,657
0
0
0
0
0
186
69
0
South Dakota
3,413
3,065
**
**
**
348
**
**
**
**
**
0
Tennessee
23,907
15,880
2,421
4,379
0
0
0
0
940
287
0
0
Texas
174,349
115,116
**
**
**
53,113
**
**
0
1,878
4,242
0
Utah
5,417
2,331
440
358
0
0
44
1
1,472
61
710
0
c
Vermont
3,972
2,796
116
378
~
~
**
~
328
23
331
0
c
Virginia
25,541
16,715
0
0
0
2,212
0
2,568
2,855
276
915
0
Washingtonc
68,812
44,664
259
513
8
**
353
397
6,960
51
287
15,320
West Virginia
1,447
**
**
782
**
**
**
**
**
**
665
0
c
Wisconsin
24,723
16,244
794
6,640
~
0
13
0
848
184
0
0
Wyoming
3,371
1,165
146
302
0
23
120
0
0
0
**
1,615
Northeast
218,542
59,610
4,533
724
**
1,313
**
35
8,896
427
417
142,587
Midwest
607,228
236,351
17,690
34,274
276
4,131
23,994
2,387
9,671
1,321
18,222
258,911
South
936,398
571,309
41,377
80,028
431
65,248
26,830
11,106
66,384
6,221
25,478
41,986
West
407,531
206,742
2,497
12,889
8
4,826
6,322
533
82,531
1,063
28,075
62,045
Note: Based on reported data only. For imputed exits from probation, see appendix table 2.
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
a
Includes probationers discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, including some with only financial conditions remaining, some who had their probation sentence revoked
but were not incarcerated because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits; includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.
b
Includes 7,010 probationers transferred to another jurisdiction and 65,215 probationers who exited supervision for other reasons. Other reasons include probationers discharged through a legislative mandate,
because they were deported or transferred to the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), transferred to another state through an interstate compact agreement, had their sentence
dismissed or overturned by the court through an appeal, had their sentence closed administratively, deferred, or terminated by the court, were awaiting a hearing, were released on bond, some who elected jail
time in lieu of probation, and other types of exits.
c
Some or all detailed data are estimated for type of exit.
d
See Explantory notes for more detail.
e
Data represent state probationers only. Data are not available for county probationers.

25 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 5. Characteristics of adults on probation, 2000,
2008-2009
Characteristics
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race and Hispanic or Latino origin
Whitea
Blacka
Hispanic or Latino

2000
100 %

2008
100 %

2009
100 %

78 %
22

76 %
24

76 %
24

54 %
31
13

56 %
29
13

55 %
30
13

American Indian/Alaska Nativea

1

1

1

Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islandera
1
1
1
Two or more racesa
...
1
-Status of supervision
Active
76 %
71 %
72 %
Residential/other treatment program
...
1
1
Financial conditions remaining
...
1
1
Inactive
9
8
6
Absconder
9
8
8
Supervised out of jurisdiction
3
3
3
Warrant status
...
6
6
Other
3
2
2
Type of offense
Felony
52 %
49 %
51 %
Misdemeanor
46
48
47
Other infractions
2
2
2
Most serious offense
Violent
...
19 %
19 %
Domestic violence
...
4
4
Sex offense
...
3
3
Other violent offense
...
12
13
Property
...
25
26
Drug
24
29
26
Public-order
24
17
18
DWI/DUI
18
14
15
Other traffic offense
6
4
4
Otherb
52
10
10
Note: Each characteristic is based on probationers with a known status. Detail may not sum to total
because of rounding. See appendix tables 6 -10 for 2009 data by jurisdiction.
--Less than 0.5%.
...Not available.
a
Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
b
Includes violent and property offenses in 2000, because those data were not collected separately.

26 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 6. Adults on probation, by sex, 2009
Probation population,
Region and jurisdiction
12/31/2009
U.S. total
4,203,967
Federal
22,783
State
4,181,184
Alabama
49,955
Alaska
6,747
Arizona*
78,243
Arkansas
30,130
California
312,046
Colorado*
78,114
Connecticut
56,336
Delaware
16,831
District of Columbia
8,955
Florida*
267,738
Georgia
392,688
Hawaii*
19,469
Idaho
56,975
Illinois
144,692
Indiana
130,207
Iowa
23,201
Kansas
17,236
Kentucky*
54,205
Louisiana
42,259
Maine
7,316
Maryland
104,541
Massachusetts*
180,677
Michigan*
175,131
Minnesota
121,446
Mississippi
24,276
Missouri
57,665
Montana
10,085
Nebraska
18,591
Nevada*
12,300
New Hampshire
4,509
New Jersey*
124,176
New Mexico
20,086
New York
119,657
North Carolina
106,581
North Dakota
4,173
Ohio*
254,949
Oklahoma*
27,067
Oregon
40,724
Pennsylvania
192,231
Rhode Island
25,924
South Carolina
39,688
South Dakota
6,602
Tennessee
59,558
Texas*
426,331
Utah
11,528
Vermont*
6,833
Virginia*
55,645
Washington*
96,369
West Virginia
8,409
Wisconsin
47,421
Wyoming
4,668
Northeast
717,659
Midwest
1,001,314
South
1,714,857
West
747,354
**Not known.
*Some or all detailed data are estimated for sex.

27 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Male
2,342,640
14,157
2,328,483
36,386
5,419
60,656
21,035
**
56,709
44,537
12,972
7,191
189,435
116,191
14,562
10,269
**
**
16,639
**
36,581
31,746
5,995
84,277
149,962
91,818
92,989
18,768
42,983
7,779
13,571
9,831
3,470
98,099
11,125
94,952
80,178
3,093
113,323
17,759
31,592
146,915
21,676
31,718
**
44,513
310,100
8,679
5,242
42,296
39,290
5,652
37,077
3,433
570,848
411,493
1,086,798
259,344

Female
740,253
8,236
732,017
11,910
1,328
15,087
9,095
**
19,437
11,794
3,857
1,732
63,738
36,463
4,736
3,582
**
**
6,415
**
17,624
10,513
1,321
19,495
30,715
32,178
28,457
5,508
14,382
2,305
4,834
2,469
1,039
26,077
3,714
23,799
26,403
1,080
43,773
5,324
9,132
45,316
4,124
7,970
**
15,045
116,231
2,849
1,591
13,210
12,275
2,523
10,344
1,223
145,776
141,463
366,641
78,137

Unknown or
not reported
1,121,074
390
1,120,684
1,659
0
2,500
0
312,046
1,968
5
2
32
14,565
240,034
171
43,124
144,692
130,207
147
17,236
0
0
0
769
0
51,135
0
0
300
1
186
0
0
0
5,247
906
0
0
97,853
3,984
0
0
124
0
6,602
0
0
0
0
139
44,804
234
0
12
1,035
448,358
261,418
409,873

December 2010

Appendix Table 7. Adults on probation, by race and Hispanic or Latino origin, 2009

Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizonaa
Arkansas
California
Coloradoa
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Floridaa
Georgia
Hawaiia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuckya
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandb
Massachusetts
Michigana
b
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jerseya
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohioa
a
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islandb
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texasa

Probation
population,
12/31/2009
4,203,967
22,783
4,181,184
49,955
6,747
78,243
30,130
312,046
78,114
56,336
16,831
8,955
267,738
392,688
19,469
56,975
144,692
130,207
23,201
17,236
54,205
42,259
7,316
104,541
180,677
175,131
121,446
24,276
57,665
10,085
18,591
12,300
4,509
124,176
20,086
119,657
106,581
4,173
254,949
27,067
40,724
192,231
25,924
39,688
6,602
59,558
426,331
11,528
6,833
55,645
96,369
8,409
47,421
4,668
717,659
1,001,314
1,714,857
747,354

White
1,483,180
10,872
1,472,308
23,457
3,948
34,346
18,741
**
54,142
26,871
8,957
679
132,559
71,883
4,762
10,765
**
**
18,162
**
34,891
20,094
6,649
50,407
**
48,400
83,104
9,942
40,768
7,791
13,089
**
4,031
44,803
4,354
55,071
49,602
3,122
71,908
13,837
32,264
113,517
14,475
18,210
**
34,600
175,009
8,641
6,076
28,101
26,326
7,405
32,678
3,871
271,493
311,231
698,374
191,210

Black/African
American
804,591
5,962
798,629
24,240
620
7,105
9,773
**
7,415
15,265
7,015
7,470
63,681
71,574
729
226
**
**
3,053
**
12,825
21,826
276
51,642
**
29,373
18,971
13,928
15,464
135
2,119
**
172
48,670
782
34,452
47,434
190
34,374
5,102
2,380
60,526
5,033
20,648
**
21,919
90,340
478
256
25,986
4,692
656
9,703
111
164,650
113,247
496,059
24,673

Utah
Vermonta,b
a
Virginia
a
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsinb
Wyoming
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
/Not reported.
a
Some or all detailed data are estimated for race and Hispanic or Latino origin.
b
See Explanatory notes for more detail.

28 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Hispanic or
Latino
362,156
3,797
358,359
685
211
28,989
1,333
**
12,155
12,399
773
615
34,906
7,225
**
1,999
**
**
1,183
**
6,118
112
**
**
**
1,012
/
142
798
285
2,342
**
**
14,902
7,908
24,182
5,620
148
2,507
1,858
4,767
12,190
4,947
649
**
2,441
156,476
1,176
/
0
2,352
43
2,536
375
68,620
10,526
218,996
60,217

American
Indian/Alaska
Native
25,981
585
25,396
62
1,572
3,835
86
**
725
99
6
3
392
163
**
353
**
**
268
**
28
25
88
**
**
622
4,813
26
131
1,186
521
**
5
0
1,127
471
1,910
693
53
1,794
585
164
142
41
**
71
**
345
44
22
1,034
2
1,682
207
1,013
8,783
4,631
10,969

Asian
21,137
897
20,240
67
295
413
84
**
796
417
38
52
1,339
424
3,775
79
**
**
240
**
123
75
17
725
**
361
2,747
66
166
24
130
**
15
1,391
40
1,174
333
20
216
98
521
751
277
43
**
523
**
82
42
367
1,318
5
567
4
4,084
4,447
4,362
7,347

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
6,256
167
6,089
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
0
4
131
**
5,342
**
**
**
~
**
**
116
1
**
**
75
**
0
**
**
0
**
2
0
22
~
56
0
6
**
**
12
/
0
**
0
**
195
/
**
118
**
/
9
15
81
307
5,686

Two or more Unknown or not
races
reported
13,191
1,487,475
**
503
13,191
1,486,972
12
1,432
**
101
**
3,555
**
113
**
312,046
**
2,881
15
1,270
0
42
~
132
185
34,545
69
241,350
**
4,861
**
43,553
**
144,692
**
130,207
~
295
**
17,236
220
0
~
11
6
279
**
1,767
**
180,677
88
95,200
11,811
0
0
172
**
338
91
573
0
390
**
12,300
**
284
0
14,410
**
5,853
~
4,307
**
1,626
0
0
204
145,681
**
4,378
**
207
208
4,863
/
1,050
~
97
**
6,602
0
4
**
4,506
0
611
/
415
0
1,169
234
60,295
39
259
**
255
9
82
229
207,555
12,103
540,896
525
291,603
334
446,918

December 2010

Appendix Table 8. Adults on probation, by status of supervision, 2009

Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabamaa
Alaska
b
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Coloradoa,b
Connecticutb
Delaware
District of Columbia
b
Florida
b
Georgia
Hawaiib
b,c
Idaho
Illinois
Indianaa
Iowaa
Kansas
Kentuckyb
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandc
Massachusetts a
Michigana,b
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohioa,b
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islandc
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texasb
Utah
Vermonta,b
Virginiab
a,b
Washington

Probation
population,
12/31/2009
4,203,967
22,783
4,181,184
49,955
6,747
78,243
30,130
312,046
78,114
56,336
16,831
8,955
267,738
392,688
19,469
56,975
144,692
130,207
23,201
17,236
54,205
42,259
7,316
104,541
180,677
175,131
121,446
24,276
57,665
10,085
18,591
12,300
4,509
124,176
20,086
119,657
106,581
4,173
254,949
27,067
40,724
192,231
25,924
39,688
6,602
59,558
426,331
11,528
6,833
55,645
96,369
8,409
47,421
4,668
717,659
1,001,314
1,714,857
747,354

Active
2,062,842
22,783
2,040,059
38,568
5,854
50,419
19,409
**
72,991
43,554
11,619
5,022
151,530
129,553
16,627
30,435
**
**
23,201
17,236
43,540
38,193
5,821
60,990
**
87,814
**
23,102
52,971
7,599
16,287
9,265
3,733
68,182
13,951
103,726
88,016
3,551
96,555
1,370
26,015
135,095
10,780
24,919
6,206
50,404
299,313
10,174
5,723
50,877
29,363
7,211
39,151
4,144
376,614
342,972
1,043,636
276,837

Residential/other
treatment program
23,033
0
23,033
124
0
**
**
**
726
**
**
184
100
3,715
195
**
**
**
**
0
500
223
0
**
**
83
**
255
**
31
0
**
**
**
**
**
5,869
0
1,226
**
1
0
**
0
**
539
**
0
~
0
9,087
0
104
71
**
1,413
11,509
10,111

Financial
conditions
remaining
35,253
0
35,253
**
0
**
**
**
0
**
1,267
0
40
20
**
**
**
**
**
0
3
~
0
**
**
214
**
**
**
**
0
**
0
32,825
**
**
**
0
843
**
**
0
**
0
**
0
**
0
31
0
10
0
0
0
32,856
1,057
1,330
10

Inactive
182,981
0
182,981
**
0
6,438
4,033
**
913
**
**
104
38,883
1,675
**
24,097
**
**
**
0
6,068
2,224
0
21,858
**
763
**
**
**
**
0
50
0
**
2,745
0
~
0
24,648
**
54
17,427
8,360
7,376
**
0
8,400
0
46
0
6,819
0
0
0
25,833
25,411
90,621
41,116

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
**Not known.
~Not applicable
/Not reported.
a
December 31, 2009, population excludes probationers in one or more statuses. See Explanatory notes for more detail.
b
Some or all detailed data are estimated for status of supervision.
c
See Explanatory notes for more detail.

29 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Absconder
221,023
0
221,023
7,348
893
8,724
5,405
**
37
1,927
**
86
24,632
13,407
**
0
**
**
~
0
1,761
~
0
**
**
445
**
**
**
1,040
23
2,124
316
20,850
1,632
**
11,638
0
2,341
**
13,569
22,133
**
5,590
**
2,315
63,674
959
2
0
2,627
0
5,405
120
45,228
8,214
135,856
31,725

Warrant
status
182,818
0
182,818
**
0
**
**
**
1,494
9,168
3,382
1,763
8,255
102,080
2,218
1,086
**
**
**
0
0
~
898
5,817
**
5,564
**
**
352
**
1,891
**
**
~
**
15,717
**
0
10,641
**
**
0
5,339
818
**
3,290
**
75
756
0
1,463
0
751
**
31,878
19,199
125,405
6,336

Supervised out
of jurisdiction
89,427
0
89,427
2,483
/
2,346
1,283
**
1,786
1,687
563
345
6,408
1,489
429
990
**
/
/
0
1,929
1,619
191
945
/
1,382
2,144
919
4,042
856
390
861
460
2,319
1,758
214
1,058
622
5,117
**
1,082
17,576
1,001
985
396
3,010
10,266
317
275
4,768
357
416
2,010
333
23,723
16,103
38,486
11,115

Other
67,977
0
67,977
**
0
0
0
**
**
**
**
1,451
1,005
**
0
7
**
**
**
0
404
~
406
14,931
**
**
**
0
**
220
0
0
0
**
**
0
0
0
1,652
**
0
0
444
0
**
0
44,678
0
~
0
1,997
782
0
0
850
1,652
63,251
2,224

Unknown or
not reported
1,338,613
0
1,338,613
1,432
0
10,316
0
312,046
167
0
0
0
36,885
140,749
0
360
144,692
130,207
0
0
0
0
0
0
180,677
78,866
119,302
0
300
339
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111,926
25,697
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
44,646
0
0
0
180,677
585,293
204,763
367,880

December 2010

Appendix Table 9. Adults on probation, by type of offense, 2009
Probation
population,
12/31/2009
4,203,967
22,783
4,181,184
49,955
6,747
78,243
30,130
312,046
78,114
56,336
16,831
8,955
267,738
392,688
19,469
56,975
144,692
130,207
23,201
17,236
54,205
42,259
7,316
104,541
180,677
175,131
121,446
24,276
57,665
10,085
18,591
12,300
4,509
124,176
20,086
119,657
106,581
4,173
254,949
27,067
40,724
192,231
25,924
39,688
6,602
59,558
426,331
11,528
6,833
55,645
96,369
8,409
47,421
4,668
717,659
1,001,314
1,714,857
747,354

Unknown or
Misdemeanor
Othera
Region and jurisdiction
not reported
Felony
U.S. total
1,665,216
1,530,520
77,445
930,786
Federal
16,537
3,908
2,278
60
State
1,648,679
1,526,612
75,167
930,726
Alabama
**
5,093
**
44,862
Alaska
6,747
0
0
0
Arizonab
50,325
7,547
17,727
2,644
Arkansas
28,474
1,656
0
0
California
**
**
**
312,046
Coloradob
27,201
48,069
1,095
1,749
Connecticutb
30,320
19,440
6,538
38
Delaware
4,425
11,061
1,345
0
District of Columbia
2,592
2,494
2,873
996
Floridab
171,506
87,163
1,591
7,478
Georgia
151,871
240,817
0
0
Hawaii
13,149
3,203
1,652
1,465
Idaho
13,851
**
**
43,124
Illinois
**
**
**
144,692
Indianab
58,128
72,079
0
0
Iowa
8,979
14,196
26
0
Kansas
3,610
13,626
0
0
Kentuckyb
30,200
14,805
9,200
0
Louisiana
41,909
350
~
0
Maine
5,202
2,114
0
0
Marylandc
32,715
71,826
0
0
Massachusetts
**
**
**
180,677
Michiganb
58,779
88,954
260
27,138
Minnesota
44,353
77,093
0
0
Mississippi
24,276
0
0
0
Missouri
56,103
1,262
**
300
Montana
9,587
498
0
0
Nebraska
3,718
14,873
0
0
Nevadab
8,112
4,188
0
0
New Hampshire
**
**
**
4,509
New Jersey b
60,723
47,843
15,610
0
New Mexico
**
5,247
**
14,839
New York
59,828
57,205
161
2,463
North Carolina
37,561
68,548
0
472
North Dakota
3,072
985
116
0
Ohiob
55,478
130,272
847
68,352
Oklahomab
**
3,984
**
23,083
Oregon
26,664
12,326
**
1,734
Pennsylvania
60,872
123,809
7,423
127
Rhode Island
18,221
6,683
1,019
1
South Carolina
24,061
8,217
7,410
0
South Dakota
4,289
2,313
~
0
Tennessee
49,911
9,647
0
0
Texas
249,670
176,661
0
0
Utah
8,572
2,763
193
0
Vermontb
2,365
4,390
~
78
Virginiab
55,645
0
0
0
Washingtonb
13,394
35,353
**
47,622
West Virginia
6,548
1,627
**
234
Wisconsin
23,031
24,309
81
0
Wyoming
2,642
2,023
0
3
Northeast
237,531
261,484
30,751
187,893
Midwest
319,540
439,962
1,330
240,482
South
911,364
703,949
22,419
77,125
West
180,244
121,217
20,667
425,226
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
a
Includes probationers under supervision for a petty, traffic, DWI, or domestic violence offense, a city
ordinance violation, a civil protection order, a tax offense, a deferred sentence or placed on supervision
after being released on bail, and other types of offenses.
b
Some or all detailed data are estimated for type of offense.
c
See Explanatory notes for more detail.

30 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 10. Adults on probation, by most serious offense, 2009

Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizonab
Arkansas
California
Coloradob
b
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Floridab
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuckyb
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandc
Massachusetts
Michiganb
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jerseyb
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohiob
b
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvaniad
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texasb

Probation
population,
12/31/2009
4,203,967
22,783
4,181,184
49,955
6,747
78,243
30,130
312,046
78,114
56,336
16,831
8,955
267,738
392,688
19,469
56,975
144,692
130,207
23,201
17,236
54,205
42,259
7,316
104,541
180,677
175,131
121,446
24,276
57,665
10,085
18,591
12,300
4,509
124,176
20,086
119,657
106,581
4,173
254,949
27,067
40,724
192,231
25,924
39,688
6,602
59,558
426,331
11,528
6,833
55,645
96,369
8,409
47,421
4,668
717,659
1,001,314
1,714,857
747,354

Violent
Domestic
violence
81,532
2
81,530
325
255
1,123
2,019
**
2,766
4,096
220
76
4,155
525
**
297
**
**
**
**
3,331
91
1,609
**
**
4,624
5,847
243
5,010
231
1,004
**
**
2,904
**
**
3,268
**
6,954
438
978
**
3,074
1,104
**
1,801
16,111
276
596
724
5,186
**
**
269
12,279
23,439
34,431
11,381

Sex offense
67,114
206
66,908
**
350
4,948
712
**
56
**
403
144
2,910
6,816
**
934
**
**
**
**
605
892
652
3,417
**
952
4,650
823
997
622
316
**
**
1,496
**
4,830
2,052
**
2,191
1,370
2,043
309
1,096
1,060
**
972
11,946
819
441
2,170
2,269
420
**
225
8,824
9,106
36,712
12,266

Other violent
offense
277,698
337
277,361
**
988
11,222
2,024
**
222
8,101
2,780
1,988
35,296
26,077
**
1,993
**
**
**
**
5,852
1,951
308
20,178
**
1,835
10,717
2,367
6,105
2,213
1,152
**
**
11,217
**
19,801
10,039
**
5,283
3,236
6,533
1,690
3,222
5,387
**
7,477
47,395
1,385
1,033
6,900
3,040
**
**
354
45,372
25,092
178,947
27,950

Property
575,360
10,336
565,024
**
814
21,999
10,569
**
773
13,058
2,863
1,034
76,267
53,446
**
4,192
**
**
**
**
10,716
13,159
2,074
19,814
**
4,227
16,674
10,399
17,438
2,691
1,394
**
**
46,255
**
30,889
19,743
**
18,855
5,303
8,117
318
3,003
14,171
**
9,941
99,548
3,428
1,674
15,970
3,136
**
**
1,072
97,271
58,588
362,943
46,222

Drug
582,759
3,486
579,273
202
358
22,537
10,204
**
256
11,160
1,876
2,981
54,498
54,357
**
4,470
**
**
**
**
17,320
20,457
1,283
25,706
**
5,754
14,159
9,461
20,849
2,147
1,339
**
**
58,538
**
21,807
22,984
**
15,792
8,800
10,835
1,231
7,406
9,036
**
11,820
107,952
3,477
557
11,073
5,239
**
**
1,352
101,982
57,893
368,727
50,671

Public-order
Other traffic
DWI/DUI
offense
326,594
78,240
1,805
413
324,789
77,827
**
**
437
109
6,615
726
23
34
**
**
3,857
682
4,326
4,813
3,889
0
995
143
20,546
15,998
1,263
0
**
**
1,866
99
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
6,112
5,754
1,955
174
609
367
19,387
6,060
**
**
10,704
2,735
47,949
8,695
948
35
4,067
1,178
1,099
3
8,701
3,309
**
**
**
**
2,966
800
**
**
26,866
2,533
18,372
11,732
**
**
10,001
5,706
2,987
8
4,014
0
329
**
336
797
1,310
1,693
**
**
3,754
704
97,689
**
956
349
1,364
473
1,057
668
6,422
1,428
**
**
**
**
1,018
22
36,796
9,783
81,422
21,623
180,287
43,003
26,284
3,418

Other a
213,745
6,096
207,649
3,134
841
4,695
4,545
**
**
10,782
4,800
1,254
18,808
10,170
**
**
**
**
**
**
4,515
2,693
**
9,979
**
9,235
12,754
0
1,721
259
1,376
**
**
0
**
10,183
0
**
7,740
2,311
**
1,526
6,990
5,927
**
21,179
45,690
750
617
1,669
1,150
**
**
356
30,098
32,826
136,674
8,051

Unknown or not
reported
2,000,925
102
2,000,823
46,294
2,595
4,378
0
312,046
69,502
0
0
340
39,260
240,034
19,469
43,124
144,692
130,207
23,201
17,236
0
887
414
0
180,677
135,065
1
0
300
820
0
12,300
4,509
0
20,086
2,748
18,391
4,173
182,427
2,614
8,204
186,828
0
0
6,602
1,910
0
88
78
15,414
68,499
7,989
47,421
0
375,254
691,325
373,133
561,111

Utah
Vermontb
b
Virginia
b
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
**Not known.
a
Includes some probationers under supervision for a public-order offense, such as a weapon offense, immigration offense, obstruction of justice, drunkenness, disorderly conduct,
vagrancy, commercialized vice, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, harboring a criminal, animal abuse, harassment, tax violation, underage sale or consumption of alcohol,
making a false alarm, non-support of dependents, and other offenses. Also includes some probationers under supervision for a property offense, such as fraud, forgery, trespassing, and
arson, because they could not be reportedly separately in “property" offense.
b
Some or all detailed data are estimated for most serious offense.
c
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
d
Detailed data represent state probationers only. Detailed data are not available for county probationers.

31 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 11. Adults on probation, 2009: number tracked by a Global Positioning
System (GPS), number on parole, or number incarcerated
Location tracked by GPS
Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federala,b
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizonaa
Arkansas
California
Coloradoa
Connecticuta
Delaware
District of Columbia
Floridaa
Georgiaa
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuckya
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandc
Massachusetts a
Michigana
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakotaa
Ohioa
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvaniad
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermonta
Virginiaa,c
Washingtona
West Virginiac

Total
8,079
95
7,984
**
~
346
~
**
42
53
124
327
2,221
33
~
53
**
~
523
**
217
0
**
**
965
236
**
~
63
2
~
~
~
~
**
**
955
53
1,075
**
~
**
~
143
~
151
**
**
3
116
230
18
32
3
1,021
1,982
4,305
676

Sex offenders
3,383
13
3,370
**
~
227
~
**
**
53
**
23
1,575
9
~
4
**
~
237
**
40
0
**
**
618
52
**
~
10
2
~
~
~
~
**
**
121
45
16
**
~
**
~
128
~
148
**
**
1
**
10
18
30
3
672
390
2,062
246

On parole
5,565
~
5,565
**
~
**
**
**
**
**
**
389
39
**
**
**
**
~
~
**
847
232
9
**
**
219
**
~
**
**
~
**
~
~
1,037
~
422
**
204
**
0
0
0
~
~
**
**
0
**
**
1,718
152
297
**
9
720
2,081
2,755

Jail
21,356
~
21,356
1,346
~
**
968
**
11
~
**
0
1,032
**
**
1
**
~
~
**
191
4,128
110
**
**
158
**
~
**
198
~
**
~
~
0
~
**
**
2,634
**
58
782
~
~
~
1,872
3,963
1,715
**
**
1,250
939
**
**
892
2,792
14,439
3,233

Prison
11,894
~
11,894
**
~
**
127
**
**
~
13
635
1,282
**
**
1
**
~
~
**
29
11
2
**
**
227
**
~
**
220
~
**
~
~
0
~
**
**
187
**
0
24
2,937
~
~
267
4,437
26
439
**
15
**
1,015
**
3,402
1,429
6,801
262

Incarcerated
Community-based
correctional facility
12,766
~
12,766
**
~
**
73
**
3,407
~
7
0
8
3,715
**
**
**
~
626
**
300
48
0
**
**
47
**
~
**
31
~
**
~
~
0
~
**
**
1,051
**
0
5
~
~
~
**
3,208
81
**
**
51
**
**
108
5
1,724
7,359
3,678

ICE holding
facility
2,334
~
2,334
**
~
**
0
**
58
**
**
8
1,145
0
**
**
**
~
~
~
0
15
0
**
**
7
**
~
**
**
~
**
~
~
0
~
**
**
13
**
1,017
2
~
~
~
20
**
3
**
**
46
**
**
**
2
20
1,188
1,124

Wisconsin
Wyoming
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
**Not known.
~Not applicable
a
Some or all detailed data are estimated.
b
A sex offender is defined as any offender convicted of a sex offense, ordered to a special condition for sex offender treatment, or fulfilling
other sex offender treatment requirements.
c
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
d
Detailed data represent state probationers only. Detailed data are not available for county probationers.

32 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 12. Adults on parole, 2009
Parole
Parole
Number on parole per
population,
population,
Percent change, 100,000 adults
Entries
Exits
a
a
1/1/2009
Reported
Imputed
12/31/2009
Change, 2009 2009
residents, 12/31/2009
Region and jurisdiction
Reported
Imputed
U.S. total
824,834
545,266
573,900
552,611
579,100
819,308
-5,526
-0.7 %
351
Federal
97,010
46,348
46,348
41,116
41,116
102,242
5,232
5.4 %
44
State
727,824
498,918
527,500
511,495
538,000
717,066
-10,758
-1.5 %
307
Alabamab
8,042
3,181
3,181
2,794
2,794
8,429
387
4.8
234
Alaskab
1,714
616
616
454
454
1,939
225
13.1
374
c
Arizona
7,537
14,143
14,143
13,471
13,471
8,209
672
8.9
168
Arkansas
19,687
9,911
9,911
8,432
8,432
21,166
1,479
7.5
967
Californiad
120,753
175,840
175,840
190,558
190,558
106,035
-14,718
-12.2
383
Coloradob
11,654
9,981
9,981
9,980
9,980
11,655
1
0.0
304
b
Connecticut
2,328
3,354
3,354
2,809
2,809
2,873
545
23.4
106
Delawareb
551
426
426
458
458
519
-32
-5.8
76
District of Columbiab
5,767
2,326
2,326
1,774
1,774
6,319
552
9.6
1,288
Floridab,c
4,528
6,993
6,993
7,198
7,198
4,323
-205
-4.5
30
Georgia
23,448
13,008
13,008
12,427
12,427
24,029
581
2.5
329
b
Hawaii
1,904
733
733
806
806
1,831
-73
-3.8
182
Idahob
3,361
1,756
1,756
1,670
1,670
3,447
86
2.6
304
Illinois
33,683
34,693
34,693
35,214
35,214
33,162
-521
-1.5
339
d
Indiana
10,653
11,280
11,280
11,406
11,406
10,527
-126
-1.2
217
d
Iowa
3,159
2,506
2,506
2,400
2,400
3,265
106
3.4
142
Kansasd
4,958
4,803
4,803
4,751
4,751
5,010
52
1.0
236
Kentuckyb
12,377
6,632
6,632
6,472
6,472
12,537
160
1.3
378
Louisiana
24,636
13,660
13,660
12,613
12,613
25,683
1,047
4.2
758
Maine
31
1
1
1
1
31
0
0.0
3
Maryland
13,220
7,463
7,463
6,941
6,941
13,742
522
3.9
315
Massachusettsb
3,113
4,716
4,716
4,464
4,464
3,365
252
8.1
65
Michiganb
22,523
13,618
13,618
11,767
11,767
24,374
1,851
8.2
320
Minnesota
5,093
5,642
5,642
5,300
5,300
5,435
342
6.7
135
Mississippi b
2,922
4,078
4,078
1,574
1,574
5,426
2,504
85.7
248
Missouri
19,212
11,934
11,934
11,473
11,473
19,673
461
2.4
430
Montanab
1,062
548
548
603
603
1,007
-55
-5.2
133
Nebraska
846
1,044
1,044
1,067
1,067
823
-23
-2.7
61
Nevada
3,908
4,202
4,202
3,924
3,924
4,186
278
7.1
212
b
New Hampshire
1,661
1,107
1,107
948
948
1,820
159
9.6
175
New Jersey
15,532
8,497
8,497
8,673
8,673
15,356
-176
-1.1
229
New Mexicob
3,724
276
276
843
843
3,157
-567
-15.2
209
New York
52,225
24,224
24,224
26,499
26,499
49,950
-2,275
-4.4
329
North Carolinab,c
3,409
3,677
3,677
3,542
3,542
3,544
135
4.0
50
North Dakota
386
727
727
756
756
357
-29
-7.5
71
Ohiob
19,119
8,711
8,711
13,255
13,255
14,575
-4,544
-23.8
165
Oklahomac
3,073
894
894
997
997
2,970
-103
-3.4
107
Oregon
21,962
8,987
8,987
8,555
8,555
22,394
432
2.0
754
b,e
Pennsylvania
72,951
11,107
39,700
11,039
37,600
75,112
2,161
3.0
761
Rhode Islandd
469
626
626
510
510
585
116
24.7
71
South Carolinab
1,857
376
376
621
621
1,612
-245
-13.2
46
South Dakota
2,720
1,767
1,767
1,739
1,739
2,748
28
1.0
446
b
Tennessee
10,464
5,080
5,080
3,616
3,616
11,627
1,163
11.1
241
Texasc
102,921
34,702
34,702
32,680
32,680
104,943
2,022
2.0
581
Utah
3,566
2,144
2,144
2,506
2,506
3,204
-362
-10.2
166
Vermontb,c
1,081
606
606
600
600
1,087
6
0.6
219
b,c
Virginia
4,471
876
876
742
742
4,605
134
3.0
76
b
Washington
11,768
6,111
6,111
11,316
11,316
6,563
-5,205
-44.2
128
West Virginia
2,005
1,341
1,341
1,457
1,457
1,889
-116
-5.8
131
Wisconsinc
19,063
7,698
7,698
7,427
7,427
19,334
271
1.4
443
Wyoming
727
296
296
373
373
614
-113
-15.5
147
Northeast
149,391
54,238
82,900
55,543
82,100
150,179
788
0.5 %
349
Midwest
141,415
104,423
104,423
106,555
106,555
139,283
-2,132
-1.5
273
South
243,378
114,624
114,624
104,338
104,338
253,363
9,985
4.1
295
West
193,640
225,633
225,633
245,059
245,059
174,241
-19,399
-10.0
324
Note: Because of nonresponse or incomplete data, the parole population for some jurisdictions on December 31, 2009, does not equal the population on January 1, plus entries, minus exits.
Rates were computed using the estimated adult resident population in each jurisdiction on January 1, 2009. See Methodology for more detail.
a
Reflects reported data except for jurisdictions in which data were not available. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.
b
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
c
Some or all data were estimated.
d
Population excludes parolees in one of the following categories: absconder or supervised out of state. See Explanatory notes for more detail.
e

Data for entries and exits were estimated for nonreporting county agencies. See Methodology . The December 31, 2009, population includes 25,374 parolees under state parole supervision.
Reported entries reflect parolees who entered state parole supervision through a discretionary release from prison.

33 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 13. Adults entering parole, by type of sentence, 2009
Term of
supervised
Total
Unknown or
a
b
c
reported
Discretionary
not reported
Region and jurisdiction
Mandatory
Othere
Reinstatement releasedd
41,318
U.S. total
545,266
146,696
250,288
81,139
18,515
7,310
70
Federal
46,348
771
498
45,009
0
0
41,248
State
498,918
145,925
249,790
36,130
18,515
7,310
**
Alabama
3,181
**
**
**
30
3,151
**
Alaska
616
37
579
**
**
0
f
Arizona
0
14,143
63
213
12,783
1,084
0
**
Arkansas
9,911
9,560
**
**
351
0
35,268
California
175,840
3
130,723
**
9,846
0
Coloradog
0
9,981
3,351
6,100
0
530
0
**
Connecticut
3,354
2,538
0
816
0
0
**
Delaware
426
**
**
**
**
426
0
District of Columbia
2,326
671
0
1,655
0
0
2
Florida
6,993
70
6,490
416
15
0
Georgia g
2,068
13,008
10,940
~
~
~
0
0
Hawaii
733
733
0
0
0
0
308
Idaho
1,756
1,448
~
~
~
0
456
Illinois
34,693
19
32,693
~
933
592
0
Indiana
11,280
0
11,280
0
0
0
**
Iowa
2,506
**
**
**
**
2,506
g
Kansas
96
4,803
167
10
3,172
1,358
0
9
Kentucky
6,632
6,233
135
~
255
0
275
Louisiana
13,660
615
12,768
**
2
0
0
Maine
1
1
0
0
0
0
Marylandg
**
7,463
3,020
4,443
**
**
0
269
Massachusetts
4,716
4,447
0
0
0
0
f
678
Michigan
13,618
11,907
1,033
~
0
0
0
Minnesota
5,642
0
5,642
0
0
0
148
Mississippi
4,078
3,930
0
0
0
0
584
Missouri
11,934
9,430
895
**
1,025
0
Montanag
0
548
548
0
0
0
0
12
Nebraska
1,044
1,032
0
0
0
0
f
33
Nevada
4,202
2,675
1,494
~
0
0
0
New Hampshire
1,107
1,107
0
0
0
0
~
New Jersey
8,497
6,904
1,593
~
~
0
**
New Mexico
276
**
**
**
**
276
g
New York
~
24,224
7,515
6,719
8,794
1,196
0
~
North Carolina
3,677
359
923
2,395
0
0
**
North Dakota
727
727
**
**
**
0
357
Ohio
8,711
1,055
7,299
0
0
0
Oklahomaf
0
894
894
0
0
0
0
19
Oregon
8,987
1,126
7,780
**
**
62
0
Pennsylvaniah
11,107
11,107
0
0
0
0
**
Rhode Island
626
626
**
**
**
0
0
South Carolina
376
376
0
0
0
0
8
South Dakota
1,767
645
1,060
~
53
1
351
Tennessee
5,080
4,704
3
0
22
0
Texasf
136
34,702
30,867
2,038
~
1,661
0
27
Utah
2,144
2,117
0
0
0
0
144
Vermontf
606
411
~
0
51
0
Virginiaf
0
876
247
629
0
0
0
0
Washington
6,111
16
6,095
0
0
0
0
West Virginia
1,341
1,341
0
0
0
0
f
Wisconsin
0
7,698
343
1,153
6,099
103
0
**
Wyoming
296
**
**
**
~
296
413
Northeast
54,238
34,656
8,312
9,610
1,247
0
2,191
Midwest
104,423
25,325
61,065
9,271
3,472
3,099
2,989
South
114,624
73,827
27,429
4,466
2,336
3,577
35,655
West
225,633
12,117
152,984
12,783
11,460
634
Note: Based on reported data only. For imputed entries to parole, see appendix table 12.
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
a
Discretionary parole entries are persons entering because of a parole board decision.
b
Mandatory parole entries are persons whose releases from prison were not decided by a parole board. Includes those entering because of
determinate sentencing statutes, good-time provisions, or emergency releases.
c
Reinstatement parole entries are persons returned to parole after serving time in a prison because of a parole violation. Depending on the
reporting jurisdiction, reinstatement entries may include only parolees who were originally released from prison through a discretionary, only
those originally released through a mandatory release, or a combination of both types.
d

Term of supervised release entries are persons sentenced by a judge to a fixed period of incarceration based on a determinate statute
immediately followed by a period of supervised released in the community.
Includes parolees who were: transferred from another state, placed on supervised release from jail, released to a drug transition program,
released from a boot camp operated by the Department of Corrections, released from prison through a conditional medical or mental health
release to parole, absconders that were returned to parole supervision, under supervision due to a suspended sentence, and others.
f
Some or all detailed data are estimated for type of sentence.
g
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
h
Data represent state parolees only. Data are not available for county parolees.
e

34 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 14. Adults exiting parole, by type of exit, 2009
Returned to incarceration
Other
Total
With new
With
To receive Other/
Unknown or
Region and jurisdiction
reported
Completion sentence
revocation treatment unknown Absconder unsatisfactorya
Death
Otherb
not reported
U.S. total
552,611
277,276
47,882
131,734
1,482
4,452
48,608
10,707
5,099
19,345
6,026
Federal
41,116
22,739
2,102
8,926
0
64
1,425
1,094
545
540
3,681
State
511,495
254,537
45,780
122,808
1,482
4,388
47,183
9,613
4,554
18,805
2,345
Alabama
2,794
1,387
606
339
100
3
0
0
91
268
0
Alaska
454
132
14
138
**
143
**
**
**
**
27
Arizonac
13,471
6,819
266
3,152
0
0
0
3,228
6
**
0
Arkansas
8,432
3,725
1,079
2,614
**
100
196
0
156
562
0
California
190,558
61,227
18,286
58,958
**
**
41,958
2
764
9,363
0
Colorado
9,980
4,641
1,051
3,979
0
0
0
0
93
216
0
Connecticut
2,809
1,514
0
0
0
1,157
138
0
**
0
0
Delaware
458
262
**
**
**
8
**
83
7
98
0
District of Columbia
1,774
581
**
**
**
601
0
94
77
421
0
Floridac
7,198
5,152
420
775
**
**
**
**
51
525
275
Georgiad
12,427
8,401
395
2,534
0
962
45
0
82
0
8
Hawaii
806
316
2
256
0
0
0
0
12
0
220
Idaho
1,670
674
173
553
~
0
~
254
16
~
0
Illinois
35,214
20,017
3,357
9,493
~
~
1,066
0
40
808
433
Indiana
11,406
5,775
844
1,724
0
0
1,098
0
48
1,917
0
Iowac
2,400
1,525
**
605
**
0
1
6
20
58
185
Kansasd
4,751
2,144
141
1,124
~
3
1,203
**
40
96
0
Kentucky
6,472
3,254
463
2,076
~
~
435
~
90
154
0
Louisiana
12,613
7,352
1,204
643
~
212
~
2,974
130
98
0
Maine
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Marylandd
6,941
5,360
**
**
**
**
**
1,474
107
**
0
Massachusetts
4,464
3,566
231
642
0
4
0
0
21
0
0
Michigan
11,767
7,537
1,967
2,105
~
~
~
~
0
158
0
Minnesota
5,300
2,778
256
1,854
0
0
395
0
17
0
0
Mississippi
1,574
1,167
0
0
0
255
115
0
19
18
0
Missouri
11,473
5,007
548
5,762
**
**
**
**
156
**
0
d
Montana
603
320
9
265
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
Nebraska
1,067
771
15
277
~
0
0
0
4
0
0
Nevadac
3,924
3,198
290
168
~
164
66
0
38
0
0
New Hampshire
948
408
**
**
**
540
0
0
**
**
0
New Jersey
8,673
6,663
189
1,734
**
**
**
**
87
**
0
New Mexico
843
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
843
New Yorkd
26,499
15,248
1,558
7,967
1,378
136
~
0
212
0
0
North Carolina
3,542
2,791
115
194
~
0
185
23
32
0
202
North Dakota
756
564
33
139
**
**
19
**
1
**
0
Ohio
13,255
8,180
1,045
194
0
0
222
0
141
3,473
0
c
Oklahoma
997
804
112
44
0
0
**
0
37
**
0
Oregon
8,555
5,084
881
1,564
4
**
7
762
120
10
123
Pennsylvaniae
11,039
4,880
2,216
3,202
0
0
0
134
182
425
0
Rhode Island
510
362
34
113
**
0
0
0
1
**
0
South Carolina
621
488
16
90
0
0
0
0
19
8
0
South Dakota
1,739
821
101
787
~
19
~
**
11
**
0
Tennessee
3,616
2,214
651
652
0
0
0
0
99
0
0
c
Texas
32,680
24,132
5,844
1,564
~
0
~
~
1,140
~
0
Utah
2,506
585
285
1,333
0
20
0
174
19
90
0
Vermontc
600
366
97
69
~
28
0
~
10
30
0
Virginiac
742
664
0
0
0
33
0
0
36
9
0
Washington
11,316
10,740
**
**
**
0
0
374
202
0
0
West Virginia
1,457
896
8
507
0
0
34
0
12
0
0
Wisconsinc
7,427
3,761
965
2,572
**
**
**
31
98
**
0
Wyoming
373
284
13
47
0
0
**
0
0
**
29
Northeast
55,543
33,007
4,325
13,727
1,378
1,865
138
134
514
455
0
Midwest
106,555
58,880
9,272
26,636
**
22
4,004
37
576
6,510
618
South
104,338
68,630
10,913
12,032
100
2,174
1,010
4,648
2,185
2,161
485
West
245,059
94,020
21,270
70,413
4
327
42,031
4,794
1,279
9,679
1,242
Note: Based on reported data only. For imputed exits from parole, see appendix table 12.
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
a
Includes parolees discharged from supervision who failed to meet all conditions of supervision, had their parole sentence rescinded, or had their parole sentence revoked but were not
returned to incarceration because their sentence was immediately reinstated, and other types of unsatisfactory exits; includes some early terminations and expirations of sentence.
b
Includes 4,967 parolees who were transferred to another state and 14,378 parolees who exited for other reasons. Other reasons include parolees who were deported or transferred to the
jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had their sentence terminated by the court through an appeal, were transferred to another state through an interstate compact
agreement or discharged to probation supervision, and other types of exits.
c
Some or all detailed data are estimated type of exit.
d
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
e
Data represent state parolees only. Data are not available for county parolees.

35 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 15. Characteristics of adults on parole, 2000, 2008-2009
Characteristics
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race and Hispanic or Latino origin
Whitea
Blacka
Hispanic or Latino
American Indian/Alaska Nativea
Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islandera
Two or more racesa
Status of supervision
Active
Inactive
Absconder
Supervised out of state
Financial conditions remaining
Other
Maximum sentence to incarceration
Less than 1 year
1 year or more
Most serious offense
Violent
Sex offense
Other violent
Property
Drug
Weapon
Otherb

2000
100 %

2008
100 %

2009
100 %

88 %
12

88 %
12

88 %
12

38 %
40
21
1
-...

41 %
38
19
1
1
--

41 %
39
18
1
1
--

83 %
4
7
5
...
1

85 %
4
6
4
-1

85 %
4
5
4
-2

3%
97

6%
94

5%
95

26 %
...
...
23
37
3
11

27 %
8
19
23
36
3
10

...
...
...
...
...
...
...

Note: Each characteristic is based on parolees with a known status. Detail may not sum to total because of
rounding. See appendix tables 16-20 for 2009 data by jurisdiction.
--Less than 0.5%.
...Not available.
a
Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
b
Includes public-order offenses.

36 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 16. Adults on parole, by sex, 2009
Parole population,
12/31/2009
819,308
102,242
717,066
8,429
1,939
8,209
Arkansas
21,166
Californiaa
106,035
Colorado
11,655
Connecticut
2,873
Delaware
519
District of Columbia
6,319
Florida
4,323
Georgia
24,029
Hawaii
1,831
Idaho
3,447
Illinoisa
33,162
Indiana
10,527
Iowa
3,265
Kansas
5,010
Kentucky
12,537
Louisiana
25,683
Maine
31
Marylanda
13,742
Massachusetts
3,365
Michigan
24,374
Minnesota
5,435
Mississippi
5,426
Missouri
19,673
Montanab
1,007
Nebraska
823
Nevadaa
4,186
New Hampshire
1,820
New Jersey
15,356
New Mexico
3,157
New York
49,950
North Carolina
3,544
North Dakota
357
Ohio
14,575
Oklahomaa
2,970
Oregon
22,394
Pennsylvania
75,112
Rhode Island
585
South Carolina
1,612
South Dakota
2,748
Tennessee
11,627
Texasa
104,943
Utah
3,204
Vermonta
1,087
Virginiaa
4,605
Washington
6,563
West Virginia
1,889
Wisconsin
19,334
Wyoming
614
Northeast
150,179
Midwest
139,283
South
253,363
West
174,241
a
Some or all detailed data are estimated for sex.
b
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizonaa

Male
718,982
86,607
632,375
7,543
1,826
7,007
18,166
94,111
9,940
2,470
474
5,777
4,102
21,405
1,566
2,926
29,948
9,309
2,748
4,562
10,264
22,870
30
12,670
3,105
22,424
4,942
4,473
16,726
884
714
3,713
1,596
12,863
2,732
46,672
3,355
290
13,322
2,461
19,527
61,016
546
1,437
2,218
10,186
94,035
2,767
885
4,347
5,948
1,517
17,443
517
129,183
124,646
225,082
153,464

37 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

Female
98,432
15,570
82,862
886
113
1,202
3,000
11,924
1,715
196
45
542
221
2,624
265
521
3,214
1,218
516
448
2,273
2,813
1
1,072
260
1,950
493
953
2,947
123
109
473
224
874
425
3,278
189
67
1,253
509
2,867
14,096
39
175
530
1,441
10,908
437
202
257
615
372
1,891
96
19,170
14,636
28,280
20,776

Unknown or
not reported
1,894
65
1,829
0
0
0
0
0
0
207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,619
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1,826
1
1
1

December 2010

Appendix Table 17. Adults on parole, by race and Hispanic or Latino origin, 2009

Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total

Parole
population,
12/31/2009
819,308
102,242
717,066
8,429
1,939
8,209
21,166
106,035
11,655
2,873
519
6,319
4,323
24,029
1,831
3,447
33,162
10,527
3,265
5,010
12,537
25,683
31
13,742
3,365
24,374
5,435
5,426
19,673
1,007
823
4,186
1,820
15,356
3,157
49,950
3,544
357
14,575
2,970
22,394
75,112
585
1,612
2,748
11,627
104,943
3,204
1,087
4,605
6,563
1,889
19,334
614
150,179
139,283
253,363
174,241

White
330,004
35,921
294,083
2,953
1,124
3,608
11,930
32,473
5,494
621
217
75
1,467
9,352
**
2,558
9,401
6,151
2,530
2,934
9,071
8,722
31
3,700
1,736
11,724
3,258
1,943
12,677
801
511
**
1,556
4,504
889
9,218
1,207
249
7,987
1,569
17,082
40,048
336
550
1,842
6,036
33,807
2,132
1,003
1,566
4,112
1,657
9,202
469
59,053
68,466
95,822
70,742

Black/African
American
315,581
39,163
276,418
5,413
207
1,056
8,518
29,432
1,871
1,234
286
6,106
2,424
13,991
**
64
18,970
3,879
528
1,428
3,331
16,848
0
9,933
811
11,822
1,286
3,447
6,458
22
174
**
105
6,926
234
22,432
2,050
19
6,413
989
1,992
27,131
140
1,031
153
5,275
39,624
154
54
2,992
1,224
215
7,693
33
58,833
58,823
122,473
36,289

Hispanic or
Latino
145,436
22,140
123,296
52
50
2,944
611
38,790
3,963
793
15
112
408
598
**
676
4,649
432
138
512
79
51
0
**
700
292
413
24
423
38
100
**
**
3,557
1,725
17,334
180
21
117
258
2,634
6,065
99
20
95
284
30,915
700
/
**
735
6
1,608
80
28,548
8,800
33,613
52,335

Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizonaa
Arkansas
Californiaa,b
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinoisa
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Marylanda
Massachusetts
Michiganb
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montanab
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahomaa
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islandb
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texasa
Utah
Vermonta,b
Virginiaa
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
/Not reported.
a
Some or all detailed data are estimated for race and Hispanic or Latino origin.
b
See Explanatory notes for more detail.

38 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
8,366
2,008
6,358
3
499
472
37
906
228
6
0
1
8
24
**
72
34
25
40
58
6
8
0
9
8
195
366
3
71
138
29
**
5
16
283
275
69
67
15
139
443
59
3
0
642
11
60
105
9
5
290
2
589
25
381
2,131
385
3,461

Asian
5,529
2,538
2,991
8
49
28
50
443
99
12
0
5
5
20
**
18
93
7
28
40
20
21
0
23
43
73
110
6
31
5
5
**
4
161
8
321
15
1
8
8
231
342
6
0
14
21
230
39
3
14
160
0
162
1
892
572
446
1,081

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
1,219
245
974
0
**
0
0
486
~
~
0
1
5
~
**
~
**
6
~
**
**
32
0
**
0
0
**
0
~
0
0
**
1
**
1
370
1
**
0
0
**
3
/
0
~
0
~
63
/
**
3
0
/
2
374
6
39
555

Two or more
races
133
**
133
0
**
0
**
**
~
~
0
~
5
8
**
~
**
7
~
**
30
~
0
**
0
0
**
0
~
1
~
**
**
**
0
~
**
**
0
**
**
55
/
~
~
0
~
0
/
**
27
0
**
0
55
7
43
28

Unknown or
not reported
13,040
227
12,813
0
10
101
20
3,505
0
207
1
19
1
36
1,831
59
15
20
1
38
0
1
0
77
67
268
2
3
13
2
4
4,186
149
192
17
0
22
0
35
7
12
1,409
1
11
2
0
307
11
18
28
12
9
80
4
2,043
478
542
9,750

December 2010

Appendix Table 18. Adults on parole, by status of supervision, 2009

Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizonab
Arkansas
Californiab,c
d
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indianac
c
Iowa
c
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandd
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montanad
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahomab
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Islandc
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texasb
Utah
Vermontb
b
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
/Not reported.

Parole
population,
12/31/2009
819,308
102,242
717,066
8,429
1,939
8,209
21,166
106,035
11,655
2,873
519
6,319
4,323
24,029
1,831
3,447
33,162
10,527
3,265
5,010
12,537
25,683
31
13,742
3,365
24,374
5,435
5,426
19,673
1,007
823
4,186
1,820
15,356
3,157
49,950
3,544
357
14,575
2,970
22,394
75,112
585
1,612
2,748
11,627
104,943
3,204
1,087
4,605
6,563
1,889
19,334
614
150,179
139,283
253,363
174,241

Only financial
Active conditions
689,764
119
102,242
0
587,522
119
6,260
119
**
**
5,740
~
13,452
**
106,035
0
8,780
~
2,666
0
451
0
4,230
0
2,647
**
20,345
~
1,464
0
2,653
**
30,261
0
9,922
0
3,265
**
4,079
0
10,094
~
23,999
0
26
0
9,574
~
3,090
0
20,893
~
5,167
**
5,238
0
17,276
0
727
0
705
~
2,349
**
1,453
0
10,499
0
2,459
0
35,555
~
3,295
**
266
**
13,856
0
**
**
13,958
**
60,776
**
**
**
1,095
0
2,145
~
10,992
~
79,383
~
2,451
0
1,004
**
4,048
**
4,567
0
1,401
0
16,409
**
522
0
115,069
**
124,244
**
196,504
119
151,705
**

Inactive
34,065
0
34,065
0
**
649
4,455
0
~
0
0
250
981
~
0
354
~
0
~
0
1,134
~
0
3,466
0
~
**
0
0
0
~
1,279
0
3,418
158
5
~
**
0
**
1,428
4,170
**
137
~
~
11,221
0
5
**
820
135
**
0
7,598
**
21,779
4,688

Absconder
42,676
0
42,676
448
**
904
1,986
/
725
0
8
357
447
692
58
0
~
605
0
/
559
655
0
~
152
2,324
**
0
618
23
38
296
77
667
**
3,948
122
**
0
**
6,386
6,672
**
201
189
217
11,072
155
12
23
999
0
1,041
**
11,528
4,815
16,787
9,546

Supervised
out of state
34,310
0
34,310
1,602
**
354
1,273
/
2,150
207
60
19
248
2,992
149
439
2,901
/
/
931
171
1,029
5
702
123
1,157
268
188
1,779
158
80
262
290
751
540
1,369
127
91
719
**
615
3,494
/
179
414
417
3,267
154
66
534
177
353
1,414
92
6,305
9,754
13,161
5,090

Other a
12,871
0
12,871
0
**
562
0
0
~
0
0
1,463
0
~
160
~
~
0
0
0
579
~
0
~
0
0
0
0
**
99
0
0
0
21
0
9,073
0
**
0
**
**
0
**
0
**
~
0
444
~
**
0
0
470
0
9,094
470
2,042
1,265

Unknown or
not reported
5,503
0
5,503
0
1,939
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,970
7
0
585
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
585
0
2,971
1,947

a

Includes parolees who were deported, confined, supervised but pending a release, supervised through a split sentence, including those who were held on
a detainer, in a residential treatment facility, and others.
b
Some or all data are estimated for status of supervision.
c
December 31, 2009, population excludes parolees in one or more statuses. See Explanatory notes for more detail.
d
See Explanatory notes for more detail.

39 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 19. Adults on parole, by maximum sentence to
incarceration, 2009
Parole population, One year More than Unknown or
Region and jurisdiction
12/31/2009
or less
one year
not reported
U.S. total
819,308
33,579
658,800
126,929
Federal
102,242
12,220
89,957
65
State
717,066
21,359
568,843
126,864
Alabama
8,429
2,009
6,420
0
Alaska
1,939
102
1,837
0
Arizonaa
8,209
1,289
6,920
0
Arkansas
21,166
**
**
21,166
Californiaa
106,035
0
106,035
0
Colorado
11,655
**
**
11,655
Connecticutb
2,873
0
2,873
0
Delaware
519
**
**
519
District of Columbia
6,319
0
6,319
0
Florida
4,323
219
4,104
0
Georgia
24,029
~
24,029
0
Hawaii
1,831
0
1,831
0
Idaho
3,447
0
3,447
0
Illinoisa
33,162
3,595
29,545
22
Indiana
10,527
1,334
9,193
0
Iowa
3,265
**
**
3,265
Kansasb
5,010
**
5,010
0
Kentucky
12,537
611
11,926
0
Louisiana
25,683
142
24,795
746
Maine
31
0
31
0
Marylandb
13,742
**
13,742
0
Massachusetts
3,365
**
**
3,365
Michigana
24,374
13
22,574
1,787
Minnesota
5,435
0
5,435
0
Mississippi
5,426
0
5,426
0
Missouri
19,673
0
19,673
0
Montanab
1,007
0
1,007
0
Nebraska
823
0
823
0
Nevada
4,186
**
**
4,186
New Hampshire
1,820
0
1,820
0
New Jersey
15,356
569
14,787
0
New Mexico
3,157
**
**
3,157
New York
49,950
0
49,950
0
North Carolina
3,544
319
3,225
0
North Dakota
357
194
163
0
Ohio
14,575
0
14,575
0
Oklahomaa
2,970
185
2,785
0
Oregon
22,394
**
**
22,394
Pennsylvaniac
75,112
8,824
16,550
49,738
Rhode Island
585
22
563
0
South Carolina
1,612
**
**
1,612
South Dakota
2,748
**
**
2,748
Tennessee
11,627
1,689
9,938
0
Texasa
104,943
0
104,943
0
Utah
3,204
6
3,198
0
Vermonta
1,087
17
986
84
Virginiaa
4,605
0
4,605
0
Washington
6,563
0
6,563
0
West Virginia
1,889
0
1,889
0
Wisconsin
19,334
220
18,694
420
Wyoming
614
**
614
0
Northeast
150,179
9,432
87,560
53,187
Midwest
139,283
5,356
125,685
8,242
South
253,363
5,174
224,146
24,043
West
174,241
1,397
131,452
41,392
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
a
Some or all detailed data are estimated for maximum sentence to incarceration.
b
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
c
Detailed data represent state parolees only. Detailed data are not available for county parolees.

40 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 20. Adults on parole, by most serious offense, 2009
Parole
population,
12/31/2009
819,308
102,242
717,066
8,429
1,939
8,209
21,166
106,035
11,655
2,873
519
6,319
4,323
24,029
1,831
3,447
33,162
10,527
3,265
5,010
12,537
25,683
31
13,742
3,365
24,374
5,435
5,426
19,673
1,007
823
4,186
1,820
15,356
3,157
49,950
3,544
357
14,575
2,970
22,394
75,112
585
1,612
2,748
11,627
104,943
3,204
1,087
4,605
6,563
1,889
19,334
614
150,179
139,283
253,363
174,241

Violent offenses
Other
violent
Sex
offense
offense
58,546
134,073
2,738
3,572
55,808
130,501
**
**
192
299
368
1,663
724
4,694
24,077
5,528
368
2,566
25
152
50
109
292
1,838
351
2,044
326
5,090
**
**
414
831
636
6,603
757
84
186
246
863
1,876
249
2,177
467
2,811
0
31
693
5,539
**
**
2,681
4,875
1,181
909
52
632
740
3,621
74
429
26
158
**
**
**
**
2,345
3,066
**
**
2,473
20,293
541
1,825
**
**
3,751
6,043
17
411
3,690
5,911
739
9,922
45
269
14
536
149
372
56
3,055
2,987
18,427
760
522
39
221
505
1,662
1,767
2,719
72
295
**
**
66
147
5,666
33,954
10,970
24,787
7,396
51,145
31,776
20,615

Property
Weapon Other
Unknown or
offense
Drug offense offense
offensea not reported
Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
168,671
261,666
24,756
72,889
98,707
Federal
17,649
54,741
13,113
10,053
376
State
151,022
206,925
11,643
62,836
98,331
Alabama
**
**
**
**
8,429
Alaska
78
50
14
279
1,027
b
Arizona
2,443
2,397
358
980
0
Arkansas
5,977
7,409
304
2,058
0
Californiab
32,106
30,107
**
14,217
0
Colorado
3,573
3,372
528
1,248
0
Connecticut
310
854
88
319
1,125
Delaware
72
74
44
170
0
District of Columbia
623
2,660
336
356
214
Florida
966
633
107
222
0
Georgia
6,503
10,275
1,094
567
174
Hawaii
**
**
**
**
1,831
Idaho
842
1,192
0
168
0
Illinoisb
9,754
13,275
2,084
810
0
Indiana
2,823
2,449
843
3,571
0
Iowa
627
1,473
23
710
0
Kansas
335
1,144
**
792
0
Kentucky
4,080
5,233
**
798
0
Louisiana
7,062
12,443
**
2,633
267
Maine
0
0
0
0
0
Marylandb,c
2,389
4,470
651
0
0
Massachusetts
**
**
**
**
3,365
Michiganc
13,406
3,412
**
0
0
Minnesota
571
2,295
182
297
0
Mississippi
1,270
3,440
32
0
0
Missouri
6,651
7,193
329
1,139
0
Montanac
184
222
0
96
2
Nebraska
236
236
17
150
0
Nevada
**
**
**
**
4,186
New Hampshire
**
**
**
**
1,820
New Jersey
1,531
3,544
322
4,548
0
New Mexico
**
**
**
**
3,157
New York
4,447
19,464
396
2,877
0
North Carolina
244
90
838
6
0
North Dakota
**
**
**
**
357
Ohio
2,667
1,560
117
437
0
Oklahomab
517
1,827
59
139
0
Oregon
5,486
5,027
**
2,280
0
Pennsylvaniad
1,772
8,150
684
4,066
49,779
Rhode Island
76
147
16
30
2
South Carolina
441
347
6
268
0
South Dakota
660
875
11
681
0
Tennessee
2,192
3,101
51
937
2,235
Texasb
24,687
43,136
2,048
13,658
0
Utah
853
746
51
270
2
Vermontb
266
130
**
405
26
Virginiab
870
378
7
198
985
Washington
650
1,372
**
55
0
West Virginia
608
534
0
380
0
Wisconsin
**
**
**
**
19,334
Wyoming
174
189
3
21
14
Northeast
8,402
32,289
1,506
12,245
56,117
Midwest
37,730
33,912
3,606
8,587
19,691
South
58,501
96,050
5,577
22,390
12,304
West
46,389
44,674
954
19,614
10,219
**Not known.
a
Includes some parolees under supervision for a property offense, specifically identity theft, and parolees under supervision for a public-order
offense (other than a weapon offense unless otherwise specified), such as obstruction of justice, DWI/DUI, traffic, violation of
probation/parole/conditional release, prostitution and commercialized vice, conspiracy, bribery, possession of child pornography, violation of
a restraining order or public trust, and other offenses.
b
Some or all data are estimated for most serious of offense.
c
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
d
Detailed data represent state parolees only. Detailed data are not available for county parolees.

41 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 21. Adults on parole, by type of release from prison, 2009

Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
Federal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizonaf
Arkansas
Californiaf,g
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinoisf
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Marylandf
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montanag
Nebraska
Nevadaf
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New Yorkg
North Carolinag
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahomaf
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texasf
Utah
Vermontf
Virginiaf

Parole
population,
12/31/2009
819,308
102,242
717,066
8,429
1,939
8,209
21,166
106,035
11,655
2,873
519
6,319
4,323
24,029
1,831
3,447
33,162
10,527
3,265
5,010
12,537
25,683
31
13,742
3,365
24,374
5,435
5,426
19,673
1,007
823
4,186
1,820
15,356
3,157
49,950
3,544
357
14,575
2,970
22,394
75,112
585
1,612
2,748
11,627
104,943
3,204
1,087
4,605
6,563
1,889
19,334
614
150,179
139,283
253,363
174,241

Discretionarya
361,107
2,215
358,892
**
100
160
21,166
16
5,855
1,955
**
2,738
795
24,029
1,831
3,447
82
0
**
714
12,535
3,928
31
6,148
3,336
23,341
0
5,391
18,679
1,007
823
3,721
1,820
6,997
**
21,580
344
357
3,610
2,970
2,498
75,112
585
1,612
923
11,220
76,861
3,204
1,087
1,662
16
1,889
2,103
614
112,503
50,632
173,288
22,469

Mandatoryb
281,107
137
280,970
**
1,839
74
**
106,019
5,487
0
**
0
3,423
~
0
~
33,059
10,527
**
0
~
21,753
0
7,594
0
1,033
1,098
**
994
0
0
465
0
8,138
**
8,955
884
**
10,246
0
19,281
0
**
0
~
17
27,931
0
~
2,943
6,547
0
2,663
0
17,093
59,620
64,545
139,712

Special
conditional c
51
**
51
**
**
~
**
**
~
0
**
0
12
~
0
~
~
0
**
0
2
2
0
**
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
~
0
~
**
0
**
**
0
0
**
0
**
0
~
~
~
0
~
**
0
0
**
0
**
**
51
**

Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
**Not known.
~Not applicable.
a
Discretionary parole includes persons who entered parole as the result of a parole board decision.

Term of
supervised
released
153,524
99,890
53,634
**
**
6,871
**
**
~
918
**
3,581
93
~
0
~
~
0
**
4,289
**
**
0
**
29
0
4,090
**
0
0
0
~
0
~
**
17,138
2,316
**
0
0
**
0
**
0
48
0
~
0
~
**
0
0
14,261
0
18,085
22,688
5,990
6,871

Othere
7,499
0
7,499
**
**
1,104
**
0
313
0
**
0
0
~
0
~
21
0
**
0
**
~
0
**
0
0
247
0
**
0
0
0
0
221
**
2,277
0
**
719
0
**
0
**
0
1,777
390
123
0
~
**
0
0
307
0
2,498
3,071
513
1,417

Unknown or
not reported
16,020
0
16,020
8,429
0
0
0
0
0
0
519
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,265
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,157
0
0
0
0
0
615
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,272
8,976
3,772

b

Mandatory parole includes persons whose release from prison was not decided by a parole board. Includes those who entered parole
because of determinate sentencing statutes, good-time provisions, or emergency releases.
c
Special conditional releases include medical releases, early releases for the terminally ill, and other special releases.
d
Term of supervised release includes persons sentenced by a judge to a fixed period of incarceration based on a determinate statute
immediately followed by a period of supervised released in the community.
e
Includes parolees who were transferred from another state, had their original parole sentence reinstated, temporarily released to parole,
released to a drug transition program, released from a boot camp operated by the Department of Corrections, released from prison
through a conditional medical or mental health release to parole, and others.
f
Some or all detailed data are estimated for type of release from prison.
g
See Explanatory notes for more detail.

42 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

Appendix Table 22. Adults on parole, 2009: number tracked by a Global
Positioning System (GPS), number on probation, or number incarcerated
Location tracked by GPS

Incarcerated

ICE holding
Total
Sex offenders
Probation
Jail
Prison
facility
Region and jurisdiction
U.S. total
16,595
10,494
4,420
19,123
14,339
13,460
Federala,b
275
77
~
~
~
~
State
16,320
10,417
4,420
19,123
14,339
13,460
Alabama
~
~
~
218
~
~
Alaska
~
~
~
~
~
~
Arizonaa
133
103
~
~
~
~
Arkansasa
~
~
**
233
265
**
Californiaa
7,124
6,971
0
291
0
5,379
Colorado
1,631
368
~
1,121
~
0
Connecticut
226
56
**
**
23
61
Delaware
13
**
**
**
**
**
District of Columbia
422
88
385
0
771
87
Florida
245
200
~
20
312
48
Georgiac
268
243
**
2,165
63
**
Hawaii
~
~
0
42
95
160
Idaho
150
16
0
0
14
0
Illinois
149
146
~
~
~
~
Indiana
~
~
~
~
~
~
Iowa
99
58
~
~
~
~
Kansasa
285
275
**
**
**
**
Kentucky
2
0
342
111
217
**
Louisiana
55
55
131
784
71
57
Maine
~
~
~
~
~
~
Marylandc
**
**
**
**
**
**
Massachusetts
89
79
~
142
220
54
Michigan
2,099
**
~
~
~
~
Minnesota
33
33
~
~
~
~
Mississippi
~
~
~
~
~
~
Missouri
16
3
~
~
~
~
Montanac
~
~
**
9
99
**
Nebraskaa
22
13
**
0
0
0
Nevada
~
~
**
**
**
**
New Hampshire
~
~
0
0
14
57
New Jersey
460
153
0
1,645
148
1,178
New Mexico
**
**
1,037
0
0
0
New York
371
230
0
4,252
258
296
North Carolina
60
15
422
**
**
**
North Dakotaa
10
**
**
**
**
**
Ohio
134
56
~
~
~
~
Oklahoma
**
**
~
~
~
~
Oregon
~
~
~
~
~
~
Pennsylvaniad
**
**
0
101
3,849
52
Rhode Island
~
~
~
~
~
~
South Carolina
~
~
~
~
~
~
South Dakota
5
5
**
**
4
1
Tennessee
112
109
0
437
0
0
Texasa
1,658
812
**
6,987
6,734
5,890
Utah
**
**
0
31
147
37
Vermont a
2
0
**
**
28
**
Virginiaa,c
116
**
~
~
~
~
Washington
167
167
**
534
0
103
West Virginia
3
3
~
~
~
~
Wisconsin
161
160
2,103
**
1,007
**
Wyoming
~
~
**
**
**
**
Northeast
1,148
518
**
6,140
4,540
1,698
Midwest
3,013
749
2,103
**
1,011
1
South
2,954
1,525
1,280
10,955
8,433
6,082
West
9,205
7,625
1,037
2,028
355
5,679
~Not applicable.
**Not known.
a
Some or all data are estimated.
b
A sex offender is defined as any offender convicted of a sex offense, ordered to a special condition for sex offender
treatment, or fulfilling other sex offender treatment requirements.
c
See Explanatory notes for more detail.
d
Detailed data represent state parolees only. Detailed data are not available for county parolees.

43 Probation and Parole in the United States, 2009

December 2010

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

*NCJ~231674*

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.
BJS Bulletins present the first release of findings from
permanent data collection programs.
Lauren E. Glaze, Thomas P. Bonczar, and Fan Zhang wrote
this report. Lauren E. Glaze, Thomas P. Bonczar, and Fan
Zhang analyzed the data and prepared the graphs and
tables. Laura M. Maruschak, William J. Sabol, and Todd D.
Minton provided statistical verification. Sheri R. Simmons
provided statistical review.
Jorgelina A. Arroyo carried out the data collection and
processing under the supervision of Nicole S. Adolph,
Governments Division, Census Bureau, U.S. Department
of Commerce. Ryan D. Driscoll provided technical
assistance under the supervision of Duane H. Cavanaugh.
Janean Darden and Angel Johnson assisted in the data
collection.
Brian R. Higgins (Lockheed Martin) and Jill Thomas
edited the report. Tina Dorsey produced the report and
Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final printing
under the supervision of Doris J. James.
December 2010, NCJ 231674

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its
related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS website:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2233.

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov