Special Report for CSPSA 06

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report
August 2008, NCJ 222180

Characteristics of State Parole
Supervising Agencies, 2006
Thomas P. Bonczar
BJS Statistician

Combined parole and probation agencies supervised
4 times as many offenders on probation as on parole
On June 30, 2006, 35 of the reporting state parole supervising agencies also supervised adults on probation. Parole
is a period of conditional supervised release following a
prison term. Criminal offenders sentenced to a period of
correctional supervision in the community are on probation.
These combined parole-probation supervision agencies
supervised about 4 times as many offenders on probation
(1,200,570) as on parole (269,416).

Overview
State parole supervising agencies employed nearly 65,000
full-time and 2,900 part-time workers on June 30, 2006,
according to findings from the 2006 Census of State Parole
Supervising Agencies. The average caseload was 38
active parolees for each full-time equivalent (FTE) position
devoted to parole supervision. About half of parole supervising agencies had a role in releasing prisoners to parole,
setting the conditions of supervision, or conducting revocation hearings.

The 1.2 million probationers represented about a quarter of
the estimated 4,237,023 adults on probation on December
31, 2006, as reported in the 2006 Annual Probation Survey.
Among the agencies that provided information, 17 supervised paroled offenders only. These agencies had 503
offices—less than a quarter of the total number of offices—
but they supervised more than half of the total parole population.

The census collected information from 52 state agencies
which included 2,287 separate administrative, regional, and
other offices (table 1). These agencies reported that they
supervised 660,959 adult parolees or about 83% of the
798,202 parolees reported at yearend 2006 in the Annual
Parole Survey. (See Probation and Parole in the United
States, 2006, available at .)

A technical supplement to this report, including an expanded Methodology,
appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes is
forthcoming.

Table 1. Number of state adult parole supervising agencies, offices, and adult parole and probation population,
by type of agency, June 30, 2006

Type of agency

Number of
parole agencies

Number of parole
agency officesa

Adult parole population
Number
Percent

Adult probation population
Number
Percent

Agency administrationb
Department of Corrections
Independent parole agency
Otherc

52
38
11
3

2,287
1,804
369
114

660,959
454,387
162,329
44,243

100%
69%
25
7

1,200,570
920,203
190,021
90,346

100%
77%
16
8

Population servedb
Parolees
Parolees and probationers

17
35

503
1,784

391,543
269,416

59%
41

~
1,200,570

~
100

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
~Not applicable.
a

Parole offices that comprised the 52 agencies on June 30, 2006, including administrative offices, regional offices, and all separate sub-offices, such as field offices; includes estimates for Illinois, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
b
c

Excludes local parole supervision agencies in Alabama and Pennsylvania.

Includes the Arkansas Department of Community Corrections, the Nevada Department of Public Safety, and one response representing Oregon's county-based parole system.

Seven state agencies reported that they supervised
juveniles on probation or parole in addition to adults;
however, not all agencies reported the number of juveniles on supervision.

Table 2. Characteristics of adult parole supervising agencies,
June 30, 2006
Agency
administraRegion and jurisdiction tion
State total

State parole supervising agencies located in a department of corrections supervised a smaller percentage of Northeast
Connecticut
parolees (69%) than probationers (77%). In compariMaine
son, agencies that were independent of a department
Massachusetts
of corrections supervised a larger share of parolees
New Hampshire
New Jersey
(25%) than probationers (16%). Ten independent agenNew York
cies were located in the executive branch of governPennsylvaniab
Rhode Island
ment; one (Alabama) was in the legislative branch (see
Vermont
appendix table 1, forthcoming). Other parole agencies
Midwest
supervised nearly an equal share of parolees (7%) and
Illinoisc
probationers (8%).
Indiana
Five agencies supervised half of the parole
population
Five state agencies accounted for about half of the
adults under parole supervision on June 30, 2006
(table 2). These five agencies include the Departments
of Corrections in California (125,067 adults on
parole);1 Texas (101,175); and Illinois (33,354); and
two independent agencies, New York (53,215) and
Pennsylvania (24,956, excluding adults supervised by
county parole offices). Pennsylvania also supervised
adults on probation (3,777) at midyear 2006.
State parole supervising agencies employed
nearly 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time workers
Including payroll staff, nonpayroll staff, and contract
staff, an estimated 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time
workers were employed by the 52 state parole supervising agencies on June 30, 2006 (table 3). This number includes imputed estimates for parole supervising
agencies in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon that did not
provide information on staffing in the census. Nonpayroll staff included those on the payroll of other government agencies, unpaid interns, and volunteers.
In the 49 state agencies that provided information,
82% of full-time employees worked for a department of
corrections, 16% worked for an independent parole
agency, and 1% for another type of agency. Nearly all
part-time employees (96%) worked for a department of
corrections. When viewed by type of population
served, 66% of full-time workers and 81% of part-time
workers were employed by an agency that supervised
both parolees and probationers.
_______
1
An additional 67 parolees were under supervision by the California
Youth Authority on June 30, 2006.

2 Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesotad
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsine
South
Alabamab
Arkansas
Delawaree
District of Columbiae
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahomae
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginiab
West Virginia

Number of
parole agency Adult parole
officesa
populationb
2,287
660,959

Adult
probation
population
1,200,570

DOC
DOC
Independent
DOC
Independent
Independent
Independent
DOC
DOC

160
11
25
12
16
13
39
27
5
12

101,413
2,838
32
3,362
1,672
13,770
53,215
24,956
512
1,056

35,673
~
7,986
~
4,674
~
~
3,777
11,267
7,969

DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC

483
**
9
46
20
109
110
59
7
18
53
10
**

123,870
33,354
7,863
3,973
4,882
16,267
4,444
17,089
697
380
16,280
2,584
16,057

325,087
~
~
22,318
~
54,178
127,797
51,498
~
4,096
10,112
~
55,088

1,132
72
49
13
12
156
58
60
21
43
81
228
79
51
36
77
**
35

243,057
9,014
18,092
634
5,135
4,832
23,060
10,653
23,905
14,132
2,003
3,311
3,506
4,413
9,148
101,175
8,609
1,435

698,956
41,509
32,220
18,333
7,009
183,855
~
24,330
39,047
61,558
24,612
112,416
25,173
33,437
42,731
~
52,726
~

Independent
Other
DOC
Independent
DOC
Independent
DOC
DOC
Independent
DOC
DOC
DOC
Independent
Independent
DOC
DOC
DOC

West
512
192,619
140,854
DOC
17
1,009
5,888
Alaskae
Arizona
DOC
19
7,473
~
DOC
95
125,067
~
Californiab
California Youth
DOC
17
67
~
Authorityb
Colorado
DOC
41
8,577
~
Hawaii
Independent
6
2,124
~
Idaho
DOC
28
2,549
12,741
Montana
DOC
23
999
9,079
Nevada
Other
12
3,856
13,320
New Mexico
DOC
50
2,964
11,384
Other
53
22,295
44,806
Oregonf
Utah
DOC
17
3,535
10,676
Washington
DOC
110
11,553
30,787
Wyoming
DOC
24
551
2,173
Note: DOC indicates Department of Corrections. An expanded Methodology,
appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
~ Not applicable.
** Not known.
a
Includes an estimated 103 offices for Illinois, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
bData may differ from other BJS publications.
cData are for December 31, 2007.
d
Includes 3,066 adult parolees under active supervision in 16 Community
Corrections Act agencies in 65 offices. The state provided direct parole supervision in the remaining counties.
e
Some or all data estimated.
f
County government agencies provided adult parole supervision in Oregon.

Among state agencies that provided information
about their employees, nearly all full-time workers
(94%) and about half of part-time workers (47%)
were on the payroll. An equal percentage of the
remaining full-time employees were nonpayroll staff
and contract staff (3% each). Among part-time workers, 40% were nonpayroll staff and 13% were contractors.
Men (51%) and women (49%) made up nearly equal
percentages of full-time employees. Women were
58% of part-time employees.
Average caseload was 38 active parolees for
each FTE devoted to supervision
Respondents were asked to report the portion of fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff positions devoted to
direct supervision of adult offenders on active parole
on June 30, 2006. The census included directions
for counting the time that full-time and part-time
employees had available for supervising parolees.
Respondents were also asked to count just that portion of time available for supervision of parolees
among employees who divided their time between
supervision of parolees and other responsibilities.
An estimated 14,000 FTE staff supervised about
528,000 adults active on parole on June 30, 2006 in
the 52 agencies included in the census (table 4).
Staff positions allocated to supervision of offenders
on active parole amounted to about 1 in 5 of the estimated 65,000 full-time and 2,900 part-time staff
members. This resulted in an average caseload at
midyear 2006 of 38 persons on active parole supervision for each FTE staff position devoted to adult
parole supervision.

Table 3. Full-time and part-time employees of state adult parole
supervising agencies, by type of agency and staff, June 30, 2006

Type of agency and staff

State parole supervising agency employees
Full-time
Part-time
Percent of
Percent of perpersons with a
sons with a
Number known status
Number known status

Estimated total staffa

65,000

Agency administration
Department of
Corrections
Independent parole
agency
Other

56,935

100%

2,478

100%

46,918

82

2,384

96

9,215
802

16
1

86
8

3
--

56,935
19,348

100%
34

2,478
475

100%
19

37,587

66

2,003

81

Type of
Payroll
Nonpayroll
Contract

56,935
53,401
1,791
1,743

100%
94
3
3

2,478
1,169
996
313

100%
47
40
13

Genderc
Male
Female

53,757
27,436
26,321

100%
51
49

1,729
731
998

100%
42
58

Population served
by agency
Parolees
Parolees and
probationers
employmentb

2,900

Note: Data may not sum to total because of rounding. An expanded Methodology,
appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
--Less than 0.5%.
aIncludes an estimated 8,065 full-time and 422 part-time staff members in Illinois,
Oregon, and Wisconsin.
b

For state specific data on adult parole supervising agency staff, see table 15.

c

Among agencies that provided information, gender was not reported for 6% of
full-time staff and 30% of part-time staff. For state specific data, see table 16.

An average of 49 parolees were on active supervision for
each FTE position devoted to supervision in agencies that
supervised only parolees (based on 16 agencies that provided information). Among agencies that had authority for
both parolees and probationers, 28 parolees were on active
supervision per FTE position (based on 25 agencies).
These caseload calculations do not take into account differences in the offenses for which parolees had been incarcerated or differences in their required levels of supervision.

Table 4. Full-time equivalent (FTE) positions supervising
active parolees, and average adult parolee caseload per
FTE position, by type of agency, June 30, 2006

Type of agency
Estimated agency total*

Number of fulltime FTE positions Average active
supervising active parolees per
parolees
FTE position
14,000

38

Agency administration
Department of Corrections
Independent parole agency
Other

11,089
7,236
3,008
845

39
41
40
18

Population served
Parolees
Parolees and probationers

11,089
5,806
5,283

39
49
28

Note: Data may not sum to total because of rounding. An
expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and
detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
*Includes an estimated 2,911 FTE positions in 11 agencies
that did not report this information; average active parolees per
FTE position estimated based on 528,000 parolees on active
supervision.

Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

3

Two-thirds of paroled offenders were required to meet
with a parole officer at least once a month
Two-thirds of adult offenders on parole were required to
have face-to-face contact with a parole officer at least once
a month, including 14% who were required to have weekly
face-to-face contact (table 5). An additional 17% of paroled
offenders were required to meet with their parole officers
less than once a month or to maintain contact by mail, telephone, or other means. Thirteen percent of paroled offenders were no longer required to report on a regular basis. A
reporting frequency had not yet been determined for 3% of
paroled offenders. Nearly 8 in 10 adult offenders were on
active parole supervision.
Half of parole supervising agencies had a role in
releasing prisoners to parole, setting the conditions of
supervision, or conducting revocation hearings
Twenty-six of the 50 state agencies providing information
reported that, as of June 30, 2006, they participated in
releasing persons from prison to parole supervision, setting
the terms or conditions of adult parole supervision, or
conducting parole revocation hearings (table 6). Of the 26

agencies that performed at least one of these functions, 14
performed all 3 functions. The remaining 24 agencies that
responded performed none of these functions. Two agencies did not provide information.
Nineteen of 50 parole supervising agencies reported at
midyear 2006 that they considered prisoners for release. In
the census, 13 parole supervising agencies reported that
between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, they considered
126,641 prisoners for release and released 57,850—a rate
of 46 prisoners released per 100 considered. Some prisoners considered for release may have been released after
this period, and some of those released may have been
considered for release before the period.
Table 6. State adult parole supervising agencies that
considered prisoners for release, set the terms/conditions
of supervision, or conducted parole revocation hearings,
June 30, 2006
On June 30, 2006, did the parole
supervising agency—
Consider prisoners for release?
Yesa
No

Table 5. Levels and status of adults on parole, state adult
parole supervising agencies, June 30, 2006
Characteristica
Total number of adults on parole
Supervision level
Required number of face-to-face
contacts with a parole officer
At least once per week
At least once per month
Less than once per monthb
Regular reporting no longer
required
Reporting frequency not yet
determined
Status of supervision
Activec
Inactive
Absconder
Supervised out of state
Financial conditions remaining
Other

Adult parole
population

Set the terms or conditions of adult
parole supervision?
Yesb
No
Who performed the function?c
Parole board
Courts
Other DOC agency
Other independent agency

Percent of
parolees with a
known status

660,959
547,844

100%

74,877
294,246
90,958

14
54
17

73,582

13

14,181

3

611,548
483,791
26,686
61,733
27,455
66
11,817

100%
79
4
10
4
-2

Note: Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. An expanded
Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed
Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
-- Less than 0.5%.
a

Each characteristic had persons of unknown status. Jurisdictions
did not report data for 17% of supervision level and 7% of status of
supervision.

Percent of
Number of agencies with
agencies
a known status
50
19
31

100%
38
62

20
30

40%
60

27
2
1
3

Have responsibility for conducting
parole revocation hearings?
Yesd
No
Who performed the function?c
Parole board
Other DOC agency
Other independent agency

30
1
1

The number of functions performed
by the parole supervising agency was—
None
1
2
3

24
9
3
14

18
32

36%
64

48%
18
6
28

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data,
and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
aBetween

July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, 13 agencies that provided
information considered 126,641 prisoners for release (some of whom
may not have been released until after June 30, 2006) and released
57,850 (46 per 100 considered), some of whom may have been considered for release prior to July 1, 2005.

b

b

In 14 jurisdictions both the parole supervising agency and the parole
board set the terms or conditions of supervision.

c

c
More than one other entity may have performed a function within a
jurisdiction.

May have included regular contact by mail, telephone, or other
means.

An estimated 528,000 parolees were on active supervision on June
30, 2006, including agencies that did not report status of supervision.

4 Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

d

All 18 parole supervising agencies that conducted revocation hearings
shared the responsibility with a parole board. Seventeen agencies that
provided information conducted 67,534 parole revocation hearings
between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.

North Dakota released 76 prisoners per 100 considered for
release and Connecticut released 71 (table 7). Arizona
released 13 per 100. The census did not collect information
on the characteristics of prisoners considered for release.
Paroled offenders are frequently required to abide by one
or more conditions of supervision when released into the
community. Such conditions may include payment of
supervision fees, submission to drug testing, finding
employment, and fulfilling requirements for treatment. Adult
parole supervising agencies in 20 states reported that they
set the terms or conditions of adult parole supervision. In
14 of these states, the parole board also had a role. The 30
parole supervising agencies reporting that they did not perform this function most frequently identified the parole
board (27 jurisdictions) as the entity that set the terms or
conditions of supervision.
Failure to abide by the terms or conditions of supervision
may result in revocation of parole. Revocation can result in
the return of the paroled offender to incarceration or lead to
modification of the conditions of parole supervision.
Seventeen of the 18 agencies that had responsibility for
conducting parole revocation hearings held 67,534 hearings between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Based on
the number of adults on parole in these agencies during the
year ending June 30, 2006, no more than one in five parolees had a revocation hearing.2 This is because some parolees may have had more than one revocation hearing.
A total of 317,828 parolees were at risk of re-incarceration
in these 17 agencies, including an estimated 203,125
adults on parole on June 30, 2005, plus an estimated
114,703 who entered parole supervision between July 1,
2005, and June 30, 2006 (not shown in table).
Each of the 18 agencies that conducted parole revocation
hearings reported sharing this responsibility with a parole
board. Thirty of the 32 supervising agencies that did not
conduct revocation hearings identified the parole board as
the authority performing this function.
Up to 16% of at-risk parolees in some agencies were
re-incarcerated for a failed drug test
All 50 parole supervising agencies that provided information reported testing paroled offenders for the use of illegal
drugs during the year ending June 30, 2006. Eight agencies were able to report the number of parolees returned to
incarceration between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006,
due to a drug violation detected during agency testing.
These agencies re-incarcerated between less than 0.5%
and 16% of those estimated to have been at risk of reincarceration (table 8). The population at risk of re-incarceration in these agencies included adults who were on parole
on June 30, 2005, plus those who entered parole between
July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.
_______
2This

was calculated by dividing 67,534 parole revocation hearings
by an estimated 301,527 parolees at risk of re-incarceration.

Table 7. States in which adult parole supervising agencies
considered prisoners for release, June 30, 2006
Prisoners, July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006—
Number released
Considered Number
for releasea releaseda per 100 considered
Jurisdictions reportingb

126,641

57,850

46

9,394
411
**
3,503
**
1,797
**
20,214
12,859
24,731
7,568
996
12,503
19,644
**
4,905
1,233
14,451
5,522

3,111
55
**
2,470
10,794
718
**
10,365
7,505
10,946
26,457
752
5,793
10,368
**
1,093
552
4,122
**

33
13
**
71
**
40
**
51
58
44
:
76
46
53
**
22
45
29
**

Alabamac
Arizona
California Youth Authority
Connecticut
Georgia
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
North Carolinad
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvaniac
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Virginia

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data,
and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
** Not known.
: Not calculated.
a

Some prisoners considered for release between 7/1/2005 and
6/30/2006 may not have been released until after 6/30/2006, and some
released during this period may have been considered for release prior
to 7/1/2005.

bExcludes

Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

cExcludes

local parole supervision agencies.

dNumber

considered for release restricted to supervised release cases.
Number released includes all prison exits, including supervised
releases.

Table 8. Adults on parole returned to incarceration,
July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, as a result of a drug violation
detected during agency testing

Region and
jurisdiction
Florida
Hawaii
Michigan
Pennsylvaniac
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Wyoming

Total parole
population at
risk of re-incarceration, on
6/30/2006a
10,971
2,923
31,022
35,595
4,282
12,568
5,821
940

Adult parolees returned to prison,
between 7/1/2005 and 6/30/2006, as
a result of a drug violation detected
during agency testingb
Number
Percent
315
284
1,958
1,264
675
47
545
51

2.9%
9.7
6.3
3.6
15.8
-9.4
5.4

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data,
and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
--Less than 0.5%.
a
Includes estimates of the number of adults on parole on 6/30/2005,
plus those who entered parole between 7/1/2005, and 6/30/2006.
b
Some parolees returned to prison between 7/1/2005 and 6/30/2006,
as a result of a drug violation may have had a drug test prior to 7/1/
2005.
cCounts varied from those reported in other BJS publications.

Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

5

Information about the number of paroled offenders tested
and whether testing was done upon entry to supervision,
randomly, or upon suspicion of use, was not obtained.

tion, a greater percentage of paroled offenders were
enrolled in drug treatment programs than in sex offender or
mental health programs.

Nearly all agencies report use of drug, sex offender,
or mental health treatment programs

2 in 5 parole supervising agencies operated
or contracted a housing service for paroled offenders

On June 30, 2006, 47 of 49 parole supervising agencies
reported having paroled offenders enrolled in a drug treatment program run by a formally trained professional
(table 9). In the 21 agencies that provided enrollment
counts, an average of 10.9% of all paroled offenders
(28,084 of 258,652) were enrolled in such a program.

Respondents were asked whether their parole agency had
a program that provided assistance to parolees in obtaining
housing, beyond an occasional referral by a parole officer
to an apartment building or landlord.

Nearly all agencies (46) also reported that paroled offenders were enrolled in a self-help or drug awareness program
such as Narcotics Anonymous or Cocaine Anonymous.
Seven of these agencies, supervising 26,333 parolees,
reported that 4,510 parolees (17.1%) were in these programs on June 30, 2006. The other agencies were unable
to provide counts.
Nearly all parole supervision agencies also reported having
paroled adult offenders enrolled in a sex offender treatment
program (46 agencies), or a mental health treatment program (47) (table 10). Twenty-six agencies reported that
3.7% of paroled offenders were enrolled in a sex offender
treatment program, and 17 agencies reported that 9.0% of
paroled offenders were enrolled in a mental health treatment program operated by a formally trained mental health
professional. Among the agencies that provided informaTable 9. Adult supervising agencies’ use of drug
treatment programs, by type of program, June 30, 2006
On June 30, 2006, were any
parolees enrolled in a—

Number of
agencies

Percent of
agencies with a
known status

Drug treatment program run by
a formally trained drug treatment
professional?
Yesa
No

49
47
2

100%
96
4

Self-help or drug awareness
program?b
Yesc
No

49
46
3

100%
94
6

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level
data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming. Excludes Illinois, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, for which no information was
available.
aOf

258,652 parolees under supervision in 21 agencies that provided information, 28,084 (10.9%) were enrolled in a drug treatment
program operated by a formally trained professional.

bSuch

as Narcotics Anonymous (NA) or Cocaine Anonymous (CA).

c

Of 26,333 parolees under supervision in 7 agencies that provided
information, 4,510 (17.1%) were enrolled in a self-help or drug
awareness program like NA or CA.

6 Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

Among 50 state supervising agencies that provided information, 7 reported having a working relationship with a
state or county housing agency, and 6 had a contract with a
private rental agency to refer paroled offenders to landlords
(table 11). Four agencies operated an in-house service to
provide housing referrals to paroled offenders. Ten other
agencies operated other types of programs.
Twenty of the 50 agencies that provided information indicated that as of June 30, 2006, they had some type of formal housing assistance program for paroled offenders
(table 12). Four agencies offered two or more types of
housing assistance programs.

Table 10. Adult supervising agencies’ use of sex offender
and mental health treatment programs, by type of program,
June 30, 2006
On June 30, 2006, were any
parolees enrolled in a—

Number of
agencies

Percent of
agencies with a
known status

Sex offender treatment program?
Yesa
No

47
46
1

100%
98
2

Mental health treatment program run
by a formally trained mental health
professional?
Yesb
No

49
47
2

100%
96
4

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level
data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming. Excludes
states for which no information was available, including Illinois, Mississippi, and Wisconsin for both types of treatment programs, and
also Alabama and Maine for sex offender treatment programs.
a

Of 409,543 parolees under supervision in 26 agencies that provided
information, 14,966 (3.7%) were enrolled in a sex offender treatment
program.

b

Of 353,114 parolees under supervision in 17 agencies that provided
information, 31,605 (9.0%) were enrolled in a mental health treatment program run by a formally trained mental health professional.

Table 11. Housing and employment assistance programs provided by adult parole agencies, June 30, 2006
Type of assistance

Number of agencies

Housing assistance

50

Parole agency—
• operated a formal housing service that referred parolees to specific landlords or group homes with which
the agency had a working relationship

4

• had a contract with a private rental housing agency (or agencies) that referred parolees to specific landlords

6

• had a formal working relationship with a state/county housing agency and regularly received reports
on parolees from the agency

7

• offered some other type of program

10

Employment assistance

50

Parole agency —
• operated a formal employment service that referred parolees to specific job openings or to employers with
whom the agency had a working relationship

6

• had a contract with a private employment service that referred parolees to specific job openings or
employers
• had a formal working relationship with a state or county employment agency and regularly received reports
on parolees from the agency

8
17

• offered some other type of program

6

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
Counts limited to state-level reporting. Excludes Illinois and Wisconsin for which no information was available.

Half of parole supervising agencies offered some type
of formal employment assistance
Other than an occasional referral by a parole officer to a job
opening or to a particular employer, the most frequent type
of formal employment assistance provided by parole supervising agencies involved a working relationship with a state
or county employment agency (17 agencies). Nearly equal
numbers of parole supervising agencies reported that
paroled offenders received employment assistance through
a contract with a private employment service (8 agencies),
that the parole agency operated an in-house employment
service for paroled offenders (6 agencies), or that some
other type of employment assistance was provided (6
agencies).
Overall, 25 of the 50 adult parole supervising agencies that
provided information had some type of organized program
to provide employment assistance to paroled offenders at
midyear 2006 (table 13). Seven agencies offered more
than one type of employment assistance program.

Table 12. Number of formal housing assistance programs
offered by adult parole supervising agencies, June 30,
2006
Number of formal housing
assistance programs
None
1
2
3
Agencies providing information

Adult parole supervising agencies
Number
Percent
30
16
1
3
50

60%
32
2
6
100%

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data,
and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming. Counts limited to
state-level reporting. Excludes Illinois and Wisconsin for which no information was available.

Table 13. Number of employment assistance programs
offered by adult parole supervising agencies, June 30, 2006
Number of employment
programs
None
1
2
3
Agencies providing information

Adult parole supervising agencies
Number
Percent
25
18
3
4
50

50%
36
6
8
100%

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data,
and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming. Counts limited to statelevel reporting. Excludes Illinois and Wisconsin for which no information
was available.

Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

7

Methodology
The 2006 Census of State Parole Supervising Agencies,
with a reference date of June 30, 2006, was sent to 68
respondents, including 50 central state reporters, the California Youth Authority, and the District of Columbia (table
14). Sixteen local Minnesota Community Corrections Act
agencies were asked to provide information on staffing and
supervision not available from the state. The purpose of the
census was to collect information about parole supervising
organizations.
In contrast with the parole census, the 2006 Annual Parole
Survey (APS), with a reference date of December 31,
2006, was sent to 54 respondents, including 54 central
state reporters, the California Youth Authority, and 1 municipal agency. The APS collected summary counts of the
number of adults on parole at the beginning and end of the
year, the number of adults entering and exiting parole
supervision during the year, and characteristics of the end
of year parole population. The APS has been conducted
annually since 1977.
Responses to the parole census included one summary
response from a central respondent in the Oregon Department of Corrections based on summary data gathered from
36 county governments that independently administered all

adult parole supervision in the state. Illinois provided only
counts of the adult parole population on December 31,
2007 for the state as a whole and by parole office. Wisconsin provided no data.
Virginia’s report of 8,609 adults on parole supervision on
June 30, 2006, included additional groups of offenders that
were not previously reported. For the parole census, Virginia included all paroled offenders for whom the state has
responsibility, paroled felons who are the responsibility of
local jurisdictions in Virginia, and offenders whose parole
was originally supervised by the courts that sentenced
them. Restricting Virginia’s parole count to the groups
included in the 2006 Annual Parole Survey would result in
an estimate of 4,239 adults on parole on June 30, 2006 —
based on an average of the state’s adult parole population
on January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006.
A technical supplement to this report is forthcoming. It
includes an expanded Methodology that discusses estimation procedures. It contains detailed Explanatory Notes with
definitions, limitations, and counting exceptions in the census. Also, the supplement will contain appendix tables with
state-level data and other details on findings in this report.

Table 14. Comparison of 2006 Census of State Parole Supervising Agency and 2006 Annual Parole Survey data collections
Topic

2006 Census of Adult Parole Supervising Agencies

2006 Annual Parole Survey

Form

CJ-36

CJ-7

Reference date

June 30, 2006

December 31, 2006

Focus

Parole agency

Parolees, summary counts

Coverage

68 respondents
—50 states (excluding Pennsylvania counties)
—California Youth Authority

54 respondents
—50 states (including Pennsylvania counties)
—California Youth Authority

—District of Columbia

—District of Columbia
—Federal parole

—Alabama (one municipality)
—16 Minnesota Community Corrections Agencies (separate —Minnesota Community Corrections Act agencies
responses to collect staff and programmatic information)
(included with state response)
Non-respondents,
imputation procedures

Parole population
Unadjusted, different coverage and reference dates
Adjusted, national estimate,
June 30, 2006
Adjustment procedure

Illinois provided adult parole population on December 31,
2007; used without alteration
Wisconsin; parole population imputed from 2006 Annual
Parole Survey

Illinois; adult parole population imputed from 2005
Annual Parole Survey

660,959

798,202

795,748

789,409

Added in estimated average parole population on
June 30, 2006 from 2006 Annual Parole Survey:
—Federal parole
—Pennsylvania counties
—Alabama (one municipality)

Computed average of parole population on January 1,
2006, and December 31, 2006

8 Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

Table 15. Adult parole supervising agency staff, by type, June 30, 2006
Number of staff employed by adult parole supervising agency

Region and jurisdiction
a

Total

Payroll

Nonpayroll

Contract

Full-time Part-time

Full-time Part-time

Full-time Part-time

Full-time Part-time

56,935

2,478

53,401

1,169

1,791

996

1,743

313

4,503
186
25
231
103
740
2,003
1,001
13
201

40
3
0
7
2
4
17
7
0
0

4,488
181
25
230
103
732
2,002
1,001
13
201

33
3
0
5
2
2
14
7
0
0

13
5
0
0
**
8
0
0
0
0

4
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0

2
0
0
1
~
~
1
0
0
0

3
0
0
2
~
~
1
0
0
0

Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin

16,877
**
8,327
1,077
153
1,096
3,479
1,488
31
92
1,073
61
**

1,101
**
0
75
2
0
788
235
0
0
0
1
**

15,044
**
7,260
1,077
153
1,096
2,735
1,488
31
92
1,051
61
**

581
**
0
75
2
0
268
235
0
0
0
1
**

723
**
**
0
0
**
723
**
0
0
0
0
**

483
**
**
0
0
**
483
**
0
0
0
0
**

1,110
**
1,067
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
22
0
**

37
**
0
0
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
**

South
Alabamab
Arkansas
Delaware
District of Columbiac
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginiab
West Virginia

20,364
645
364
355
835
3,409
725
544
737
1,234
3,043
2,402
353
758
993
2,604
1,319
44

354
0
0
21
15
9
8
0
~
0
18
~
0
10
16
174
68
15

19,287
644
364
355
791
3,409
725
505
737
1,234
3,043
2,402
353
754
4
2,604
1,319
44

135
0
0
21
10
9
8
0
~
0
18
~
0
0
0
1
68
0

1,027
0
0
**
0
**
0
38
~
0
0
~
0
0
989
0
0
0

199
0
0
**
0
**
0
0
~
0
0
~
0
10
16
173
0
0

50
1
0
**
44
0
0
1
~
0
0
~
0
4
0
0
0
0

20
0
0
~
5
0
0
0
~
0
0
~
0
0
0
0
0
15

West
Alaskad
Arizona
Californiab
California Youth Authorityb
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

15,191
106
169
3,651
121
252
50
1,537
182
438
360
**
554
7,614
157

983
~
0
236
5
1
2
377
22
8
0
**
12
308
12

14,582
106
169
3,101
121
240
50
1,491
182
438
360
**
554
7,614
156

420
~
0
36
2
0
2
34
8
6
0
**
12
308
12

28
0
0
0
0
0
~
28
0
0
0
**
0
0
0

310
~
0
0
3
0
~
302
3
2
0
**
0
0
0

581
0
0
550
**
12
~
18
0
~
0
**
0
0
1

253
~
0
200
**
1
~
41
11
~
0
**
0
0
0

State total

Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvaniab
Rhode Islandc
Vermont

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
~ Not applicable.
** Not reported.
aExcludes an estimated 8,065 full-time and 422 part-time staff in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon.
b
Data differ from those in other BJS publications.
c
Some or all data are estimated.
d
Includes the total number of staff members for the parole and probation agency.

Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

9

Table 16. Adult parole supervising agency staff, by gender, June 30, 2006
Number of staff employed by adult parole supervising agency
Total
Region and jurisdiction

Male

Full-time

Part-time

56,935

2,478

27,436

731

26,321

4,503
186
25
231
103
740
2,003
1,001
13
201

40
3
0
7
2
4
17
7
0
0

2,046
**
**
112
60
411
903
555
5
**

13
**
0
4
1
2
4
2
0
0

Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin

16,877
**
8,327
1,077
153
1,096
3,479
1,488
31
92
1,073
61
**

1,101
**
0
75
2
0
788
235
0
0
0
1
**

8,273
**
4,642
526
81
515
1,358
596
14
39
469
33
**

South
Alabamab
Arkansas
Delaware
District of Columbiac
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahomac
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginiab
West Virginia

20,364
645
364
355
835
3,409
725
544
737
1,234
3,043
2,402
353
758
993
2,604
1,319
44

354
0
0
21
15
9
8
0
~
0
18
~
0
10
16
174
68
15

West
Alaskad
Arizona
Californiab
California Youth Authorityb,c
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

15,191
106
169
3,651
121
252
50
1,537
182
438
360
**
554
7,614
157

983
~
0
236
5
1
2
377
22
8
0
**
12
308
12

State total

a,b

Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusettsc
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvaniab
Rhode Islandc
Vermont

Full-time

Female
Part-time

Not reported

Full-time Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

998

3,178

749

2,045
**
**
119
43
329
1,100
446
8
**

24
**
0
3
1
2
13
5
0
0

412
186
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
201

3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

432
**
0
23
0
0
301
108
0
0
0
0
**

6,839
**
2,618
551
72
581
1,445
892
17
53
582
28
**

646
**
0
52
2
0
464
127
0
0
0
1
**

1,765
**
1,067
0
0
0
676
0
0
0
22
0
**

23
**
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
**

8,544
312
169
204
276
1,298
343
305
381
367
1,194
1,179
199
328
420
935
611
23

70
0
0
4
1
1
4
0
~
0
6
~
0
5
14
0
28
7

11,776
333
195
151
515
2,111
382
239
356
867
1,849
1,223
154
430
573
1,669
708
21

106
0
0
17
9
8
4
0
~
0
12
~
0
5
2
1
40
8

44
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

178
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
~
0
0
~
0
0
0
173
0
0

8,573
47
98
1,698
74
137
28
961
87
212
**
**
353
4,822
56

216
~
0
23
2
0
2
6
10
0
0
**
6
160
7

5,661
59
71
1,403
47
115
22
530
95
226
**
**
201
2,792
100

222
~
0
13
3
1
0
28
12
6
0
**
6
148
5

957
0
0
550
0
0
0
46
0
0
360
**
0
0
1

545
~
0
200
0
0
0
343
0
2
0
**
0
0
0

Note: An expanded Methodology, appendix tables with state-level data, and detailed Explanatory Notes are forthcoming.
~ Not applicable.
** Not reported.
a
Excludes an estimated 8,065 full-time and 422 part-time staff in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon.
b
Data differ from those in other BJS publications.
c
Some or all data are estimated.
dIncludes the total number of staff members for the parole and probation agency.

10 Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006

BJS

For electronic versions of this report,
visit the BJS website
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
To order paper copies of this or other BJS reports —
• Visit
http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/bjspubs.aspx
• Call 1-800-851-3420
Download datasets and documentation from
the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data —
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/index.html

Keep current on criminal justice issues
Get notices and newsletters:
JUSTSTATS
E-mail notifications of new statistical materials from BJS, the FBI,
and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
To subscribe, see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/juststats.htm
JUSTINFO
A biweekly electronic newsletter from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS) with news from BJS, NCJRS, and the other agencies in the
Office of Justice Programs.
To subscribe, see http://www.ncjrs.gov/subreg.html

Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006 11

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

*NCJ~222180*

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

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

This report in portable document format ( and in
ASCII and its related statistical data and tables
are available at the BJS World Wide Web
Internet site: .

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

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency
of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is
the director.
This Special Report was written by Thomas P. Bonczar,
statistician, and verified by William J. Sabol and Todd D.
Minton. Nicole S. Adolph, Garry L. Smith, and Adam E.
Bacon, Governments Division, U.S. Census Bureau,
carried out data collection and processing for the 2006
Census of Adult Parole Supervising Agencies, under the
supervision of Latrice M. Brogsdale-Davis and Charlene
M. Sebold. Catherine Bird, Tina Dorsey, and Georgette
Walsh produced and edited the report. Jayne Robinson
prepared the report for final printing, under the
supervision of Doris J. James.
August 2008 NCJ 222180

12 Characteristics of State Parole Supervising Agencies, 2006