By the Numbers - Parole Release and Revocation Across 50 States, Robina Institute, 2016
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
1 Parole Release and Revocation Across 50 States INTRODUCTION BY THE NUMBERS: A publication by the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice ROBINA INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES INTRODUCTION 2 BY THE NUMBERS: Parole Release and Revocation Across 50 States A publication by the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice By Mariel E. Alper Contributors: Kevin R. Reitz, Edward R. Rhine, Alexis L. Watts, and Jason P. Robey © 2016. Regents of the University of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 3 Introduction to the State Data Parole Profiles............................................................................................i Methodological Notes....................................................................................................................................iii 1.. Alabama.................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.. Alaska...................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.. Arizona.................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.. Arkansas...............................................................................................................................................13 5.. California..............................................................................................................................................17 6.. Colorado...............................................................................................................................................21 INTRODUCTION CONTENTS 7.. Connecticut.........................................................................................................................................25 8.. Delaware..............................................................................................................................................29 9.. Florida...................................................................................................................................................33 10. Georgia.................................................................................................................................................37 11. Hawaii....................................................................................................................................................41 12. Idaho......................................................................................................................................................45 13. Illinois....................................................................................................................................................49 14. Indiana..................................................................................................................................................53 15. Iowa.......................................................................................................................................................57 16. Kansas...................................................................................................................................................61 17. Kentucky..............................................................................................................................................65 18. Louisiana..............................................................................................................................................69 19. Maine.....................................................................................................................................................73 20. Maryland..............................................................................................................................................77 21. Massachusetts....................................................................................................................................81 22. Michigan...............................................................................................................................................85 23. Minnesota............................................................................................................................................89 24. Mississippi...........................................................................................................................................93 25. Missouri................................................................................................................................................97 26. Montana............................................................................................................................................. 101 27. Nebraska........................................................................................................................................... 105 28. Nevada............................................................................................................................................... 109 29. New Hampshire............................................................................................................................... 113 30. New Jersey....................................................................................................................................... 117 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES INTRODUCTION 4 CONTENTS 31. New Mexico...................................................................................................................................... 121 32. New York............................................................................................................................................ 125 33. North Carolina.................................................................................................................................. 129 34. North Dakota.................................................................................................................................... 133 35. Ohio..................................................................................................................................................... 137 36. Oklahoma.......................................................................................................................................... 141 37. Oregon............................................................................................................................................... 145 38. Pennsylvania.................................................................................................................................... 149 39. Rhode Island..................................................................................................................................... 153 40. South Carolina................................................................................................................................. 157 41. South Dakota.................................................................................................................................... 161 42. Tennessee......................................................................................................................................... 165 43. Texas................................................................................................................................................... 169 44. Utah..................................................................................................................................................... 173 45. Vermont............................................................................................................................................. 177 46. Virginia............................................................................................................................................... 181 47. Washington...................................................................................................................................... 185 48. West Virginia.................................................................................................................................... 189 49. Wisconsin.......................................................................................................................................... 193 50. Wyoming........................................................................................................................................... 197 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 201 Appendix....................................................................................................................................................... 203 About the Parole Release and Revocation Project & About the Robina Institute...................... 204 ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 5i The Data Profiles in this report are designed to provide a statistical snapshot of the relationships and movements between prison and parole supervision populations in each state. The report examines the “in-out” decision point of parole release, and the “out-in” decisions at stake in the parole revocation process. Its relevance extends as much to prison policy across the U.S. as to parole policy. There are 50 separate Data Profiles, several pages for each state, all presented in a common format. It is possible to read the report from front to back, but we doubt this will be the normal approach. Instead, the report is structured so that readers may “flip through” and “jump around,” with attention to each reader’s specific interests. Most readers will start with their home jurisdictions, and will be selective about which other states to look at next. While the report does not editorialize on the policy significance of these data, or the rich comparisons the data make possible, we have no doubt that readers will draw their own conclusions. The Data Profiles include overall population rates, admissions to prison, parole releases granted, and conditional release violations, in addition to those individuals at risk of incarceration, and exits from parole back to prison. They demonstrate how parole decisionmaking functions as a crucial mechanism channeling offenders into and out of prison. The sentencing structure within which parole boards operate shapes the exercise of their discretionary authority, creating wide variation in releasing practices throughout the nation. At the same time, paroling authorities continue to exert significant leverage over those subject to revocation and return to prison. The charts clearly display the differentiation and complexity that exists by state. Context for This Report The statistics gathered in this report reflect measurable outcomes in each state’s sentencing and corrections system, but it is important to keep in mind that these outcomes arise in very different contexts. States vary in innumerable ways that cannot be captured in broad statistics. The volume of movement from prison to parole supervision is affected by many jurisdiction-specific factors. First, the extent to which discretionary parole release is authorized varies a great deal across states. In some systems, all or nearly all inmates are released through a discretionary hearing by a parole board. In other jurisdictions that have adopted determinate sentencing “reforms,” only inmates sentenced before the effective date of the state’s determinate sentencing law are eligible for discretionary release (and the number of “grandfathered-in” prisoners drops over time). In other determinate jurisdictions, a subset of prisoners, such as inmates with life sentences, remain subject to a parole hearing—even though the great majority of prisoners receive determinate sentences. When only “old code” or the most serious offenders are eligible for discretionary parole release, parole release will be granted far less often compared to states in which every inmate is eligible for release consideration. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TO THE STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES Second, formal eligibility requirements for granting parole release, which vary widely across the states, exert an impact on actual release rates, alongside the attitudes, cultures, and norms of individual parole boards and individual board members. In some states, an inmate may become legally eligible for parole at an early point in their indeterminate sentence. Indeed, in a small number of jurisdictions, there is no minimum term that must be served in most cases. If first release eligibility occurs extremely early in relationship to maximum terms, boards may be unlikely to release inmates at first eligibility. In this context, the statutory structure of minimum and maximum terms can have an impact on statistical parole “grant” rates. In contrast, in some other states, initial parole eligibility may be tied to a legal presumption of release, absent disqualifying factors. In these states, the legal backdrop of paroling decisions can push toward higher grant rates. The “range of discretion” enjoyed by individual parole boards varies from state to state, and can change over time and within a single state. In a majority of states, parole boards consider a sizeable number of factors when deciding to grant or defer the release of an inmate. Procedurally, states vary in whether such decisions can be made by one board member, or whether many board ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES INTRODUCTION ii members, a quorum of board members, or all the members must vote. At various points in time, paroling authorities may be less likely to grant parole release, even when it is within their discretion to do so, depressing grant rates in comparison with other jurisdictions. For example, parole boards are often put in, and more often fear being put in, a position of vulnerability when a parolee they have released subsequently commits a violent crime. Parole revocation rates in individual states are likewise shaped by a host of legal and contextual factors, and are just as difficult to unpack as grant rates. This is not surprising. The Robina Institute views parole boards’ powers to revoke as a form of “reincarceration discretion,” which is the mirror image of their “release discretion.” In both instances, we are dealing with a grey-area correctional population on the borderline between incarceration and the community. The “out-in” function of paroling authorities invokes many concerns that are parallel to their “in-out” responsibilities. And every decision by a parole board, in either direction, is an important element of a jurisdiction’s prison policy. The prospect of revocation may vary by who is placed on parole supervision in the first place. If supervision is reserved for only the most serious offenders with the highest likelihood of recidivism, then a state’s rate of reincarceration may be higher than in other states with lower-risk parole cohorts. Revocation numbers are also influenced by the sheer volume of offenders placed on supervision, and the lengths of their terms. Larger populations exposed to the risk of revocation, all else being equal, will lead to larger absolute numbers of revocations. Revocation rates are also affected by the policies and practices of the supervising agency and the idiosyncrasies of individual parole officers. If revocations are triggered by less serious forms of misconduct, for example, or if the standard of proof at revocation hearings is low, parolees are on average more likely to be returned to prison. Contents of the Data Briefs A series of five charts are displayed for each state in this volume. Chart 1 shows figures for the past decade of prison and parole population rates, per 100,000 adult residents in a particular state—and compares this with the prison and parole supervision rates for states as a whole. Chart 3 shows parole release grant rates, when available from the state. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES The three additional charts show reincarceration rates using different measures. All three are meaningful measures, but they all are affected by different considerations. Chart 2 measures reincarceration due to revocations as a percent of total admissions to prison in a given year (as opposed to admissions due to a new conviction). Chart 2 highlights the significant contribution of conditional releases in some states to the prison population. This measure is affected by the relative sizes of the prison and parole population. If a state has a very large parole population, that might contribute to a larger proportion of prison admissions due to parole revocations. It is important to note that Chart 2 cannot disaggregate revocations based on new criminal activity from those based on “technical” violations (that is, violations of conditions of supervision that would not be illegal for persons not under supervision). Statistics broken down in this way may sometimes be gathered from particular states. Chart 4 displays the number of parolees who were reincarcerated per one hundred parolees at risk of incarceration (that is, they were under parole supervision at some point during that year). This Chart spans a number of years for each state; its coverage varies depending on the availability of data. Chart 5 focuses on the percentage of offenders who exited post-release supervision in 2014 due to reincarceration (as opposed to those completing their supervision successfully). People who remain on parole supervision, but are not revoked, would not be part of the percentage that exits successfully or to incarceration. Many of the measures presented in the Data Briefs feature comparisons of the state that is the subject of the Data Brief with the aggregate rate for all fifty states. This offers one benchmark for comparison, although readers can easily flip through the book and compare any state with any other state of their choosing. Inclusion of the aggregate 50-state statistic is not meant to imply that it is the best reference point for evaluation of practices in individual states. What counts as a “good” point of comparison is up to the reader. The U.S. imprisons and supervises its residents at rates far greater than other countries. So, while some states’ prison and parole populations may be lower than the average state, they may often still be far above the world average. iii Readers of this report will also be interested in a separate series of publications by the Robina Institute on American parole practices. These are comprehensive “Legal Profiles,” focused on one state at a time, detailing the legal, institutional, regulatory, and policy framework of parole release and revocation. The series is titled, Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in the U.S. The first report in the series, on the State of Colorado, was published in February 2016. One area of concentration in the Legal Profiles series is the parole release guidelines and risk assessment instruments, if any, used in each state. The content of each jurisdiction’s decisional tools is described in detail, providing a resource never before available. For more information, go to www.robinainstitute.org/ parole-release-revocation-project. Methodological Notes ical Notes Chart 1 in each Data Brief: Data Brief: The formula used to construct this chart is: d to construct this chart is: Prison and parole counts in Chart 1 come from annual reports issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), including the Prisoners series and the Probation and Parole in the United States series, as well as the online Statistical Analysis Tools associated with these reports, accessible through the BJS website (bjs.gov). When states submit changes after the publication of the annual report, the data are updated in the online tool. Consequently, the online tools are the most up-to-date source, and this report relies on them whenever possible. This may cause some discrepancies for readers consulting the published reports. More detailed information on the sources is available at the end of the report. Adult population counts for each state were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau. As not all figures are available from BJS in rates per adult population (as opposed to rates per general population), the rates in this report were reconstructed using the denominator of adult census counts for each calendar year. This may also cause some discrepancies for readers consulting BJS’s published reports, or the Statistical Analysis Tools. These adjustments standardize the calculation of prison and parole supervision rates throughout the report. INTRODUCTION In some of the “longitudinal” Data Briefs, we occasionally observed precipitous changes in particular states from one year to the next. In every such instance, we made an effort to discover whether there was a straightforward explanation for the one-year leap, such as reporting changes or new legislation. In the appendix, tables 1 and 2 display the prison and parole rates reflected in Chart 1, ranked in descending order from states with the highest correctional populations. This allows readers to see the relative position of individual states, which is not easy to do in the body of the report. ܽ ൈ ͳͲͲǡͲͲͲ Although the data have been carefully combed, we do not want to overstate their accuracy. Throughout the report, for example, readers should interpret year-to-year changes with caution. While the data are displayed over where p is the count of individuals at yearend in ount of individuals at yearend in prison and in parole, respectively for year i and a is the a series of eleven years, it is important to recognize that, in prison and in parole, respectively for year i and a is the of adult residents in the state for year i. Correctional populations relative to a jurisdiction’s individual jurisdictions, (seemingly) continuous statistics yearly estimate of adult residents in the state for year i. n is the standard yardstick used throughout this report. We prefer this to estimates of do not necessarily remain comparable from year-to-year. Correctional populations relative to a jurisdiction’s adult pulations per general population because, with few exceptions statistically speaking, the Reporting changes, alterations in data management, population is the standard yardstick used throughout and new legislation may cause statistical bumps that n is the group at risk of entering the adult criminal justice system. Questions of juveniles this report. We prefer this to estimates of correctional are not indicative of genuine shifts in prison or parole upervision would require separate data collection and analysis. populations per general population because, with few populations. When the reported data indicate surprisingly exceptions statistically speaking, the adult population large changes in a particular jurisdiction over a single is the group at risk of entering the adult criminal justice le counts in Chart 1 come from annual reports issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics year, this report makes every effort to note the apparent system. Questions of juveniles on community supervision he Prisoners series and the Probation and Parole in the United States series, as well as the reason in the chart, e.g., whether a methodological would require separate data collection and analysis. al Analysis Tools associated with these reports, accessible through the BJS change waswebsite reported to BJS, or new legislation in the states submit changes after the publication of the annual report, the data are updated in state was reported in other sources. However, in some instances, we could find no explanation for such singleConsequently, the online tools are the most up‐to‐date source, and this report relies on year lurches in the data. possible. This may cause some discrepancies for readers consulting the published reports. nformation on the sources is available at the end of the report. n counts for each state were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau. As not all figures are JS in rates per adult population (as opposed to rates per general population), the rates in ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES reconstructed using the denominator of adult census counts for each calendar year. This INTRODUCTION iv In the narrative accompanying Chart 1 for every state, the Chart 3 in each Data Brief: percentage of releases from prison that were conditional ve accompanying Chart 1 for every state, the percentage of releases from prison that were releases is given. The formula used to calculate this These data come from states’ annual reports, where percentage is: available. For some jurisdictions, minimal or no data eleases is given. The formula used to calculate this percentage is: exist, and the number of years we can look back to ݀ retrospective practice varies quite a bit. The relevant ݀ݑ ve accompanying Chart 1 for every state, the percentage of releases from prison that were sources used to build Chart 3 are noted beneath the chart for each state. Readers can consult those sources eleases is given. The formula used to calculate this percentage is: he number of conditional releases offrom prison releases reported in 2014 Where d is the number conditional from pris- and u is the number of for more detail about how the figures were calculated. An ݀the number of unconditional on reported 2014 and u is releases from prison. inConditional releases include releases to post‐release probation, important caveat is that Chart 3 relies on what each state ݀ ݑ releases from prison. Conditional releases include mandatory releases, and other unspecified conditional releases. Unconditional reports, withreleases no independent inquiry into the quality of releases to post-release probation, supervised mandatoations of sentence (prisoners who have “maxed out”), commutations, among others. Lastly, the data. Consequently, any errors or missing data in the ry conditional releases, andreleases other unspecified conditional he number of from prison reported releases. in 2014 and u is the number of states’ reports are mirrored in Chart 3. The terminology ge of admissions to parole in 2014 that were due to discretionary decisions (such as by a Unconditional releases include expirations of sentence l releases from prison. Conditional releases include releases to post‐release probation, used in Chart 3 is not uniform throughout this report, but is presented in the narrative accompanying Chart 1. This figure comes from the Probation (prisoners who have “maxed out”), commutations, among mandatory releases, and other unspecified conditional releases. Unconditional releases is based on how outcomes are reported by each state. For the United States, 2014 report by BJS. others. Lastly, the percentage of admissions to parole in ations of sentence (prisoners who have “maxed out”), commutations, among others. Lastly, example, some states report whether parole is “granted” 2014 that were due to discretionary decisions (such as and others report whether parole is “approved.” Most ge of admissions to parole in 2014 that were due to discretionary decisions (such as by a by a parole board) is presented in the narrative accomch Data Brief: states report only the board’s decision, not whether the is presented in the narrative accompanying Chart 1. This figure comes from the Probation panying Chart 1. This figure comes from the Probation release actually occurred, unless noted in the chart. the United States, 2014 report by BJS. and Parole in the United States, 2014 report by BJS. used to construct this chart is: ܿ Chart 2 in each Data Brief: ch Data Brief: ݐ Chart 4 in each Data Brief: Chart 4 in each Data Brief: The formula used to construct this chart is: The formula used to construct this chart is: The formula used to construct this chart is: used to construct this chart is: e total number of admission to prison for year i that are conditional release violators and t is ݉ ܿ mber of admissions to prison for year i. This fraction is displayed as a percentage. The ሺܾ ݁ ሻ ൈ ͳͲͲ ݐ t can include admissions due to violations of conditional release, admissions due to a new ment, or admissions for other reasons as reported by the state including transfers from other Where m is the number of parolees who are incarcerated in year i, b is the number of indivi Where m is the number of parolees who are incarcerated Where c is the total number of admission to prison for e total number of admission to prison for year i that are conditional release violators and t is returns from appeal or bonds, AWOLs/escapes, and other types of admissions. These data in year i, b is the number of individuals on parole at the year i that are conditional release violators and t is the mber of admissions to prison for year i. This at the beginning of year i, and e is the number of individuals who entered parole in year fraction is displayed as a percentage. The beginning of year i, and e is the number of individuals total number of admissions to prison for year i. This he Prisoners series published by BJS and the related online Statistical Analysis Tool. this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the related o t can include admissions due to violations of conditional release, admissions due to a new who entered parole in year i. The data for this chart come fraction is displayed as a percentage. The denominator the percentages for the fifty states are rank ordered, and each state’s rank is presented in ment, or admissions for other reasons as reported by the state including transfers from other from the Probation and Parole in the United States series t can include admissions due to violations of conditional on of the chart. The full rank ordering and percentages for all 50 states are displayed in the Chart 5 in each Data Brief: returns from appeal or bonds, AWOLs/escapes, and other types of admissions. These data and the related online data tool. release, admissions due to a new court commitment, or le 3. admissions for other reasons as reported by the state he Prisoners series published by BJS and the related online Statistical Analysis Tool. Two figures are used to construct this chart. Incarcerations include parolees who exited par including transfers from other jurisdictions, returns from Chart 5 in each Data Brief: the percentages for the fifty states are rank ordered, and each state’s rank is presented in ch Data Brief: appeal or bonds, AWOLs/escapes,because they were incarcerated in calendar year 2014 with a new sentence, through par and other types of on of the chart. The full rank ordering and percentages for all 50 states are displayed in the admissions. These data come fromor to receive treatment, but do not include incarcerations for “other/unknown” reasons the Prisoners series Two figures are used to construct this chart. Incarcerations le 3. published by BJS and the related online Statistical include parolees who exited parole supervision because me from states’ annual reports, where available. For some jurisdictions, minimal or no data include parolees who exited parole because they successfully completed their superv Analysis Tool. Additionally, the percentages for the they were incarcerated in calendar year 2014 with a number of years we can look back to retrospective practice varies quite a bit. The relevant discharged. The data come from the Probation and Parole in the United States 2014 repo ch Data Brief: fifty states are rank ordered, and each state’s rank is new sentence, through parole revocation, or to receive to build Chart 3 are noted beneath the chart for each state. Readers can consult those related online Statistical Analysis Tool. presented in the description of the chart. The full rank treatment, but do not include incarcerations for “other/ ore detail about how the figures were calculated. An important caveat is that Chart 3 relies ordering and percentages for all 50 states are displayed unknown” reasons. Completions include parolees who me from states’ annual reports, where available. For some jurisdictions, minimal or no data state reports, with no independent inquiry into the quality of the data. Consequently, any in the appendix, table 3. exited parole because they successfully completed their number of years we can look back to retrospective practice varies quite a bit. The relevant ing data in the states’ reports are mirrored in Chart 3. The terminology used in Chart 3 is not supervision and were discharged. The data come from References to build Chart 3 are noted beneath the chart for each state. Readers can consult those the Probation and Parole in the United States 2014 report ughout this report, but is based on how outcomes are reported by each state. For example, ore detail about how the figures were calculated. An important caveat is that Chart 3 relies and the BJS’s related online Statistical Analysis Tool. eport whether parole is “granted” and others report whether parole is “approved.” Most The following sources from the Bureau of Justice Statistics were consulted in the preparat state reports, with no independent inquiry into the quality of the data. Consequently, any only the board’s decision, not whether the release actually occurred, unless noted in the report. The state‐specific sources used to calculate parole grant rates are listed in the resp ing data in the states’ reports are mirrored in Chart 3. The terminology used in Chart 3 is not brief. ughout this report, but is based on how outcomes are reported by each state. For example, eport whether parole is “granted” and others report whether parole is “approved.” Most Reports in the Prisoners Series only the board’s decision, not whether the release actually occurred, unless noted in the 2 Carson, E. A. (2015). Prisoners in 2014. (NCJ 248955). Washington, DC: United States De Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5387 v The following sources from the Bureau of Justice Statistics were consulted in the preparation of this report. The statespecific sources used to calculate parole grant rates are listed in the respective state’s brief. Carson, E. A. (2015). Prisoners in 2014. (NCJ 248955). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5387 Carson, E. A. (2014). Prisoners in 2013. (NCJ 247282). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5109 Carson, E. A. & Golinelli, D. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991-2012 (Revised). (NCJ 243920). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4842 Carson, E. A. & Sabol, W. J. (2012). Prisoners in 2011. (NCJ 239808). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4559 Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., & Sabol, W. J. (2011). Prisoners in 2010 (Revised). (NCJ 236096). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www. bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2230 Sabol, W. J. & West, H. C. (2011). Prisoners in 2009 (Revised). (NCJ 231675). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs. gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2232 Cooper, M., Sabol, W. J. & West, H. C. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. (NCJ 228417). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs. gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1763 Sabol, W. J. & West, H. C. (2008). Prisoners in 2007. (NCJ 224280). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=903 Couture, H., Sabol, W. J. & West, H. C. (2007). Prisoners in 2006. (NCJ 219416). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs. gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=908 Beck, A. J. & Harrison, P. M. (2006). Prisoners in 2005. (NCJ 215092). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=912 Beck, A. J. & Harrison, P. M. (2005). Prisoners in 2004. (NCJ 210677). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=915 Beck, A. J. & Harrison, P. M. (2004). Prisoners in 2003. (NCJ 205335). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=918 INTRODUCTION REFERENCES ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES INTRODUCTION vi Reports in the Probation and Parole in the United States Series Bonczar, T. P., Kaeble, D., & Maruschak, L. M. (2015). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2014. (NCJ 249057). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5415 Bonczar, T. P. & Herberman, E. (2014). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2013. (NCJ 248029). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5135 Bonczar, T. P. & Maruschak, L. M. (2013). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2012. (NCJ 243826). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4844 Maruschak, L. M. & Parks, E. (2012). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2011. (NCJ 239686). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4538 Bonczar, T. P. & Glaze, L. E. (2011). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2010. (NCJ 236019). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2239 Bonczar, T. P. & Glaze, L. E. (2010). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2009. (NCJ 231674). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2233 Bonczar, T. P. & Glaze, L. E. (2009). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2008. (NCJ 228230). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1764 Bonczar, T. P. & Glaze, L. E. (2008). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2007 – Statistical Tables. (NCJ 224707). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1099 Bonczar, T. P. & Glaze, L. E. (2007). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2006. (NCJ 220218). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1106 Bonczar, T. P. & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2005. (NCJ 215091). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1107 Glaze, L. E. & Palla, S. (2005). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2004. (NCJ 210676). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1108 Glaze, L. E. & Palla, S. (2004). Probation And Parole In The United States, 2003. (NCJ 205336). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1109 Online Data Tools Carson, E. A. & Mulako-Wangota, J. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool (CSAT) – Prisoners: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nps Bonczar, T. P., Bureau of Justice Statistics. Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool (CSAT) – Parole: http://www.bjs.gov/parole ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN ALABAMA *NOTE ALL STATES SHOULD BEGIN ON THE RIGHT SIDE/ODD PAGE NUMBER Alabama (we could use state images like Profiles in Probation for header) Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Alabama compared to states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. However, parolees are slightly less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. About a third of parole hearings lead to a discretionary release, compared to forty percent five years ago. Alabama currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Alabama compared to states as a whole while parole population including most violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, and drug offenders. rates are lower. However, parolees are slightly less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. th About a Alabama had the 5 third of parole hearings lead to a discretionary release, compared to forty percent five years ago. Alabama highest prison population rate of the states in 2014 (CALL OUT IN HEADER) currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including most violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, and drug offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1,000 900 800 700 823 808 806 603 612 316 597 758 600 317 308 312 227 210 2004 2005 831 851 615 612 880 869 878 877 870 849 605 597 582 563 561 551 305 600 500 400 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 220 224 233 246 234 233 241 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 300 200 100 205 247 216 0 2003 2006 Alabama Prison Population State Prison Population Alabama Parole Population State Parole Population 2014 This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for *Alabama parole populations are not comparable from 2005-2007 or 2013-2014 due to changes in recordkeeping procedures. each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Alabama is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 849 in Alabama ALABAMA 2 This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. Alabama had the 5th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Alabama had the 25th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The prison population rate in Alabama is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 849 in Alabama versus 551 for all 50 states. Alabama had the 5th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 65% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Over the series, the parole population rate has remained fairly steady and is lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the parole population rate in Alabama is 216 which is lower than Over the series, the parole population rate has remained fairly steady and is lower than the aggregate the aggregate rate of 305. Alabama had the 25th highest parole state rate. In 2014, the parole population rate in Alabama is 216 which is lower than the aggregate rate population rate of the states in 2014. th of 305. Alabama had the 25 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 26% 9% 9% 10% 2012 2013 2014 25% 20% 14% 15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 12% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alabama 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Over the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were due to conditional release violators has been lower in series for all 50 states is shown. Alabama compared to the states in aggregate. In 2014, just ten percent of prison admissions in Alabama were due to violationsOver the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were due to conditional release violators has of conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Alabama had one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states been lower in Alabama compared to the states in aggregate. In 2014, just ten percent of prison in 2014. admissions in Alabama were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Alabama had one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES Com text, sepa okay Com foreg popu 28% 27% Com langu don’t 3 Chart 3. Alabama Grant Rate, 2014 ALABAMA Chart 3a. Alabama Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3. Alabama Grant Rate, 2014 34% Granted Denied 66% 34% Granted Denied Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or denied. Slightly over one-third of the hearings resulted in Chart 3b. Alabama Grants by Year, 2009‐2014 parole being granted while the remaining two-thirds resulted in parole being denied. 66% 9000 Chart 3b. Alabama Grants by Year, 2009-2014 Chart 3b. Alabama Grants by Year, 2009‐2014 8000 9000 7000 8000 6000 7000 5000 3,280 2,690 2,097 3,280 6000 4000 2,690 5000 2,097 3000 4000 2000 4,644 4,098 4,774 3000 1000 2000 4,644 0 FY 2009 1000 0 FY 2009 4,098 FY 2010 FY 2010 4,774 FY 2011 Denied FY 2011 2,178 2,178 5,228 5,228 FY 2012 Granted FY 2012 2,312 2,237 2,312 2,237 5,315 5,315 4,410 FY 2013 FY 2013 4,410 FY 2014 FY 2014 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being Denied Granted granted or denied. Slightly over one‐third of the hearings resulted in parole being granted while the Chart 3b showsThe first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being the outcome of parole hearings from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2014. In FY2009 and FY2010, about 40 percent of hearings resulted in parole being remaining two‐thirds resulted in parole being denied. granted. In FY2011-FY2013, the rate was around 30 percent. In 2014 it was 34%. granted or denied. Slightly over one‐third of the hearings resulted in parole being granted while the Source: State ofremaining two‐thirds resulted in parole being denied. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual Report FY 2014, http://www.pardons.state.al.us/Annual_Reports/2013-2014_Annual_Report.pdf. The second chart shows the outcome of parole hearings from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2014. In FY2009 and FY2010, about 40 percent of hearings resulted in parole being granted. In FY2011‐FY2013, The second chart shows the outcome of parole hearings from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2014. In the rate was around 30 percent. In 2014 it was 34%. FY2009 and FY2010, about 40 percent of hearings resulted in parole being granted. In FY2011‐FY2013, the rate was around 30 percent. In 2014 it was 34%. Source: State of Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual Report FY 2014 http://www.pardons.state.al.us/Annual_Reports/2013‐2014_Annual_Report.pdf Source: State of Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual Report FY 2014 http://www.pardons.state.al.us/Annual_Reports/2013‐2014_Annual_Report.pdf 8 8 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES ALABAMA 4 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 9 10 8 7 8 9 2006 2007 2008 2009 Alabama 3 2 5 5 0 2010 2011 8 2012 5 2013 State Total 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is slightly lower in Alabama compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the incarceration rate stood at 5 per 100 parolees in Alabama compared to 8 per 100 for the states inparole during the year. aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is slightly lower in Alabama compared to the states in aggregate Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the incarceration rate stood at 5 per 100 parolees in Alabama compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Alabama 24% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Alabama, about a quarter of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is comparable to the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 9 PAROLE IN ALASKA Alaska Summary: Prison population rates are much higher in Alaska compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are comparable. Parole is much more likely to end in incarceration rather than a successful completion in Alaska compared to states in aggregate. Forty percent of parole hearings lead Summary: Prison population rates are much higher in Alaska compared to the states as a whole while parole to a discretionary release in 2014 compared to a high of sixty‐one percent in 2009. Alaska currently population rates are comparable. Parole is much more likely to end in incarceration rather than a successful practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including the majority of violent offenders, completion in Alaska compared to states in aggregate. Forty percent of parole hearings lead to a discretionary sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. release in 2014 compared to a high of sixty-one percent in 2009. Alaska currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including the majority of violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug Alaska had the 3rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014 offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1,200 1,000 981 963 597 600 999 1,035 1,042 994 1,031 1,025 1,046 1,039 929 948 561 551 421 402 306 305 2013 2014 800 603 612 615 612 605 597 378 397 308 313 600 400 317 308 312 316 201 201 202 213 2003 2004 200 311 323 343 317 582 563 332 347 313 308 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alaska Prison Population Alaska Parole Population 2009 2010 2011 2012 State Prison Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an Comm aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. out of t United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Alaska is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2011; ALASKA 6 The prison population rate in Alaska is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2011; thereafter, the rate has declined. In 2014, the prison population rate was 948 in Alaska versus 551 for all 50 states. Alaska had the 3rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 47% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Alaska had the 3rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Alaska had the 10th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Over the series, the parole rate appears to have doubled. In 2003, the rate was lower in Alaska than states as a whole while it was higher than the aggregate rate in 2014. In 2014, the parole population rate in Alaska is 402 which is higher than the aggregate state rate of 305. Alaska had the 10th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 9% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. parole population rate of the states in 2014. (LEAVE IN TEXT AND CALL OUT) In 2014, 9% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 50% 47% 45% 40% 35% 31% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 30% 27% 26% 28% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Alaska 2011 2012 2013 2014 State Institutions This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. Alaska has not provided data on the type of prison admission since 2003. In 2003, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators was higher (47%) than states in aggregate (31%). Alaska has not provided data on the type of prison admission since 2003. In 2003, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators was higher (47%) than states in aggregate (31%). *Alaska did not provide data on type of prison admission after 2003. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 7 Chart 3. Alaska Grant Rate, 2014 ALASKA Chart 3a. Alaska Grant Rate, 2014 Grant Chart 3. Alaska Grant Rate, 2014 21% Deny 40% Continued Grant 39% 21% Warning Deny Continued Chart 3a showsChart 3b. Alaska Grants by Year, 1996‐2011 the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted, denied, or continued. Forty percent of hearings resulted in parole being 39% granted while about equal numbers resulted in parole being denied. The remaining fifth resulted in a continuation. 40% 250 Warning Chart 3b. Alaska Grants by Year, 1996-2011 200 Chart 3b. Alaska Grants by Year, 1996‐2011 250 150 200 100 150 50 100 51% 35% 51% 40% 0 50 61% 41% 40% 39% 36% 34% 36% 51% 96 35% 97 40% 98 51% 99 00 01 02 03 04 41% 40% 39% 36% 34% 36% Grant Deny 05 53% 30% 41% 59% 56% 61% 59% 53% 07 08 09 10 56% 41% 06 11 30% Continued 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted, denied, or continued. Forty percent of hearings resulted in parole being granted while about equal Grant Deny Continued numbers resulted in parole being denied. The remaining fifth resulted in a continuation. Chart 3b shows The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted, the outcome of parole hearings from 1996 to fiscal year 2014. In 1996, the rate was 40%. It increased to a high of 51% in 1998 and 1999, before decreasing to a low of 30%denied, or continued. Forty percent of hearings resulted in parole being granted while about equal in 2006. Thereafter, the rate increased to a high of 61% in 2009 and was 56% in 2011. The number of hearings during this time has ranged from a low of 104 in 2006 to The second chart shows the outcome of parole hearings from 1996 to fiscal year 2014. In 1996, the rate a high of 236 in 1998. Information from 2012 and 2013 was not available. numbers resulted in parole being denied. The remaining fifth resulted in a continuation. was 40%. It increased to a high of 51% in 1998 and 1999, before decreasing to a low of 30% in 2006. Source: Discretionary Parole Hearings Facts 2014, http://www.correct.state.ak.us/Parole/documents/Discretionary%20Hearings%202014.pdf. Thereafter, the rate increased to a high of 61% in 2009 and was 56% in 2011. The number of hearings The second chart shows the outcome of parole hearings from 1996 to fiscal year 2014. In 1996, the rate during this time has ranged from a low of 104 in 2006 to a high of 236 in 1998. Information from 2012 was 40%. It increased to a high of 51% in 1998 and 1999, before decreasing to a low of 30% in 2006. and 2013 was not available. Thereafter, the rate increased to a high of 61% in 2009 and was 56% in 2011. The number of hearings during this time has ranged from a low of 104 in 2006 to a high of 236 in 1998. Information from 2012 (Source: Discretionary Parole Hearings Facts 2014 and 2013 was not available. http://www.correct.state.ak.us/Parole/documents/Discretionary%20Hearings%202014.pdf) (Source: Discretionary Parole Hearings Facts 2014 http://www.correct.state.ak.us/Parole/documents/Discretionary%20Hearings%202014.pdf) 0 13 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES 13 ALASKA 8 Chart 4. Rates of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rates of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 10 14 14 21 12 13 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 11 9 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Alaska 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees in Alaska is only available from 2009 to 2011. During this time, the rate was slightly lower in Alaska compared to the states as a whole. the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 The rate of incarceration for parolees in Alaska is only available from 2009 to 2011. During this time, the rate was slightly lower in Alaska compared to the states as a whole. Alaska States Total 24% 61% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Alaska, 61% of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 14 PAROLE IN ARIZONA Arizona Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Arizona compared to states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. Parole violators make up a smaller percentage of the prison population than states as a whole. However, parolees at risk of reincarceration are slightly more likely to be re‐ incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. About one‐tenth of parole hearings result in parole being granted, while almost three‐quarters result in parole being denied. Arizona does not practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Arizona compared to states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. Parole violators make up a smaller percentage of the prison population than states as a whole. th However,Arizona had the 8 parolees at risk of highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. reincarceration are slightly more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. About one-tenth of parole hearings result in parole being granted, while almost three-quarters result in Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 parole being denied. Arizona does not practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1,000 900 800 804 828 849 860 841 825 812 822 827 612 605 597 582 563 561 551 768 780 777 597 600 603 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 132 136 142 145 149 162 174 167 159 151 152 147 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 700 612 615 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Arizona Prison Population State Prison Population Arizona Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Arizona is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; ARIZONA 10 The prison population rate in Arizona is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In the past two years, the rate has shown a modest increase. In 2014, the prison population rate was 827 in Arizona versus 551 for all 50 states. Arizona had the 8th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 82% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Arizona had the 8th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Arizona had the 35th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Arizona is lower than the aggregate state rate. From 2003 to 2009, the parole population rate in Arizona increased; since 2009, the rate has decreased (to 147 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate state rate of 305. Arizona had the 35th The parole population rate in Arizona is lower than the aggregate state rate. From 2003 to 2009, the highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, less parole population rate in Arizona increased; since 2009, the rate has decreased (to 147 in 2014) and is th than one percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretion highest parole population rate of the lower than the aggregate state rate of 305. Arizona had the 35 ary decision such as the decision of a parole board. states in 2014. (CALL OUT and LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, less than one percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 27% 26% 28% 25% 20% 20% 15% 18% 19% 19% 17% 15% 16% 18% 15% 17% 17% 2013 2014 13% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Arizona 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from theviolations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout this series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Arizona has been lower than the aggregate state rate. However, while the states aggregately Throughout this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Arizona had the 36th highest remained Arizona has been lower than the aggregate state rate. However, while the states aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning percentage of prison admisin 2011, the percentage in Arizona has been increasing since steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Arizona has been sions that were due to viola2009, withincreasing since 2009, with a slight decrease since 2011. In 2014, 17% of prison admissions in Arizona a slight decrease since 2011. In 2014, 17% of prison tions of conditional releases admissions in Arizona were due to violations of conditional were due to violations of conditional release compared to about a quarter of the admissions for states in of the states in 2014. release compared to about a quarter of the admissions for states th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of aggregate. Arizona had the 36 in aggregate. Arizona had the 36th highest percentage of prison conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT) admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 11 Chart 3. Arizona Grant Rate, 2015 4% 6% 1% 4% ARIZONA Chart 3. Arizona Grant Rate, 2015 Granted 11% Denied Appeared and Waived Continued Refused to Appear SED/Released/Ineligible/ OTC/MLT 74% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole being granted, parole being denied, an appearance where parole was waived, a continuation, aThis chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole being refusal to appear, or other outcomes. Nearly three-quarters of the hearings resulted in a denial, while slightly over one-tenth resulted in parole being granted. Source: Arizonagranted, parole being denied, an appearance where parole was waived, a continuation, a refusal to Board of Executive Clemency Annual Report 2015, https://boec.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Annual%20Report%20PDF%202015.pdf. appear, or other outcomes. Nearly three‐quarters of the hearings resulted in a denial, while slightly over one‐tenth resulted in parole being granted. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2013 Source: Arizona Board of Executive Clemency Annual Report 2015 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 https://boec.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Annual%20Report%20PDF%202015.pdf 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 14 14 15 16 16 15 15 16 12 14 14 11 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Arizona 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2013. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as The rate of incarceration for parolees is slightly higher in Arizona compared to the states in aggregate and has been so since 2009.the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to In 2014, the rate stood at 12 per 100 parolees in Arizona compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is slightly higher in Arizona compared to the states in aggregate and has been so since 2009. In 2014, the rate stood at 12 per 100 parolees in Arizona compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 18 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES ARIZONA 12 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Arizona 19% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Arizona, just under one-fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN ARKANSAS Arkansas Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Arkansas compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Nearly nine out of ten parole hearings result in parole being approved—either with or without a stipulated pre‐ release program. Arkansas currently practices discretionary release for inmates convicted prior to the Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Arkansas compared to the states as a whole. However, effective date of its determinate sentencing statute and for inmates serving life sentences. parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Nearly nine out of ten parole hearings result in parole being approved—either with or without a stipulated pre-release program. Arkansas th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. currentlyArkansas had the 9 practices discretionary release for inmates convicted prior to the effective date of its determinate statute and for inmates serving life sentences. sentencing Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 *Changes to Arkansas’ parole system in 2013 contributed to higher counts of Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 inmates under the jurisdiction of prisons. 1,200 1,000 867 918 967 1,044 965 955 790 800 670 600 903 1,019 718 733 766 723 962 791 646 646 667 679 695 615 612 605 597 582 563 561 551 654 651 668 597 600 603 612 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 400 200 0 Arkansas Prison Population State Prison Population Arkansas Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ARKANSAS 14 The prison population rate in Arkansas is higher than the aggregate state rate. After changes to the state’s parole system in 2013, the prison population increased. In 2014, the prison population rate was 791 in Arkansas versus 551 for all 50 states. Arkansas had the 9th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 93% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Arkansas had the 9th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Arkansas had the 2nd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate is higher in Arkansas than the prison population rate and is much higher than the parole rate for states as a whole. The parole population rate increased every year from 2003 to 2012 (other than in 2010). Since 2012, the rate has decreased (to The parole population rate is higher in Arkansas than the prison population rate and is much higher than 962 in 2014), yet it remains far higher than the aggregate state rate the parole rate for states as a whole. The parole population rate increased every year from 2003 to 2012 of 305. Arkansas had the 2nd highest parole population rate of the (other than in 2010). Since 2012, the rate has decreased (to 962 in 2014), yet it remains far higher than states in 2014. In 2014, 86% of admissions to parole were due nd to a the aggregate state rate of 305. Arkansas had the 2 highest parole population rate of the states in discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. 2014. (LEAVE IN TEXT AND CALL OUT) In 2014, 86% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 60% 55% 50% 42% 40% 31% 44% 42% 33% 30% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 26% 35% 33% 27% 33% 22% 22% 27% 24% 20% 26% 26% 28% 2013 2014 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Arkansas 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in Arkansas was higher to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release Arkansas had the 4th highest remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in violators in Arkansas was higher to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately percentage of prison admis2011, the percentage in Arizona decreased dramatically in 2005 remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Arizona sions that were due to violaand increased even more dramatically in 2013, surpassing the tions of conditional releases aggregatedecreased dramatically in 2005 and increased even more dramatically in 2013, surpassing the aggregate state rate. In 2014, over half of prison admissions in of the states in 2014. state rate. In 2014, over half of prison admissions in Arkansas were due to violations of conditional Arkansas were due to violations of conditional release compared to th release compared to about a quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Arkansas had the 4 about a quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Arkansas highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states had the 4th highest percentage of prison admissions that were in 2014. (CALL OUT) due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 15 Chart 3. Arkansas Grant Rate, 2014 12% ARKANSAS Chart 3. Arkansas Grant Rate, 2014 Approved, no stipulated prerelease program 1% Approved, contingent upon stipulated pre-release program 20% Denied for 1 year 67% Denied for 2 years This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being approved with no stipulated pre-release program, parole being approved approved with no stipulated pre‐release program, parole being approved conditional on completion of a conditional on completion of a stipulated pre-release program, parole being denied for one year, and parole being denied for two years. Just over two-thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being approved without stipulation, while a fifth were approved with the noted stipulation. Twelve percent were denied for one year while just one percent stipulated pre‐release program, parole being denied for one year, and parole being denied for two were denied for two years. years. Just over two‐thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being approved without stipulation, while a Source: Arkansas Parole Board, The Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013-2014, www.paroleboard.arkansas.gov/Resources/Documents/Publications/2014ParoleBoardAnnual fifth were approved with the noted stipulation. Twelve percent were denied for one year while just one Report.pdf. percent were denied for two years. Source: Arkansas Parole Board, The Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013‐2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 www.paroleboard.arkansas.gov/Resources/Documents/Publications/2014ParoleBoardAnnualReport.pdf 50 40 30 21 20 10 15 12 15 10 14 14 12 13 17 14 9 12 11 13 9 8 2013 2014 9 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Arkansas 2010 2011 State Total 2012 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Arizona compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower from 2006 the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to to 2011. In 2014, the rate stood at 17 per 100 parolees in Arkansas compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate.parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Arizona compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower from 2006 to 2011. In 2014, the rate stood at 17 per 100 parolees in Arkansas compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 23 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES ARKANSAS 16 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Arkansas States Total 24% 59% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Arkansas, over half of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN CALIFORNIA California Summary: Since California’s realignment laws were introduced in 2011, prison and parole population rates have been lower than the states as a whole. Conditional release violators make up a smaller proportion of the prison population in California than for states as a whole. Just under one-fifth of parole hearings lead to a parole being granted, while the remaining hearings lead to a deferral of some type. Since realignment, the number of incarcerated offenders subject to discretionary release has Summary: Since California’s realignment laws were introduced in 2011, prison and parole population rates have been lower than the states as a whole. Conditional release violators make up a smaller proportion of the prison expanded dramatically, although much of this discretion is now being exercised by officials at the local population in California than for states as a whole. Just under one-fifth of parole hearings lead to a parole being level. An accounting for these changes, which vary across the state’s 58 counties, has yet to be made. granted, while the remaining hearings lead to a deferral of some type. Since realignment, the number of incarcerated st offendersCalifornia had the 15 subject to discretionary release has expanded dramatically, although much of this discretion is now highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. being exercised by officials at the local level. An accounting for these changes, which vary across the state’s 58 counties, has yet to be made. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 636 637 646 600 597 500 427 600 422 603 423 659 612 445 648 615 460 637 612 605 597 582 563 561 588 551 526 443 383 400 300 619 375 391 467 466 459 310 300 294 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 California Prison Population State Prison Population California Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate seriesUnited States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES *Realignment laws enacted October, 2011 CALIFORNIA 18 In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in California was much California had the 34th highest higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states prison population rate of the aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing states in 2014. beginning in 2011, the percentage in California has decreased dramatically since 2011 with the introduction of realignment laws. faster than the aggregate rate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 459 in California versus 551 for California had the 15th highest th In 2014, just fourteen percent of prison admissions in California all 50 states. California had the 34 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. parole population rate of the were due to violations of conditional release compared to about states in 2014. a quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. California had Until 2011, with the introduction of realignment laws, the parole population rate in California was one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions due to violahigher than the aggregate state rate. Since 2011, the rate has decreased (to 294 in 2014) and is slightly tions of conditional releases of the states in 2014. st lower than the aggregate rate of 305. California had the 15 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 80% 70% 65% 62% 62% 33% 34% 65% 66% 67% 34% 35% 36% 65% 65% 35% 35% 62% 60% 50% 40% 31% 33% 27% 30% 20% 26% 28% 14% 23% 17% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 California 2011 2012 2013 2014 State Institutions This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in California was much higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained steady for several In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in California has decreased dramatically since 2011 with the violators in California was much higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states introduction of realignment laws. In 2014, just fourteen percent of prison admissions in California were due to violations aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in of conditional release compared to about a quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. California had one of the California has decreased dramatically since 2011 with the introduction of realignment laws. In 2014, just lowest percentages of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. fourteen percent of prison admissions in California were due to violations of conditional release compared to about a quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. California had one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. *Realignment laws enacted October, 2011 ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 19 Chart 3. California Grant Rate, 2015 Grants 18% Split Decisions <1% Denials 40% Stipulations 7% Voluntary Waivers 9% Postponments 21% Cencellations 5% Cancellations Continuances 1% 18% 21% 9% 7% 40% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings from January to September 2015 that resulted in a parole being granted, denied, the hearing being postponed, or other This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings from January to September 2015 that resulted in a outcomes. Nearly a fifth of the hearings resulted in parole being granted while forty percent resulted in a denial. About a fifth of hearings were postponed and about a tenth were voluntarily waived. parole being granted, denied, the hearing being postponed, or other outcomes. Nearly a fifth of the Source: Board of Parole Hearings, Board of Parole Hearings Workload Summary, January 2015-September 2015, http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/docs/LSTS_Workload_ hearings resulted in parole being granted while forty percent resulted in a denial. About a fifth of CY2015.pdf. hearings were postponed and about a tenth were voluntarily waived. Source: Board of Parole Hearings, Board of Parole Hearings Workload Summary, January 2015‐ Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2013 September 2015 http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/docs/LSTS_Workload_CY2015.pdf Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2013 50 40 28 27 27 30 26 22 20 15 14 14 14 12 9 9 CALIFORNIA Chart 3. California Grant Rate, 2015 8 10 4 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 State Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 California This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2013. The data for this chart come from the Probation year from 2006 to 2013. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as The rate the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to of incarceration for parolees decreased dramatically in 2011 with the enactment of legislation engineering a realignment of the state’s adult correctional population. Data are not available after 2011. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees decreased dramatically in 2011 with the enactment of legislation engineering a realignment of the state’s adult correctional population. Data are not available after 2011. *Realignment laws enacted October, 2011 28 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES CALIFORNIA 20 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 California States Total 24% *Data not available Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Data are not available for California. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN COLORADO Colorado Summary: Prison and parole population rates are similar in Colorado compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Just over one‐quarter of parole hearings lead to a discretionary release, while the remaining hearings lead to a deferral of some type. Colorado currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order Summary: Prison and parole population rates are similar in Colorado compared to the states as a whole. However, offenders. parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Just over one-quarter of parole hearings lead to a discretionary release, while the remaining hearings lead to a deferral of some type. Colorado th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. currentlyColorado had the 28 practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 617 600 581 592 603 634 612 632 615 631 612 607 597 605 597 500 582 563 561 551 517 505 502 306 305 565 400 317 308 312 316 300 200 194 215 236 323 317 310 307 316 308 269 313 313 308 288 277 290 2011 2012 269 245 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Colorado Prison Population State Prison Population Colorado Parole Population State Parole Population 2013 2014 Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. COLORADO 22 The prison population rate in Colorado is similar to the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2006-2008; thereafter, the rate declined. In recent years, the Colorado rate has decreased faster than the aggregate rate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 502 in Colorado versus 551 for all 50 states. Colorado had the 28th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 84% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Colorado had the 28th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Colorado had the 20th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. From 2003 to 2008, the parole population rate in Colorado increased steadily becoming equivalent to the aggregate rate by 2008. Since 2008, the rate has decreased (to 245 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Colorado had the 20th highest From 2003 to 2008, the parole population rate in Colorado increased steadily becoming equivalent to parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 33% of admisthe aggregate rate by 2008. Since 2008, the rate has decreased (to 245 in 2014) and is lower than the sions to parole were due to a discretionary decision thsuch as the aggregate rate of 305. Colorado had the 20 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL decision of a parole board. OUT) In 2014, 33% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.6 0.5 45% 0.4 32% 0.3 31% 34% 33% 36% 37% 34% 34% 39% 35% 48% 45% 46% 47% 48% 27% 26% 28% 2012 2013 2014 41% 36% 35% 35% 33% 0.2 0.1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Colorado 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Colorado was similar to that of theIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Colorado had the 5th highest remained violators in Colorado was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately steady for several years before decreasing beginning in percentage of prison admis2011, the remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Colorado has percentage in Colorado has been increasing. In 2014, sions that were due to violanearly halfbeen increasing. In 2014, nearly half of prison admissions in Colorado were due to violations of of prison admissions in Colorado were due to violations tions of conditional releases of conditional release compared to just over a quarter of the conditional release compared to just over a quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Colorado of the states in 2014. admissions for states in aggregate. Colorado had the 5th highest had the 5th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 23 Chart 3. Colorado Grant Rate, 2014 COLORADO Chart 3. Colorado Grant Rate, 2014 Discretionary releases 26% Defer to mandatory release date Defer 46% 28% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in a discretionary release, a deferral to the mandatory release date, and a deferral. Nearly This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in a discretionary half of the hearings resulted in a deferral, while just over one-quarter resulted in a deferral to the mandatory release date. Slightly more than one-quarter led to a discretionary release. release, a deferral to the mandatory release date, and a deferral. Nearly half of the hearings resulted in Source: Annual Report to the Joint Judiciary Committee, 2014, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PB%20Annual%20Report%20to%20the%20Joint%20Judia deferral, while just over one‐quarter resulted in a deferral to the mandatory release date. Slightly ciary%20Committees%202014%20_f%E2%80%A6%20%281%29.pdf, pg. 9. more than one‐quarter led to a discretionary release. Source: Annual Report to the Joint Judiciary Committee, 2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PB%20Annual%20Report%20to%20the%20Joint%2 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 0Judiciary%20Committees%202014%20_f%E2%80%A6%20%281%29.pdf, pg. 9 50 40 30 20 24 15 23 15 23 23 14 14 24 20 14 21 23 25 12 10 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Colorado 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in Colorado compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 25 per 100 parolees in Colorado compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate.parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Colorado compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 25 per 100 parolees in Colorado compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 33 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES COLORADO 24 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Colorado States Total 24% 53% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Colorado, just over half of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN CONNECTICUT Connecticut Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Connecticut compared to states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. Compared to states as a whole, parole is more likely to end in incarceration in Connecticut, though (with a smaller parole population) conditional release violators make up a smaller proportion of the prison population. About two‐thirds of parole hearings lead to parole being granted, while the remaining one‐third lead to parole being denied. Connecticut currently practices Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Connecticut compared to states as a whole while parole population discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property rates areoffenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. lower. Compared to states as a whole, parole is more likely to end in incarceration in Connecticut, though (with a smaller parole population) conditional release violators make up a smaller proportion of the prison population. About two-thirds of parole hearings lead to parole being granted, while the remaining one-third lead to Connecticut had the 15th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. parole being denied. Connecticut currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 900 800 754 737 730 768 777 760 719 699 700 600 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 500 658 582 627 625 563 561 551 590 400 300 317 308 312 316 323 317 99 96 97 96 81 86 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 308 313 313 308 306 305 105 105 92 100 94 91 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 Connecticut Prison Population State Prison Population Connecticut Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. CONNECTICUT 26 The prison population rate in Connecticut is higher than the aggregate state rate. The rate peaked in 2007; thereafter, the rate declined. In 2014, the prison population rate was 590 in Connecticut versus 551 for all 50 states. Connecticut had the 15th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 51% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Connecticut had the 15th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Connecticut had the 43rd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Connecticut is lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate occurred in 2009-2010. In September, 2007, changes to parole hearing policies led to an immediate de parole population. The increase in 2009 resulted from crease in the additionalThe parole population rate in Connecticut is lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate occurred staff that have addressed hearing backlogs and expeditin 2009‐2010. In September, 2007, changes to parole hearing policies led to an immediate decrease in ed the hearing process. During the last few years, the rate has dethe parole population. The increase in 2009 resulted from additional staff that have addressed hearing creased slightly (to 91 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Connecticut had one of the lowest parole population rates backlogs and expedited the hearing process. During the last few years, the rate has decreased slightly of the states in 2014. In 2014, 51% of admissions to parole were due (to 91 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Connecticut had one of the lowest parole to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 51% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2.Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 27% 26% 14% 15% 2012 2013 28% 25% 20% 19% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Connecticut 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Connecticut was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Connecticut had the 40th remained Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in steady for several years before decreasing beginning in highest percentage of prison 2011, theConnecticut was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately percentage in Connecticut has remained fairly steady. admissions that were due In 2014, fifteen percent of prison admissions in Connecticut were remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Connecticut to violations of conditional due to violations of conditional release compared to just over onehas remained fairly steady. In 2014, fifteen percent of prison admissions in Connecticut were due to releases of the states in 2014. quarter ofviolations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for states in the admissions for states in aggregate. Connecticut had th the 40th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to aggregate. Connecticut had the 40 highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violationsviolations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 27 Chart 3. Connecticut Grant Rate, 2014 33% Granted Denied 67% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or denied. Two-thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being granted while This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or one-third led to parole being denied. denied. Two‐thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being granted while one‐third led to parole being Source: Connecticut Board of Pardons & Paroles 2014 Calendar Year Statistics, http://www.ct.gov/bopp/cwp/view.asp?a=4330&q=560754. denied. Source: Connecticut Board of Pardons & Paroles 2014 Calendar Year Statistics Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 http://www.ct.gov/bopp/cwp/view.asp?a=4330&q=560754 50 CONNECTICUT Chart 3. Connecticut Grant Rate, 2014 40 30 30 22 20 15 15 14 20 20 14 14 18 18 19 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 12 10 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Connecticut 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in Connecticut compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series, where data are available. In 2013 (the most recent year available), the rate was 19 per 100 parolees in Connecticut compared to 9 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Connecticut compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series, where data are available. In 2013 (the most recent year available), the rate was 19 per 100 parolees in Connecticut compared to 9 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 38 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES CONNECTICUT 28 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2013 Connecticut States Total 25% 40% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Connecticut, forty percent of the exits from parole in 2013 are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN DELAWARE Delaware Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Delaware compared to states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. Parolees are also less likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Information on outcomes of parole release hearings is not available. The vast majority of prisoners in Delaware serve determinate sentences, and do not appear before the parole board. Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Delaware compared to states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. Parolees are also less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Information on nd Delaware had the 2 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. outcomes of parole release hearings is not available. The vast majority of prisoners in Delaware serve determinate and do not appear before the parole board. sentences, Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1,200 1,000 1,096 1,097 1,080 1,096 1,089 1,041 988 953 958 970 970 951 605 597 582 563 561 551 800 615 597 600 603 612 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 85 85 93 83 80 81 76 81 79 84 91 92 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 612 600 400 200 0 Delaware Prison Population State Prison Population Delaware Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES DELAWARE 30 The prison population rate in Delaware is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2006; thereafter, the rate declined until 2010. In recent years, the Delaware rate has increased slightly (until 2014), while the aggregate rate steadily decreased slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 951 in Delaware versus 551 for all 50 states. Delaware had the 2nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 93% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Delaware had the 2nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Delaware had the 42nd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Delaware is much lower than the aggregate state rate. It has remained steady over time, from a low of 76 in 2009. Since 2009, the rate has increased slightly (to 92 in 2014), but remains well under the aggregate state rate of 305. The parole population rate in Delaware is much lower than the aggregate state rate. It has remained Delaware had the 9th lowest parole population rate of the states steady over time, from a low of 76 in 2009. Since 2009, the rate has increased slightly (to 92 in 2014), in 2014. th but remains well under the aggregate state rate of 305. Delaware had the 9 lowest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT) Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 25% 27% 29% 29% 28% 26% 20% 26% 28% 24% 19% 15% 16% 18% 17% 13% 10% 10% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Delaware 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in Delaware was lower than that of the aggregate percentage of the states. The difference Delaware had the 34th highincreasedIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release over time, though there was a sizeable closing of the gap est percentage of prison adfrom 2013violators in Delaware was lower than that of the aggregate percentage of the states. The difference to 2014. In 2014, nearly one-fifth of prison admissions in missions due to violations of Delaware increased over time, though there was a sizeable closing of the gap from 2013 to 2014. In 2014, nearly were due to violations of conditional release compared conditional releases when one‐fifth of prison admissions in Delaware were due to violations of conditional release compared to to just over a quarter of the admissions for states in the aggregate. compared thto other states in highest Delaware just over a quarter of the admissions for states in the aggregate. Delaware had the 34 had the 34th highest percentage of prison admissions 2014. percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases when compared to other due to violations of conditional releases when compared to other states in 2014. (CALL OUT) states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 31 DELAWARE Chart 3. Delaware Grant Rate *Data not available The outcomes of parole release hearings are not available from Delaware. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 10 9 9 8 2012 2013 4 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 State Total 2011 Delaware Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of incarceration for parolees is only available for Delaware for 2014. In 2014, the rate stood at 4 per 100 of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as parolees in Delaware compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is only available for Delaware for 2014. In 2014, the rate stood at 4 per 100 parolees in Delaware compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES DELAWARE 32 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Delaware States Total 9% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Delaware, just under one tenth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN FLORIDA Florida Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Florida compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are significantly lower. While the small parole populations mean that few prison admissions are due to parole violations, parolees in Florida are about as likely to be incarcerated as compared to the states as a whole. Just two percent of parole hearings lead to parole being granted. Florida currently practices discretionary release only for offenders who were sentenced prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute. Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Florida compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are significantly lower. While the small parole populations mean that few prison admissions are due to parole th are about as likely to be incarcerated as compared to the states as a whole. Just two violations, parolees in Florida Florida had the 13 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. percent of parole hearings lead to parole being granted. Florida currently practices discretionary release only for offenders who were sentenced prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 800 700 622 632 647 597 600 603 600 657 612 685 615 706 612 709 605 703 597 500 683 582 666 664 649 563 561 551 400 300 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 38 36 34 34 32 31 29 28 28 30 30 29 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 Florida Prison Population State Prison Population Florida Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Florida is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; FLORIDA 34 The prison population rate in Florida is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 649 in Florida versus 551 for all 50 states. Florida had the 13th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 36% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Florida had the 13th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Florida had the 48th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Florida is much lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate decreased slightly from 2003 to 2009 and has remained steady since. In 2014, the parole population rate was 29 in Florida, significantly lower than the aggregate state rate of 305. Florida had one of the lowest parole population rates of the states The parole population rate in Florida is much lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate decreased in 2014. In 2014, less than one percent of admissions to slightly from 2003 to 2009 and has remained steady since. In 2014, the parole population rate was 29 in parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of Florida, significantly lower than the aggregate state rate of 305. Florida had one of the lowest parole a parole board. population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, less than one percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.4 0.35 0.3 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 0.25 27% 26% 28% 0.2 0.15 0.1 5% 6% 0.05 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2003 2004 Florida State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Due to Florida’s small parole population, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators series for all 50 states is shown. is very small and is much lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, only 114 prisoners were admitted to prison in Florida due to a parole violation, representing less than one percent of all prison admissions in the state. Florida had Due to Florida’s small parole population, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. release violators is very small and is much lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, only 114 prisoners were admitted to prison in Florida due to a parole violation, representing less than one percent of all prison admissions in the state. Florida had one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 35 Chart 3. Florida Grant Rate, 2014 FLORIDA Chart 3. Florida Grant Rate, 2014 Granted Not Granted 2% 98% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted. Just two percent of parole hearings resulted in parole being granted. This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being Source: Florida Commission on Offender Review 2014 Annual Report, www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport201314.pdf. granted. Just two percent of parole hearings resulted in parole being granted. Source: Florida Commission on Offender Review 2014 Annual Report Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport201314.pdf. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 13 10 11 2009 2010 10 11 9 9 9 8 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 Florida State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as Though Florida has a very small parole population and parole is not granted often, the rate of incarceration for parolees is similar inthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to Florida compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 11 per 100 parole during the year. parolees in Florida compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Though Florida has a very small parole population and parole is not granted often, the rate of incarceration for parolees is similar in Florida compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 11 per 100 parolees in Florida compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 48 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES FLORIDA 36 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Florida 19% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Florida, nearly a fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is just under the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN GEORGIA Georgia Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Georgia compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are similar. However, parolees are less likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Fifty‐six percent of discretionary release hearing lead to parole being granted while just nineteen percent of life sentence hearings result in parole being granted. Georgia currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Georgia compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are similar. However, parolees are less likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Fifty-six th percent of discretionary release hearing lead to parole being granted while just nineteen percent of life sentence Georgia had the 10 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. hearings result in parole being granted. Georgia currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 900 800 791 744 742 700 597 600 603 782 612 787 615 799 750 612 605 781 597 600 764 582 747 563 720 561 696 551 500 400 300 349 361 348 340 335 334 337 347 348 333 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 355 336 200 100 0 Georgia Prison Population State Prison Population Georgia Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Georgia is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; GEORGIA 38 The prison population rate in Georgia is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined. In 2014, the prison population rate was 696 in Georgia versus 551 for all 50 states. Georgia had the 10th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 58% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Georgia had the 10th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Georgia had the 13th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Georgia has been above the aggregate rate. The rate for Georgia has remained fairly steady over time and in 2014 stood at 336, modestly higher than the aggregate state rate of 305. Georgia had the 13th highest Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Georgia has been above the aggregate rate. The parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, all admissions rate for Georgia has remained fairly steady over time and in 2014 stood at 336, modestly higher than to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision th of a parolethe aggregate state rate of 305. Georgia had the 13 board. highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT AND LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, all admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 50% 45% 43% 43% 33% 34% 42% 42% 43% 43% 35% 36% 35% 35% 40% 35% 30% 31% 34% 33% 25% 20% 27% 18% 26% 28% 10% 10% 2013 2014 15% 15% 11% 11% 2011 2012 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Georgia 2009 2010 State Institutions *Counts for 2014 This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to admissions are not comparable to earlier years due to a change in reporting methodology. Chart 2 showsviolations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from thepublished by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for all 50 states is shown. In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Georgia was oftenIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release higher than that of the aggregate states. However, after a large decrease in 2011, the rate in Georgia has been much lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, ten percent of prison admissions in Georgia were due to violators in Georgia was often higher than that of the aggregate states. However, after a large decrease violationsin 2011, the rate in Georgia has been much lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, ten percent of of conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of admissions for states in aggregate. Georgia had one of theprison admissions in Georgia were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐ lowest percentages of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. Duequarter of admissions for states in aggregate. Georgia had one of the lowest percentages of prison to the large changes in the data over this series, the numbers for Georgia should be interpreted with caution. admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. Due to the large changes in the data over this series, the numbers for Georgia should be interpreted with caution. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 39 GEORGIA Chart 3. Georgia Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3a. Georgia Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3. Georgia Grant Rate, 2014 Released Released Denied Denied 44% 44% 56% 56% Chart 3b. Georgia Grant Rate for Life Sentences, 2014 Chart 3b. Georgia Grant Rate for Life Sentences, 2014 Com Com state state may n may Chart 3b. Georgia Grant Rate for Life Sentences, 2014 Deny Deny Grant Grant 19% 19% 81% 81% This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being Chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or denied for non-life sentences (discretionary release) and life senThis chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or denied for non‐life sentences (discretionary release) and life sentences. Over half of the tences. Over half of the hearings for discretionary release resulted in release being granted, while the percentage was much lower for life sentences (just under one-fifth). granted or denied for non‐life sentences (discretionary release) and life sentences. Over half of the hearings for discretionary release resulted in release being granted, while the percentage was much Source: Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual Report FY2014, www.pap.georgia.gov/sites/pap.georgia.gov/files/Annual_Reports/FY14%20AR.pdf. hearings for discretionary release resulted in release being granted, while the percentage was much lower for life sentences (just under one‐fifth). lower for life sentences (just under one‐fifth). Source: Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual Report FY2014 Source: Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles Annual Report FY2014 www.pap.georgia.gov/sites/pap.georgia.gov/files/Annual_Reports/FY14%20AR.pdf. www.pap.georgia.gov/sites/pap.georgia.gov/files/Annual_Reports/FY14%20AR.pdf. 53 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES 53 GEORGIA 40 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 13 13 14 11 14 11 14 9 12 9 9 7 7 5 2011 2012 2013 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Georgia 2010 State Total 8 3 2014 Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in Georgia compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 3 per 100 parolees in Georgia compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in Georgia compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 3 per 100 parolees in Georgia compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Georgia States Total 9% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Georgia, just under a tenth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 54 PAROLE IN HAWAII Hawaii Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Hawaii compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. However, parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. A quarter to a third of hearings for discretionary release and reductions of minimum sentences are granted. Hawaii currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Hawaii compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. However, parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. A quarter th to a thirdHawaii had the 25 of hearings for discretionary release and reductions of minimum sentences are granted. Hawaii currently highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 609 600 603 611 618 612 591 615 589 612 578 500 605 564 597 558 582 563 563 538 561 513 551 528 400 300 317 308 234 235 312 213 316 229 323 208 200 317 308 313 313 185 175 175 167 308 306 151 158 2012 2013 305 139 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Hawaii Prison Population State Prison Population Hawaii Parole Population State Parole Population 2014 This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES HAWAII 42 The prison population rate in Hawaii is similar to the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined each year except for 2011 and 2014. In 2014, the prison population rate stood at 528 in Hawaii versus 551 for all 50 states. Hawaii had the 25th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 67% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Hawaii had the 25th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Hawaii had the 38th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Hawaii has been consistently lower than the aggregate state rate across the series. Since 2006, the rate has decreased (to 139 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate The parole population rate in Hawaii has been consistently lower than the aggregate state rate across rate of 305. Hawaii had the 38th highest parole population rate of the statesthe series. Since 2006, the rate has decreased (to 139 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate rate of in 2014. In 2014, 90% of admissions to parole were due th 305. Hawaii had the 38 to a discretionary decision such as highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) the decision of a parole board. In 2014, 90% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 60% 57% 54% 55% 51% 52% 53% 47% 50% 40% 31% 33% 34% 34% 46% 35% 36% 49% 44% 44% 39% 35% 35% 33% 30% 27% 26% 28% 2012 2013 2014 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Hawaii 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Hawaii is higher than that of the aggregate percentage for the states. However, the percentage Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Hawaii had the 12th highest in Hawaii has shown a larger decrease over time than the aggregate Hawaii is higher than that of the aggregate percentage for the states. However, the percentage in percentage of prison admisstate rate.Hawaii has shown a larger decrease over time than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, thirty‐nine percent In 2014, thirty-nine percent of prison admissions in sions due to violations of Hawaii were due to violations of conditional release compared of prison admissions in Hawaii were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐ conditional releases of the to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. th highest percentage of prison quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Hawaii had the 13 states in 2014. Hawaii had the 12th highest percentage of prison admissions due admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 43 Chart 3. Hawaii Grant Rate, 2014 Co tha HAWAII Chart 3a. Hawaii Grant Rate, 2014 Paroles Granted 0% Chart 3. Hawaii Grant Rate, 2014 9% Commented than one cha Paroles Denied 32% Paroles Paroles Granted 0% Deferred/Continued 59% 9% Paroles Denied Escape 32% Paroles Deferred/Continued Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal 59%year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted, denied, or deferred. The second chart shows the information over five fiscal years. The last two charts show the same information for hearings for the reductionEscape of minimum sentences. About a third of parole hearings and just over a fifth of hearings for the reduction of minimum sentences resulted in parole being granted. The rate for parole hearings has remained steady over time, though the overall Chart 3b. Hawaii Grants by Year, 2009‐2014 number of hearings has slightly increased. The granting of reductions of minimum sentences as well as the overall number of hearings of this type has increased over time. Authority 2014 Annual Statistical Report, www.dps.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014-Annual-Report.pdf. Source: Hawaii Paroling 3000 Chart 3b. Hawaii Grants by Year, 2009‐2014 Chart 3b. Hawaii Grants by Year, 2009-2014 2500 3000 2000 2500 1500 2000 1000 1500 500 1000 33% 0 500 33% FY 09-10 32% 33% 34% 30% 34% FY 10-11 30% FY 11-12 32% 33% FY 12-13 0 Paroles Granted Paroles Denied Paroles Deferred/Continued FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 Paroles Granted Paroles Denied Paroles Deferred/Continued Chart 3c. Hawaii Reduction of Minimum Sentences, 2014 FY13-14 Escape FY13-14 Escape Chart 3d. Hawaii Reduction of Minimum Sentences, 2009‐2014 ChartHawaii 3c. Hawaii Reductionof ofMinimum Minimum Sentences, 2009-2014 Chart 3c. Hawaii Reduction of Minimum Sentences, 2014 Reduction Sentences Hawaii Reduction of Minimum Sentences by Year 300 Hawaii Reduction of Minimum Sentences 250 27% Granted 27% 200 Granted 73% 150 Denied Denied 73% 100 50 2% 0 FY 09-10 38% 2% 25% FY 10-11 FY 11-12 Granted Denied FY 12-13 27% 58 58 FY13-14 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES granted, denied, or deferred. The second chart shows the information over five fiscal years. The last two HAWAII 44 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 21 14 17 10 10 7 12 9 10 9 2008 2009 2010 13 9 9 9 2012 2013 8 0 2006 2007 Hawaii 2011 State Total 2014 Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. Hawaii States Total The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Hawaii compared to the states in aggregate, though it remained at lower levels from 2006 through 2010. In 2014, the rate stood at 13 per 100 parolees in Hawaii compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 24% 34% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Hawaii, just over a third of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 60 PROFILE IN IDAHO Idaho Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Idaho compared to the states as a whole and parole population rates have increased and surpassed the aggregate state rate. Parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. About a third of the regular parole hearings resulted in parole being granted while parole was granted for forty‐four percent of administrative reviews. Idaho currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Idaho compared to the states as a whole and parole population sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. rates have increased and surpassed the aggregate state rate. Parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. About a third of the regular parole hearings resulted in parole being granted while parole th Idaho had the 12 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. was granted for forty-four percent of administrative reviews. Idaho currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 800 700 600 633 660 670 671 603 612 615 656 656 651 612 605 597 683 696 563 561 329 325 675 583 597 600 500 582 551 391 400 317 308 312 316 323 347 237 235 240 2003 2004 2005 257 286 350 317 308 302 305 313 313 308 306 305 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 300 200 670 100 0 2006 2007 Idaho Prison Population State Prison Population Idaho Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Idaho is higher than the aggregate state rate. The rate peaked in 2007, IDAHO 46 The prison population rate in Idaho is higher than the aggregate state rate. The rate peaked in 2007, declined until 2010, then peaked again in 2013. In 2014, the prison population rate was 675 in Idaho versus 551 for all 50 states. Idaho had the 12th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 89% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Idaho had the 12th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Idaho had the 12th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. From 2003 to 20011, the parole population rate in Idaho increased surpassing the aggregate rate by 2010. Since 2010, the rate has remained above the aggregate rate. The rate in 2014 was 350 which is higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Idaho had the 12th highFrom 2003 to 20011, the parole population rate in Idaho increased surpassing the aggregate rate by est parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 77% of 2010. Since 2010, the rate has remained above the aggregate rate. The rate in 2014 was 350 which is admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as th higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Idaho had the 12 highest parole population rate of the states in the decision of a parole board. 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 77% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.7 65% 0.6 0.5 0.4 31% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 0.3 0.2 27% 26% 6% 5% 2012 2013 28% 27% 13% 8% 0.1 6% 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 6% 7% 2007 2008 Idaho 9% 2009 6% 2010 0% 2011 2014 State Institutions This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughseries for all 50 states is shown. 2013, the percentage of prison admissions that were release violators in Idaho was lower than that of the conditional Through 2013, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Idaho was aggregate states. In 2014, the reporting methodology changed, Idaho had the highest perlower than that of the aggregate states. In 2014, the reporting methodology changed, so comparisons so comparisons cannot be made between 2014 and earlier centage, tied with Vermont, of cannot be made between 2014 and earlier years. Idaho had one of the highest percentages (65%) of years. Idaho had one of the highest percentages (65%) of prison prison admissions that were prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases in comparison with other states in admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases in due to violations of conditioncomparison with other states in 2014. 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) al releases in comparison with *Counts for 2014 admissions are not comparable to earlier years due to a change in reporting methodology. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES other states in 2014. 47 IDAHO Chart 3. Idaho Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3a. Idaho Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3. Idaho Grant Rate, 2014 Granted Granted Denied Denied 32% 32% 68% 68% Chart 3b. Idaho Grant Rate, Administrative Reviews, 2014 Chart 3b. Idaho Grant Rate, Administrative Reviews, 2014 Com Com Chart 3b. Idaho Grant Rate, Administrative Reviews, 2014 Granted Granted Denied Denied 44% 44% 56% 56% This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or Chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or denied. The first chart shows the percentages for regular parole hearings and This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or denied. The first chart shows the percentages for regular parole hearings and the second chart shows the second chart shows the percentages for administrative reviews. Approximately twice as many regular parole hearings were conducted as administrative reviews. About denied. The first chart shows the percentages for regular parole hearings and the second chart shows two-thirds of the regular parole hearings resulted in parole being granted while parole was approved for fifty-six percent of administrative reviews. the percentages for administrative reviews. Approximately twice as many regular parole hearings were the percentages for administrative reviews. Approximately twice as many regular parole hearings were Source:conducted as administrative reviews. About two‐thirds of the regular parole hearings resulted in parole Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole Statistical Information 2014, www.parole.idaho.gov/documents/statistics/website%20stats%202014.pdf. conducted as administrative reviews. About two‐thirds of the regular parole hearings resulted in parole being granted while parole was approved for fifty‐six percent of administrative reviews. being granted while parole was approved for fifty‐six percent of administrative reviews. Source: Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole Statistical Information 2014 Source: Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole Statistical Information 2014 www.parole.idaho.gov/documents/statistics/website%20stats%202014.pdf. www.parole.idaho.gov/documents/statistics/website%20stats%202014.pdf. 64 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE64 PROFILES IDAHO 48 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 50 40 30 29 20 15 15 10 14 11 12 2007 2008 14 14 14 12 12 14 9 14 9 8 12 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0 2006 2009 Idaho 2010 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as In 2014, the rate of incarceration for parolees stood at 12 per 100 parolees in Idaho compared to 8 per 100 for the states the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to in aggregate. parole during the year. In 2014, the rate of incarceration for parolees stood at 12 per 100 parolees in Idaho compared to 8 per Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 100 for the states in aggregate. *Data for Idaho are estimated in 2013 and 2014. Idaho States Total 24% 37% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Idaho, thirty-seven percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is well over the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 66 PAROLE IN ILLINOIS Illinois Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Illinois compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates have decreased and are slightly lower than the aggregate state rate. However, parolees are more likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Very few discretionary parole hearings were held and none resulted in parole being granted. Illinois currently practices discretionary release only for offenders who were sentenced prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute. Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Illinois compared to the states as a whole while parole population decreased and are slightly lower than the aggregate state rate. However, parolees are more likely to rates have th to the states as a whole. Very few discretionary parole hearings were held and none be re-incarcerated compared Illinois had the 29 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. resulted in parole being granted. Illinois currently practices discretionary release only for offenders who were sentenced prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 500 465 470 477 400 375 365 367 300 317 308 312 477 475 368 316 323 474 468 351 343 317 582 561 551 498 496 503 493 488 313 313 308 306 305 300 300 2013 2014 308 200 563 268 261 2010 2011 280 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 Illinois Prison Population State Prison Population Illinois Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES ILLINOIS 50 The prison population rate in Illinois is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate increased until 2012; thereafter, the rate declined, but it always remained under the aggregate rate for the states. In 2014, the prison population rate was 488 in Illinois versus 551 for all 50 states. Illinois had the 29th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 85% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Illinois had the 29th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Illinois had the 14th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate decreased significantly in 2010 and thereafter was lower than or similar to the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the parole population rate was 300 in Illinois versus 305 for Illinois had the 14th highest parole population rate of all 50 states. the states The parole population rate decreased significantly in 2010 and thereafter was lower than or similar to in 2014. In 2014, less than one percent of admissions to the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the parole population rate was 300 in Illinois versus 305 for all 50 parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of states. Illinois had the 14th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN a parole board. TEXT) In 2014, less than one percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.45 41% 0.4 37% 35% 36% 35% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 35% 0.35 0.3 33% 31% 34% 33% 35% 29% 0.25 29% 33% 27% 26% 2012 2013 30% 28% 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Illinois 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in Illinois was lower than the aggregate percentage associated with states overall. However, Illinois had the 21st highest while the In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release states aggregately remained steady for several years percentage of prison admisviolators in Illinois was lower than the aggregate percentage associated with states overall. However, before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Illinois sions that were due to violawhile the states aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the increased through 2010 before it began to decrease. In 2014, tions of conditional releases percentage in Illinois increased through 2010 before it began to decrease. In 2014, thirty percent of thirty percent of prison admissions in Illinois were due to violations of the states in 2014. prison admissions in Illinois were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐ of conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the st highest percentage of prison quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Illinois had the 21 admissions for states in aggregate. Illinois had the 21st highest admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of TEXT) conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 51 ILLINOIS Chart 3. Illinois Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3. Illinois Grant Rate, 2014 Granted 0% Denied 100% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted. While the state conducted nearly 24,000 mandatory supervised release This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being reviews, only eighty-three parole release hearings were held and none were granted. granted. While the state conducted nearly 24,000 mandatory supervised release reviews, only eighty‐ Source: Illinois Prisoner Review Board 38th Annual Report January 1 to December 31, 2014, www.illinois.gov/prb/Documents/FY14%20Annual%20Report.pdf. three parole release hearings were held and none were granted. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Source: Illinois Prisoner Review Board 38th Annual Report January 1 to December 31, 2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 www.illinois.gov/prb/Documents/FY14%20Annual%20Report.pdf. 50 40 30 23 19 17 17 20 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 10 12 9 9 8 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Illinois State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in Illinois compared to the states in aggregate and has been so for the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to every year in the series where data for the state are available. In 2014, the rate stood at 16 per 100 parolees in Illinois compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Illinois compared to the states in aggregate and has been so for every year in the series where data for the state are available. In 2014, the rate stood at 16 per 100 parolees in Illinois compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 69 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES ILLINOIS 52 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Illinois States Total 24% 33% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Illinois, a third of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN INDIANA Indiana Summary: Prison rates in Indiana are slightly higher compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. However, parolees at risk of incarceration are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Indiana does not currently practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders; the board only has discretionary release authority over “old code” cases from before October, 1977. Summary: Prison rates in Indiana are slightly higher compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. However, parolees at risk of incarceration are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the th states asIndiana had the 16 a whole. Indiana does not currently practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders; the board highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. only has discretionary release authority over “old code” cases from before October, 1977. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 588 594 600 500 500 517 522 308 312 552 569 597 574 582 588 583 600 584 563 561 551 313 308 306 305 206 205 207 2011 2012 2013 400 300 317 316 200 100 152 161 156 168 2003 2004 2005 2006 323 317 308 313 217 221 217 223 2007 2008 2009 2010 189 0 Indiana Prison Population State Prison Population Indiana Parole Population State Parole Population 2014 Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES From 2003 to 2009, the prison population rate in Indiana increased and by 2011 had surpassed the INDIANA 54 From 2003 to 2009, the prison population rate in Indiana increased and by 2011 had surpassed the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2013; in 2014 the prison population rate decreased to 584 for Indiana versus 551 for all 50 states. Indiana had the 16th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 87% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Indiana had the 16th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Indiana had the 28th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Indiana has been lower than the aggregate state rate. Since it peaked in 2010, the rate has decreased (to 189 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Indiana had the 28th highest parole Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Indiana has been lower than the aggregate state population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, there were no rate. Since it peaked in 2010, the rate has decreased (to 189 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate reported admissions to parole that were due to a discretionary st highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (leave in text, and rate of 305. Indiana had the 29 decision such as the decision of a parole board. also put in call out) In 2014, there were no reported admissions to parole that were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 50% 44% 45% 40% 35% 35% 30% 36% 35% 35% 38% 31% 33% 34% 34% 35% 32% 33% 33% 27% 25% 26% 28% 20% 15% 10% 5% 15% 14% 14% 2005 2006 16% 15% 13% 11% 0% 2003 2004 2007 2008 Indiana 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from theviolations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Indiana was much lower to that of the aggregate states. However, the percentage reported In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release Indiana had one of the lowest in Indianaviolators in Indiana was much lower to that of the aggregate states. However, the percentage reported from 2007 to 2011 was much higher than the years percentages of prison admisbefore or after. In 2014, just thirteen percent of prison admissions in Indiana from 2007 to 2011 was much higher than the years before or after. In 2014, just thirteen sions that were due to violain Indianapercent of prison admissions in Indiana were due to violations of conditional release compared to just were due to violations of conditional release compared tions of conditional releases to just over one quarter of admissions for states in aggregate. over one quarter of admissions for states in aggregate. Indiana had one of the lowest percentages of of the states in 2014. Indiana had one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT that were BOX) due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 55 INDIANA Chart 3. Indiana Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of discretionary parole release hearings was not available for Indiana. “The Board has jurisdiction over all offenders who committed their crimes before October 1977 (referred to as “old code” offenders), and exercises discretionary parole release authority over them. The Board also has jurisdiction over all offenders who committed their crimes after October 1977 (referred to as “new code” offenders) whose release on parole is mandatory.” Source: http://www.in.gov/idoc/2324.htm. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 14 14 12 6 0 2006 14 2007 4 2008 2009 Indiana 14 12 13 14 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 12 12 9 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Indiana compared to the states in aggregate, though the rate was the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to noticeably lower from 2007 until 2012. In 2014, the rate stood at 12 per 100 parolees in Indiana compared to 8 per parole during the year. 100 for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Indiana compared to the states in aggregate, though the rate was noticeably lower from 2007 until 2012. In 2014, the rate stood at 12 per 100 parolees in Indiana compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. *Data for Idaho are estimated in 2013 and 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES INDIANA 56 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Indiana 24% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Indiana, a quarter of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is equal to the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN IOWA Iowa Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Iowa compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Just under one-half of parole hearings result in parole being denied, while just over one-third lead to parole being granted. Iowa currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Iowa compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. are more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Just under one-half of parole hearings result in parole being denied, while just over one-third lead to parole being granted. Iowa currently practices discretionary Iowa had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, order offenders. and public Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 582 563 561 551 371 368 371 308 306 305 236 242 2013 2014 500 400 300 385 381 389 391 384 383 382 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 407 313 390 313 200 100 139 148 159 2003 2004 2005 190 158 156 2006 2007 138 142 138 2008 2009 2010 219 0 2011 2012 Iowa Prison Population State Prison Population Iowa Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 showseach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Iowa is noticeably lower than the aggregate state rate. Throughout the *In 2011, Iowa changed its method of reporting the parole population count to include absconders, resulting in a higher parole population in 2011. IOWA 58 The prison population rate in Iowa is noticeably lower than the aggregate state rate. Throughout the series, that rate has remained fairly stable. In 2014, the prison population rate was 371 in Iowa versus 551 for all 50 states. Iowa had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 77% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Iowa had the 41st highest prison population rates of the states in 2014. Iowa had the 21st highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Iowa is also lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2011, Iowa changed its method of reporting the parole population count to include absconders, resulting in a higher parole population in 2011. Even after this change, the rate The parole population rate in Iowa is also lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2011, Iowa changed its in Iowa remained lower than the aggregate rate, rising in 2014 to method of reporting the parole population count to include absconders, resulting in a higher parole 242, which is lower than the aggregate state rate of 305. Iowa had population in 2011. Even after this change, the rate in Iowa remained lower than the aggregate rate, the 21st highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In rising in 2014 to 242, which is lower than the aggregate state rate of 305. Iowa had the 22nd highest 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALLOUT, KEEP IN TEXT TOO) In 2014, all reported decision such as the decision of a parole board. admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2.Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.4 0.35 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 0.3 27% 26% 0.25 0.2 23% 21% 25% 24% 28% 26% 22% 22% 18% 0.15 0.1 12% 13% 14% 2004 2005 2006 15% 0.05 0 2003 2007 2008 Iowa 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in Iowa was much lower compared to that of the aggregate states. However, while the In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release Iowa had the 24th highest states aggregately remained steady for several years before percentage of prison admisviolators in Iowa was much lower compared to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states decreasing beginning in 2010, the percentage in Iowa has been sions that were due to violaaggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2010, the percentage in increasing since and now approaches the aggregate percentage. tions of conditional releases Iowa has been increasing since and now approaches the aggregate percentage. In 2014, twenty‐six In 2014, twenty-six percent of prison admissions in Iowa were of the states in 2014. percent of prison admissions in Iowa were due to violations of conditional release compared to twenty‐ due to violations of conditional release compared to twenty-eight th highest percentage of prison eight percent of the admissions for states in aggregate. Iowa had the 24 percent of the admissions for states in aggregate. Iowa had the admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT) 24th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 59 IOWA Chart 3. Iowa Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3. Iowa Grant Rate, 2014 Parole Granted 4% 12% Denied 35% Work Release Granted Special Sentence Granted 49% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted, parole being denied, work release being granted, or a special senThis chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being tence being granted. Nearly half of the hearings resulted in a denial, while just over one-third resulted in parole being granted. granted, parole being denied, work release being granted, or a special sentence being granted. Nearly Source: Iowa Board of Parole Annual Report Fiscal Year 2014, www.bop.state.ia.us/Document/1001. half of the hearings resulted in a denial, while just over one‐third resulted in parole being granted. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Source: Iowa Board of Parole Annual Report Fiscal Year 2014, www.bop.state.ia.us/Document/1001. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 12 13 14 13 14 14 15 12 9 11 12 12 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Iowa 9 2010 2011 State Total 2012 8 6 2013 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in Iowa compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to than or equal to the state aggregate rate from 2006 through 2013. In 2014, the rate was 15 per 100 parolees in Iowa compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Iowa compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower than or equal to the state aggregate rate from 2006 through 2013. In 2014, the rate was 15 per 100 parolees in Iowa compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 79 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES IOWA 60 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Iowa States Total 24% 40% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Iowa, forty percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN KANSAS Kansas Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Kansas compared to the states as a whole. Parolees are also less likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Less than one‐third of parole hearings in Kansas result in parole being approved, while the remaining hearings result in parole being denied or other outcomes. Kansas does not currently practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders. The prison review board has discretionary release authority over offenders Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Kansas compared to the states as a whole. Parolees convicted prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute and for inmates serving life are also less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Less than one-third of parole hearings sentences. in Kansas result in parole being approved, while the remaining hearings result in parole being denied or other outcomes. Kansas does not currently practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders. The prison review th Kansas had the 37 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. board has discretionary release authority over offenders convicted prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute and for inmates serving life sentences. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 597 582 563 561 551 500 400 300 453 317 200 206 442 444 428 420 408 409 425 435 449 450 443 306 305 187 186 2013 2014 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 223 229 237 234 237 237 238 236 237 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Kansas Prison Population State Prison Population Kansas Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. KANSAS 62 The prison population rate in Kansas is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate declined between 2005 and 2008 to a low of 408 before increasing again to 450 in 2013. In 2014, the prison population rate was 443 in Kansas versus 551 for all 50 states. Kansas had the 37th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 69% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Kansas had the 37th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Kansas had the 30th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Kansas was lower than the aggregate state rate. From 2003 to 2006, the rate increased before leveling out. In 2013, the rate decreased sharply, likely due to the impact of Justice Reinvestment Initiatives within Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Kansas was lower than the aggregate state rate. the state. In 2014, the parole population rate was 186 in Kansas From 2003 to 2006, the rate increased before leveling out. In 2013, the rate decreased sharply, likely which is noticeably lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Kansas due to the impact of Justice Reinvestment Initiatives within the state. In 2014, the parole population had the 30th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. st rate was 186 in Kansas which is noticeably lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Kansas had the 31 In 2014, none of the reported admissions to parole were due to a highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT,KEEP IN TEXT TOO) In 2014, none of the discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.4 0.35 33% 34% 34% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 0.3 0.25 35% 29% 27% 29% 31% 27% 30% 26% 26% 25% 25% 0.2 26% 28% 27% 23% 22% 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Kansas 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Until 2012, the percentage of prison admissions that were series for all 50 states is shown. conditional release violators in Kansas was lower than the rate of the states in aggregate. However, the rate increased in 2012 Until 2012, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Kansas was Kansas had the 28th highest and 2013lower than the rate of the states in aggregate. However, the rate increased in 2012 and 2013 and was and was similar to the aggregate rate. In 2014, the rate percentage of prison admisdecreasedsimilar to the aggregate rate. In 2014, the rate decreased to twenty‐three percent, compared to just to twenty-three percent, compared to just over one sions that were due to violaquarter ofover one quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Kansas had the 28 the admissions for states in aggregate. Kansas had the th highest percentage of tions of conditional releases of 28th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (call out, the states in 2014. violationsleave in text) of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 63 Chart 3. Kansas Grant Rate, 2015 KANSAS Chart 3a. Kansas Grant Rate, 2015 Granted Chart 3. Kansas Grant Rate, 2015 9% 2% Denied 29% Granted Serve to Mandatory Release Denied Continued 9% 2% 60% 29% Serve to Mandatory Release Continued 60% Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole being approved or denied. Less than a third of the hearings resulted in a parole being granted, while sixty percent were denied and about a tenth were continued. Chart 3b. Kansas Grants by Year, 2011‐2015 600 Chart 3b. Kansas Grants by Year, 2009-2014 Chart 3b. Kansas Grants by Year, 2011‐2015 500 600 400 500 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 24% 0 24% FY2011 0 FY2011 29% 29% FY2012 GrantedFY2012 Denied 27% 27% FY2013 31% 31% 29% FY2014 Serve to Mandatory Release FY2013 FY2014 29% FY2015 Continued FY2015 Granted Denied Serve to Mandatory Release Continued The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole being Chart 3b shows the outcomes for hearings from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015. While the percentage of hearings that are continued have decreased over time, the approved or denied. Less than a third of the hearings resulted in a parole being granted, while sixty percentage that result in parole being granted have remained fairly stable over time. The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole being percent were denied and about a tenth were continued. Source: Kansasapproved or denied. Less than a third of the hearings resulted in a parole being granted, while sixty Department of Correction Annual Report FY 2015, www.doc.ks.gov/publications/Reports/2015. percent were denied and about a tenth were continued. The second chart shows the outcomes for hearings from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015. While the The second chart shows the outcomes for hearings from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015. While the percentage of hearings that are continued have decreased over time, the percentage that result in percentage of hearings that are continued have decreased over time, the percentage that result in parole being granted have remained fairly stable over time. parole being granted have remained fairly stable over time. Source: Kansas Department of Correction Annual Report FY 2015 Source: Kansas Department of Correction Annual Report FY 2015 www.doc.ks.gov/publications/Reports/2015. www.doc.ks.gov/publications/Reports/2015. 84 84 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES KANSAS 64 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 14 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 12 2007 2008 2009 Kansas 2010 9 3 5 2012 2013 8 11 0 2006 9 2011 State Total 2 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number Until 2011, of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as the rate of incarceration for parolees was similar in Kansas to that of the states in aggregate. In 2012, the rate decreased the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to significantly. In 2014, the rate stood at 2 per 100 parolees in Kansas compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate.parole during the year. Until 2011, the rate of incarceration for parolees was similar in Kansas to that of the states in aggregate. Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 In 2012, the rate decreased significantly. In 2014, the rate stood at 2 per 100 parolees in Kansas compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Kansas States Total 4% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Kansas, just four percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 85 PAROLE IN KENTUCKY Kentucky Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Kentucky compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are about as likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states when they are considered in aggregate. Slightly over one‐half of parole hearings lead to parole being recommended, while the other half result in a deferral or the entire sentence being served. Kentucky currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Kentucky compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are about as likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states when they are considered in aggregate. th Slightly over one-half of parole hearings lead to parole being recommended, while the other half result in a deferral Kentucky had the 14 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. or the entire sentence being served. Kentucky currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 800 664 700 597 600 619 623 603 612 600 500 533 566 370 400 317 308 300 200 243 254 2003 2004 657 618 693 615 393 612 605 376 380 644 658 622 637 551 597 582 440 425 429 561 441 563 492 301 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 100 0 Kentucky Prison Population State Prison Population Kentucky Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES KENTUCKY 66 The prison population rate in Kentucky is higher than the aggregate state rate. While the rate was lower through 2004, it surpassed the aggregate rate in 2005 and has remained higher each year thereafter. The peak rate was in 2007. Since then the rate has decreased to 637 in 2014 versus 551 for all 50 states. Kentucky had the 14th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 81% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Kentucky had the 14th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Kentucky had the 6th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Kentucky has increased, surpassing the aggregate state rate in 2006. In 2014, the parole population rate in Kentucky was 492 which is noticeably higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Kentucky had the 6th Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Kentucky has increased, surpassing the aggregate highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 66% state rate in 2006. In 2014, the parole population rate in Kentucky was 492 which is noticeably higher of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such than the aggregate rate of 305. Kentucky had the 7th highest parole population rate of the states in as the decision of a parole board. 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 66% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.45 41% 0.4 0.35 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 31% 37% 33% 0.3 27% 28% 0.25 0.2 23% 22% 2003 2004 23% 28% 25% 25% 26% 26% 28% 27% 23% 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 Kentucky 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Kentucky was lower than that of theIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Kentucky had the 10th highremained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in violators in Kentucky was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately est percentage of prison ad2011, the reported percentage in Kansas remained fairly steady remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the reported percentage in missions that were due to until 2012 before increasing sharply. In 2014, forty-one percent of Kansas remained fairly steady until 2012 before increasing sharply. In 2014, forty‐one percent of prison violations of conditional reprison admissions in Kentucky were due to violations of conditional admissions in Kentucky were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter leases of the states in 2014. release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for of the admissions for states in aggregate. Kentucky had the 10th highest percentage of prison admissions states in aggregate. Kentucky had the 10th highest percentage that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT BOX, LEAVE IN TEXT) of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 67 Chart 3. Kentucky Grant Rate, 2014 KENTUCKY Chart 3. Kentucky Grant Rate, 2014 Parole Recommended 12% Defer 52% 36% Serve Out Sentence Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being recommended, parole being deferred, or the inmate serving his or her entire This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being sentence. Just over one-half of the hearings resulted in parole being recommended, while just over one-third resulted in a deferral. The remaining twelve percent were directrecommended, parole being deferred, or the inmate serving his or her entire sentence. Just over one‐ ed to serve out their sentence. Source: Kentucky Parole Board FY2013-14, www.justice.ky.gov/Documents/Parole%20Board/Reports/FY13-14.pdf. half of the hearings resulted in parole being recommended, while just over one‐third resulted in a deferral. The remaining twelve percent were directed to serve out their sentence. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Source: Kentucky Parole Board FY2013‐14, Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 www.justice.ky.gov/Documents/Parole%20Board/Reports/FY13‐14.pdf. 50 40 30 21 10 18 18 20 15 15 13 13 14 14 14 14 18 13 8 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Kentucky 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees remained comparable in Kentucky compared to the states in aggregate from 2008 the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to through 2011. Kentucky’s rate was higher in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, the rate was 8 per 100 parolees in Kentucky which parole during the year. is equivalent to the rate for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees remained comparable in Kentucky compared to the states in aggregate from 2008 through 2011. Kentucky’s rate was higher in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, the rate was 8 per 100 parolees in Kentucky which is equivalent to the rate for the states in aggregate. 89 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES KENTUCKY 68 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Kentucky States Total 24% 29% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Kentucky, twenty-nine percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN LOUISIANA Louisiana Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Louisiana compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are less likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. More than forty percent of parole hearings lead to parole being granted, while the remaining hearings lead to a denial. Louisiana currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders; however, the Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Louisiana compared to the states as a whole. However, paroleesmajority of offenders are released via mandatory mechanisms. are less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. More than forty percent of parole hearings lead to parole being granted, while the remaining hearings lead to a denial. Louisiana currently practices Louisiana had the highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. discretionary release for the majority of offenders; however, the majority of offenders are released via mandatory mechanisms. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1400 1200 1,082 1,096 1,062 1,178 1,151 1,148 1,145 1,154 1,148 1,152 1,119 1,075 1000 800 752 765 735 741 760 765 799 830 818 838 724 708 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 582 563 561 551 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 600 400 200 0 Louisiana Prison Population State Prison Population Louisiana Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES LOUISIANA 70 The prison population rate in Louisiana is much higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. Throughout the series, the rate in Louisiana was about twice as high as the rate for the states in aggregate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 1,075 in Louisiana versus 551 for all 50 states. Louisiana had the highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 93% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Louisiana had the highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Louisiana had the 3rd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Louisiana is also far higher than the aggregate state rate. Throughout the series, the rate in Louisiana was more than twice as high as the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate The parole population rate in Louisiana is also far higher than the aggregate state rate. Throughout the in Louisiana was 838 which is significantly higher than the aggregate series, the rate in Louisiana was more than twice as high as the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate in rate of 305. Louisiana had the 3rd highest parole population rate of rd the states Louisiana was 838 which is significantly higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Louisiana had the 3 in 2014. In 2014, 5% of admissions to parole were due to a highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 5% of discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2.Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.4 35% 0.35 0.3 36% 35% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 33% 33% 34% 34% 29% 31% 31% 30% 28% 29% 30% 0.25 27% 27% 26% 2011 2012 2013 28% 24% 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Louisiana 2009 2010 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series In the earlypublished by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that wereseries for all 50 states is shown. conditional release violators in Louisiana was slightly that of the aggregate states. However, while the states higher than Louisiana had the 22nd highIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing est percentage of prison adbeginningviolators in Louisiana was slightly higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states in 2011, the percentage in Louisiana decreased from missions due to violations of aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in 2006 to 2010 before increasing again and surpassing the aggreconditional releases of the gate stateLouisiana decreased from 2006 to 2010 before increasing again and surpassing the aggregate state rate rate in 2014. In 2014, twenty-nine percent of prison adstates in 2014. in 2014. In 2014, twenty‐nine percent of prison admissions in Louisiana were due to violations of missions in Louisiana were due to violations of conditional release, nd conditional release, close to the percentage of admissions for states in aggregate. Louisiana had the 22 close to the percentage of admissions for states in aggregate. highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. Louisiana had the 22nd highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT TOO) ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 71 Chart 3. Louisiana Grant Rate, 2014 LOUISIANA Chart 3a. Louisiana Grant Rate, 2014 Granted Chart 3. Louisiana Grant Rate, 2014 Denied 42% Granted 58% Denied 42% Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in release being granted or denied. Forty-two percent of hearings resulted in parole being Chart 3b. Louisiana Grants by Year, 2009‐2014 granted while the remaining fifty-eight percent resulted in parole being denied. 58% Louisiana Grants by Year (Percent) Chart 3b. Louisiana Grants by Year, 2009-2014 100 Chart 3b. Louisiana Grants by Year, 2009‐2014 90 Louisiana Grants by Year (Percent) 80 100 70 90 60 80 50 70 40 60 30 50 20 40 10 30 48% 45% 29% 0 20 29% FY09 10 0 FY09 28% 45% FY10 28% 42% 25% FY11 25% Granted FY12 48% FY13 42% FY14 Denied FY12 FY13 FY14 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in release being Granted Denied granted or denied. Forty‐two percent of hearings resulted in parole being granted while the remaining fifty‐eight percent resulted in parole being denied. The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in release being Chart 3b shows percentage of parole hearings from 2009 to 2014 that resulted in release being granted or denied. The percent of hearings that resulted in parole being granted or denied. Forty‐two percent of hearings resulted in parole being granted while the remaining granted increased significantly from fiscal year 2011 to 2012, and has remained at a higher level since. The second chart shows percentage of parole hearings from 2009 to 2014 that resulted in release being fifty‐eight percent resulted in parole being denied. Source: Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole 2014 Annual Report, http://www.doc.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014-Board-of-Pardons-and-Parole-AnnualReport.pdf. granted or denied. The percent of hearings that resulted in parole being granted increased significantly The second chart shows percentage of parole hearings from 2009 to 2014 that resulted in release being from fiscal year 2011 to 2012, and has remained at a higher level since. granted or denied. The percent of hearings that resulted in parole being granted increased significantly from fiscal year 2011 to 2012, and has remained at a higher level since. (Source: Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole 2014 Annual Report http://www.doc.la.gov/wp‐ content/uploads/2014/12/2014‐Board‐of‐Pardons‐and‐Parole‐Annual‐Report.pdf) (Source: Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole 2014 Annual Report http://www.doc.la.gov/wp‐ FY10 FY11 content/uploads/2014/12/2014‐Board‐of‐Pardons‐and‐Parole‐Annual‐Report.pdf) 94 94 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES LOUISIANA 72 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 10 0 6 2006 7 7 2007 2008 9 9 5 6 6 6 7 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Louisiana State Total 8 5 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in theyear from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is lower in Louisiana compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 5 per 100 parolees in Louisiana compared to 8 per 100 for the states parole during the year. in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in Louisiana compared to the states in aggregate and has Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 5 per 100 parolees in Louisiana compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Louisiana States Total 14% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Louisiana, just fourteen percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 95 PAROLE IN MAINE Maine Summary: Prison and parole population rates are much lower in Maine compared to the states as a whole. Parolees who are at risk of reincarceration are less likely to be ‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Very few prisoners are under the jurisdiction of the parole board. Maine currently does not practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders; the board only has jurisdiction over Summary: Prison and parole population rates are much lower in Maine compared to the states as a whole. Parolees the relatively few prisoners who were sentenced prior to May 1st, 1976. who are at risk of reincarceration are less likely to be -incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Very few prisoners are under the jurisdiction of the parole board. Maine currently does not practice discretionary release for Maine had one of the lowest prison population rate of the states in 2014. the majority of offenders; the board only has jurisdiction over the relatively few prisoners who were sentenced prior 1976. to May 1st, Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 597 582 563 561 551 500 400 300 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 199 199 197 205 206 209 210 204 203 198 204 209 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 Maine Prison Population State Prison Population Maine Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. MAINE 74 The prison population rate in Maine is much lower compared to the aggregate state rate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the prison population rate was just 209 in Maine versus 551 for all 50 states. Maine had one of the lowest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 40% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Maine had 49th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Maine had the 50th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Maine is also far lower to the aggregate state rate and has been so throughout the series. The state’s rate was just 2 per 100,000 in 2014 and is significantly lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Maine had the lowest parole population rate of theThe parole population rate in Maine is also far lower to the aggregate state rate and has been so states in 2014. In 2014, no reported admissions to pathroughout the series. The state’s rate was just 2 per 100,000 in 2014 and is significantly lower than the role were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a aggregate rate of 305. Maine had the lowest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, parole board. LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, no reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.7 60% 0.6 54% 49% 0.5 49% 40% 0.4 0.3 36% 35% 31% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 37% 35% 35% 33% 34% 28% 33% 0.2 27% 26% 24% 2012 2013 0.1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Maine 2009 2010 2011 2014 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Maine was higher than that of theIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregate states. However, the percentage in Maine Maine had the 27th highest has decreased and, in 2014, the percentage in Maine (24%) was violators in Maine was higher than that of the aggregate states. However, the percentage in Maine has percentage of prison admisslightly below the percentage for the states in aggregate. Maine decreased and, in 2014, the percentage in Maine (24%) was slightly below the percentage for the states sions that were due to violahad the 27th highest percentage of prison th admissions that were in aggregate. Maine had the 27 highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of tions of conditional releases due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT TOO) of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 75 MAINE Chart 3. Maine Grant Rate *Data not available Information on the outcome of discretionary parole hearings was not available. In 2014, only four inmates were under the jurisdiction of the parole board. Source: www.bangordailynews.com/2014/06/07/news/state/number-of-maine-prisoners-under-parole-authority-down-to-4/. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0 2006 Maine State Total 9 8 5 5 2013 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is lower in Maine compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 5 per 100 parolees in Maine compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate.parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in Maine compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 5 per 100 parolees in Maine compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MAINE 76 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Maine States Total 24% 100% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Maine, the one reported exit from parole was due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. However; very few people are on parole supervision (or being released from parole supervision) in the state. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN MARYLAND Maryland Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Maryland compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are reported to be lower in recent years. Parolees have a similar likelihood of being reincarcerated when compared to the states in aggregate. More than one-third of parole hearings lead to a release being granted while the remaining hearings end-up in parole release being denied. Maryland Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Maryland compared to the states as a whole while parole population currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex rates are reported to be lower in recent years. Parolees have a similar likelihood of being re-incarcerated when offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. compared to the states in aggregate. More than one-third of parole hearings lead to a release being granted while the remaining hearings end-upthin parole release being denied. Maryland currently practices discretionary release Maryland had the 35 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and offenders. public order Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 578 500 400 300 334 317 559 345 308 540 339 312 540 338 316 547 323 323 539 508 306 314 317 308 511 582 502 563 561 551 474 465 454 306 305 298 295 300 313 313 308 249 200 100 123 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Maryland Prison Population State Prison Population Maryland Parole Population State Parole Population 2013 2014 *Parole rates in Maryland for 2013 and 2014 are not comparable to previous years because of changes in the state’s computing systems and data cleaning. In 2013, This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Maryland began reporting the number of people rather than cases. each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Maryland is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate in Maryland has MARYLAND 78 The prison population rate in Maryland is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate in Maryland has been declining since 2003 and has been doing so faster than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 454 in Maryland versus 551 for all 50 states. Maryland had the 35th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 86% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Maryland had the 35th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Maryland had the 19th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. From 2003 to 2012, the parole population rate in Maryland was similar to the aggregate state rate. However, in 2013 and 2014, the numFrom 2003 to 2012, the parole population rate in Maryland was similar to the aggregate state rate. bers changed dramatically as the state made changes in computing However, in 2013 and 2014, the numbers changed dramatically as the state made changes in computing systems and conducted data cleaning. In 2013, the state also began systems and conducted data cleaning. In 2013, the state also began reporting the number of individuals reporting under supervision, rather than the number of cases, as one person could be associated with multiple the number of individuals under supervision, rather than the number of cases, as one person could be associated with multiple cases. In 2014, the rate in Maryland was reported to cases. In 2014, the rate in Maryland was reported to be 249 which is lower than the aggregate rate of be 249 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Maryland had the 19th highest parole population rate of the states 305. Maryland had the 19th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN in 2014. In 2014, half of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. TEXT TOO) In 2014, half of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 45% 40% 35% 30% 35% 33% 33% 35% 35% 34% 34% 36% 35% 37% 36% 38% 37% 35% 35% 31% 36% 37% 39% 39% 33% 25% 27% 26% 2012 2013 28% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Maryland 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admisseries for all 50 states is shown. sions that were conditional release violators in Maryland was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states Maryland had the 12th highest In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing percentage of prison admisbeginningviolators in Maryland was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately in 2011, the percentage in Maryland has shown gradusions that were due to violaremained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Maryland has al, incremental increases. In 2014, thirty-nine percent of prison adtions of conditional releases of missions in Maryland were due to violations of conditional release shown gradual, incremental increases. In 2014, thirty‐nine percent of prison admissions in Maryland the states in 2014. comparedwere due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in th aggregate. Maryland had the 12th highest percentage of prison highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to states in aggregate. Maryland had the 12 admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALLOUT, leave in text) the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 79 Chart 3. Maryland Grant Rate, 2014 MARYLAND Chart 3a. Maryland Grant Rate, 2014 Released Chart 3. Maryland Grant Rate, 2014 Not Released 40% Released 60% Not Released 40% 60% Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in the inmate being released or not released. Forty percent of the hearings resulted in Chart 3b. Maryland Grants by Year, 2010‐2014 release while the remaining sixty percent resulted in the denial of release. Maryland Grants by Year Chart 3b. Maryland Grants by Year, 2010-2014 16000 Chart 3b. Maryland Grants by Year, 2010‐2014 14000 Maryland Grants by Year 12000 16000 10000 14000 8000 12000 6000 10000 8000 4000 6000 2000 30% 40000 FY2010 2000 30% 0 FY2010 FY2011 19% 30% 24% 19% FY2012 24% Released FY2013 30% 40% 40% FY2014 Not Released FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in the inmate Released Not Released being released or not released. Forty percent of the hearings resulted in release while the remaining sixty percent resulted in the denial of release. Chart 3b showsThe first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in the inmate the outcomes for hearings from fiscal years 2010 to 2014. While the number of parole hearings has decreased over the past several years, the number of releases being being released or not released. Forty percent of the hearings resulted in release while the remaining granted has increased since fiscal year 2011, resulting since then in a higher percentage of releases subsequent to a parole hearing. The second chart shows the outcomes for hearings from fiscal years 2010 to 2014. While the number of Source: The Maryland Parole Commission Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report, www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/mpc2014AnnualReport.pdf. sixty percent resulted in the denial of release. parole hearings has decreased over the past several years, the number of releases being granted has The second chart shows the outcomes for hearings from fiscal years 2010 to 2014. While the number of increased since fiscal year 2011, resulting since then in a higher percentage of releases subsequent to a parole hearings has decreased over the past several years, the number of releases being granted has parole hearing. increased since fiscal year 2011, resulting since then in a higher percentage of releases subsequent to a parole hearing. Source: The Maryland Parole Commission Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report, www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/mpc2014AnnualReport.pdf Source: The Maryland Parole Commission Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Report, www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/mpc2014AnnualReport.pdf 104 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE 104 PROFILES MARYLAND 80 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 9 10 7 7 8 2006 2007 2008 9 9 2010 2011 9 8 8 0 2009 Maryland 2012 2013 State Total 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is similar in Maryland compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower in the early years of the series. In 2014, the rate was 9 per 100 parolees in Maryland compared to 8 per 100 for the states the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is similar in Maryland compared to the states in aggregate, though Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 it was lower in the early years of the series. In 2014, the rate was 9 per 100 parolees in Maryland compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Maryland 28% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Maryland, twenty-eight percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 105 PAROLE IN MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Massachusetts compared to the states as a whole. Parolees at risk of incarceration are somewhat more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. A little more than half of scheduled release hearings are not postponed or waived and about two‐thirds of the hearings that actually occur lead to parole being granted. Massachusetts currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including more than half of Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Massachusetts compared to the states as a whole. violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, and public order offenders and less than half of Parolees at risk of incarceration are somewhat more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. drug offenders. A little more than half of scheduled release hearings are not postponed or waived and about two-thirds of the hearings that actually occur lead to parole being granted. Massachusetts currently practices discretionary release Massachusetts had the lowest prison population rate of the states in 2014. for the majority of offenders, including more than half of violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, and public order offenders and less than half of drug offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 597 582 563 561 551 500 400 300 200 100 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 208 206 217 222 229 226 222 220 224 216 207 200 75 78 72 65 64 63 66 63 44 40 41 36 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2003 2004 2005 Massachusetts Prison Population State Prison Population Massachusetts Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. MASSACHUSETTS 82 The prison population rate in Massachusetts is much lower than the aggregate state rate. The prison rate has been fairly stable over the past decade, with a slight decrease from 224 per 100,000 adult residents in 2011 to 200 in 2014. Massachusetts had the lowest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 28% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Massachusetts had the 50th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Massachusetts had the 47th highest parole population rates of the states in 2014. The parole population rate has decreased from 78 per 100,000 adult residents in 2004 to 36 in 2014. This is significantly lower than the aggregate state rate of 305 per 100,000. A large decline was reported from 2010 to 2011 when the rate decreased from 63 to 44. Massachusetts had one of the lowest parole population The parole population rate has decreased from 78 per 100,000 adult residents in 2004 to 36 in 2014. rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 90% of admissions to parole This is significantly lower than the aggregate state rate of 305 per 100,000. A large decline was reported were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. from 2010 to 2011 when the rate decreased from 63 to 44. Massachusetts had one of the lowest parole population rates of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 90% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 36% 35% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 28% 27% 26% 9% 9% 9% 2012 2013 2014 25% 20% 15% 11% 12% 13% 13% 10% 9% 2006 2007 10% 13% 10% 12% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2008 Massachusetts 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in Massachusetts was much lower than that of the aggregate states. While the states In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release Massachusetts had one of aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing violators in Massachusetts was much lower than that of the aggregate states. While the states the lowest percentages of beginning in 2011, the percentage in Massachusetts also aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in prison admissions due to videcreased slightly around the same time. In 2014, only nine percent Massachusetts also decreased slightly around the same time. In 2014, only nine percent of prison olations of conditional releasof prison admissions in Massachusetts were due to violations of es of the states in 2014. admissions in Massachusetts were due to violations of conditional release compared to 28% of the conditional release compared to 28% of the admissions for states admissions for states in aggregate. Massachusetts had one of the lowest percentages of prison in aggregate. Massachusetts had one of the lowest percentages of admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 83 Chart 3. Massachusetts Grant Rate, Hearing Held, 2013 Chart 3. Massachusetts Grant Rate, Hearing Held, 2013 Granted GrantedDenied Denied 37% 37% MASSACHUSETTS Chart 3a. Massachusetts Grant Rate, 2014 63% 63% Chart 3b. Massachusetts Grant Rate, All Hearings Scheduled, 2013 Chart 3b. Massachusetts Grant Rate, All Hearings Scheduled, 2013 Com Chart 3b. Massachusetts Grant Rate, All Hearings Scheduled, 2013 Granted Granted 23% 23% 34% 24% 24% 34% 20% 20% Denied Denied Postponed Postponed Waived Waived The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings that actually occurred in 2013 that resulted in a The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings that actually occurred in 2013 that resulted in a parole being granted or denied. The second chart shows the percentage of all scheduled hearings that Source:parole being granted or denied. The second chart shows the percentage of all scheduled hearings that Massachusetts Parole Board 2013 Annual Statistical Report, www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/pb/2013annualstatisticalreport.pdf resulted in parole being granted or denied and the hearings that were postponed or waived. About two‐ resulted in parole being granted or denied and the hearings that were postponed or waived. About two‐ thirds of the hearings that actually occurred resulted in parole being granted. However, only 54% of thirds of the hearings that actually occurred resulted in parole being granted. However, only 54% of scheduled hearings led to a decision while the remaining hearings were postponed (24%) or waived scheduled hearings led to a decision while the remaining hearings were postponed (24%) or waived (23%). (23%). Source: Massachusetts Parole Board 2013 Annual Statistical Report, Source: Massachusetts Parole Board 2013 Annual Statistical Report, www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/pb/2013annualstatisticalreport.pdf. www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/pb/2013annualstatisticalreport.pdf. Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings that actually occurred in 2013 that resulted in a parole being granted or denied. The second chart shows the percentage of all scheduled hearings that resulted in parole being granted or denied and the hearings that were postponed or waived. About two-thirds of the hearings that actually occurred resulted in parole being granted. However, only 54% of scheduled hearings led to a decision while the remaining hearings were postponed (24%) or waived (23%). 109 109 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MASSACHUSETTS 84 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 14 14 11 11 12 11 2006 2007 14 15 13 12 15 13 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2008 2009 2010 Massachusetts 2011 State Total Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees has been slightly higher in recent years in Massachusetts compared to the states in aggregate, but remained at a lower rate from 2006 through 2010. In 2014, the rate stood at 12 per 100 parolees in the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to Massachusetts compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees has been slightly higher in recent years in Massachusetts Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 compared to the states in aggregate, but remained at a lower rate from 2006 through 2010. In 2014, the rate stood at 12 per 100 parolees in Massachusetts compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Massachusetts States Total 21% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Massachusetts, about a fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. 110 ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN MICHIGAN Michigan Summary: Prison and parole population rates are similar in Michigan compared to the states as a whole, though the parole population rates have been somewhat lower in recent years. Parolees have a similar likelihood of being re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. About two‐thirds of parole hearings result in parole being ordered, a percentage that has fluctuated somewhat over time. Michigan Summary: Prison and parole population rates are similar in Michigan compared to the states as a whole, though currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex the parole population rates have been somewhat lower in recent years. Parolees have a similar likelihood of being offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. About two-thirds of parole hearings result in parole being ordered, a percentage that has fluctuated somewhat over time. Michigan currently practices discretionary release Michigan had the 22nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 800 700 661 652 659 685 667 647 604 600 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 586 597 500 400 317 308 271 279 2003 2004 312 316 323 300 200 266 245 281 299 317 324 325 308 313 567 582 298 573 572 565 563 561 551 308 306 305 251 241 240 2012 2013 2014 313 100 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Michigan Prison Population State Prison Population Michigan Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. MICHIGAN 86 The prison population rate in Michigan is similar to the aggregate state rate. The peak rate stood at 685 in 2006; thereafter, the rate declined. In 2014, the prison population rate was 565 in Michigan versus 551 for all 50 states. Michigan had the 22nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 93% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Michigan had the 22nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Michigan had the 22nd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. From 2003 to 2010, the parole population rate in Michigan increased and surpassed the aggregate rate by 2009. Since 2010, the rate has decreased (to 240 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate rate of 305.From 2003 to 2010, the parole population rate in Michigan increased and surpassed the aggregate rate Michigan had the 22nd highest parole population rate of the states by 2009. Since 2010, the rate has decreased (to 240 in 2014) and is lower than the aggregate rate of in 2014. In 2014, 88% of admissions to parole were due to nd a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN 305. Michigan had the 22 TEXT) In 2014, 88% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 36% 36% 35% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 30% 30% 35% 33% 34% 34% 31% 30% 33% 26% 26% 31% 28% 25% 27% 27% 24% 20% 28% 25% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Michigan 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Michigan was higher than that of theIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Michigan had the 25th highest remained violators in Michigan was higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states steady for several years before decreasing beginning in percentage of prison admis2011, the aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in percentage in Michigan decreased beginning in 2007 sions due to violations of conand was lower than the aggregate rate for several years, while Michigan decreased beginning in 2007 and was lower than the aggregate rate for several years, while ditional releases of the states showing an increase about the states’ rate in 2012, then a decline showing an increase about the states’ rate in 2012, then a decline in 2013. In 2014, just over one quarter in 2014. in 2013. In 2014, just over one quarter of prison admissions in of prison admissions in Michigan were due to violations of conditional release compared to twenty‐eight Michigan were due to violations of conditional release compared percent of the admissions for states in aggregate. Michigan had the 25th highest percentage of prison to twenty-eight percent of the admissions for states in aggregate. admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) Michigan had the 25th highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 87 Chart 3. Michigan Grant Rate, 2013 Chart 3. Michigan Grant Rate, 2013 MICHIGAN Chart 3a. Michigan Grant Rate, 2013 Total Paroles Ordered 32% Total Paroles Ordered Parole Denials 68% 32% 68% Parole Denials Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2013 that resulted in a parole being ordered or denied. Over two-thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being ordered Chart 3b. Michigan Grants by Year, 1993‐2013 with parole being denied roughly one third of the time. 30000 Chart 3b. Michigan Grants by Year, 1993-2013 Chart 3b. Michigan Grants by Year, 1993‐2013 25000 30000 20000 25000 15000 20000 10000 15000 5000 10000 62% 63% 55% 63% 5000 0 55% 55% 51% 48% 52% 53% 55% 66% 62% 55% 51% 48% 52% 55% 53% 66% 68% 68% 0 Total Paroles Ordered Parole Denials The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2013 that resulted in a parole being ordered Total Paroles Ordered Parole Denials or denied. Over two‐thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being ordered with parole being denied Chart 3b shows the outcome of hearings from 1993 to 2013. In recent years, the percentage of hearings that result in a release has increased, though the overall number The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in 2013 that resulted in a parole being ordered roughly one third of the time. of hearings has decreased since the peak in 2009. or denied. Over two‐thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being ordered with parole being denied Source: Michigan Department of Corrections 2013 Statistical Report, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/2014-04-04_-_MDOC_2013_Statistical_Report_-_ roughly one third of the time. The second chart shows the outcome of hearings from 1993 to 2013. In recent years, the percentage of Vers_1_0_452815_7.pdf. hearings that result in a release has increased, though the overall number of hearings has decreased The second chart shows the outcome of hearings from 1993 to 2013. In recent years, the percentage of since the peak in 2009. hearings that result in a release has increased, though the overall number of hearings has decreased since the peak in 2009. Source: Michigan Department of Corrections 2013 Statistical Report http://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/2014‐04‐04_‐_MDOC_2013_Statistical_Report_‐ Source: Michigan Department of Corrections 2013 Statistical Report _Vers_1_0_452815_7.pdf. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/2014‐04‐04_‐_MDOC_2013_Statistical_Report_‐ _Vers_1_0_452815_7.pdf. 114 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE 114 PROFILES MICHIGAN 88 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 17 15 15 13 14 12 14 11 14 11 12 13 10 2011 12 10 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Michigan 2010 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in theyear from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees has been higher in Michigan compared to the states in aggregate since 2012, the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to showing rates that were lower from 2007 to 2011. In 2014, the rate stood at 10 per 100 parolees in Michigan compared to 8 per 100parole during the year. for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees has been higher in Michigan compared to the states in aggregate Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 since 2012, showing rates that were lower from 2007 to 2011. In 2014, the rate stood at 10 per 100 parolees in Michigan compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Michigan States Total 24% 29% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Michigan, twenty-nine percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. 115 ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN MINNESOTA Minnesota Summary: Prison and parole population rates are much lower in Minnesota compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are much more likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Minnesota does not currently practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders; discretionary release is still used for inmates convicted prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute and for inmates serving life sentences. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are much lower in Minnesota compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are much more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Minnesota does not currently practice discretionary release for the majority of offenders; discretionary release is still used for inmates Minnesota had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. convicted prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute and for inmates serving life sentences. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 603 600 612 615 612 605 600 597 582 563 561 551 500 400 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 230 242 235 241 250 250 243 241 242 248 255 128 136 144 144 146 145 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 300 200 209 100 95 102 103 114 121 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 159 0 Minnesota Prison Population State Prison Population Minnesota Parole Population State Parole Population 2014 Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MINNESOTA 90 The prison population rate in Minnesota is much lower than the aggregate state rate. Over the series, the rate has increased slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 255 in Minnesota versus 551 for all 50 states. Minnesota had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 88% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Minnesota had the 48th highest prison population rates of the states in 2014. Minnesota had the 34th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Minnesota is also much lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has been increasing gradually over time. In 2014, the rate was 159 which is much lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Minnesota had the 34th highest parole popThe parole population rate in Minnesota is also much lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has ulation rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, no reported admissions been increasing gradually over time. In 2014, the rate was 159 which is much lower than the aggregate to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, of a parolerate of 305. Minnesota had the 34 board. LEAVE IN TEXT)In 2014, no reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 38% 40% 35% 30% 34% 34% 34% 33% 34% 34% 31% 35% 36% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 36% 36% 27% 26% 2012 2013 35% 33% 31% 25% 28% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Minnesota 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Minnesota was similar to that of theIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Minnesota had the 15th highremained violators in Minnesota was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately steady for several years before decreasing beginning in est percentage of prison ad2011, theremained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Minnesota percentage in Minnesota has, excepting 2011, shown missions due to violations of relative stability, albeit at a higher rate than the states. In 2014, has, excepting 2011, shown relative stability, albeit at a higher rate than the states. In 2014, thirty‐five conditional releases of the thirty-five percent of prison admissions in Minnesota were due to violations of conditional release compared to percent of prison admissions in Minnesota were due to states in 2014. violations of conditional release compared to just over one quarter just over one quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Minnesota had the 15th highest of the admissions for states in aggregate. Minnesota had the 15th percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 91 MINNESOTA Chart 3. Minnesota Grant Rate *Data not available Data are only available for the small number of cases the Board of Pardons hears. Since there is no discretionary release, data on discretionary parole release outcomes are not available. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 21 23 24 20 20 14 14 20 10 15 15 23 23 23 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 18 14 12 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Minnesota 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in Minnesota compared to the states in aggregate and has been so the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 23 per 100 parolees in Minnesota compared to 8 per 100 for the parole during the year. states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Minnesota compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 23 per 100 parolees in Minnesota compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MINNESOTA 92 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Minnesota States Total 24% 50% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Minnesota, an even 50% of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN MISSISSIPPI Mississippi Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Mississippi compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates have increased and recently surpassed the aggregate state rate. Parolees are about as likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Mississippi currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders other than violent and sex offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Mississippi compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates have increased and recently surpassed the aggregate state rate. Parolees are about as likely to th Mississippi had the 7 be re-incarcerated compared to highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. the states as a whole. Mississippi currently practices discretionary release for the offenders other than violent and sex offenders. majority of Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1,200 1,000 976 986 956 981 1,035 1,040 976 951 959 995 975 831 800 597 600 603 612 317 308 312 316 615 612 605 597 582 563 561 551 308 313 313 308 306 437 320 303 306 305 2011 2012 2013 2014 600 400 323 317 200 0 247 86 93 92 88 93 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 290 134 2008 2009 2010 Mississippi Parole Population State Prison Population Mississippi Prison Population State Parole Population *The increase in the parole population around 2009 resulted from legislation passed in 2008 which expanded parole eligibility. Additional legislation was adopted in 2014. This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Mississippi is much higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate MISSISSIPPI 94 The prison population rate in Mississippi is much higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate was in 2007-2008; thereafter, the rate declined. In 2014, the prison population rate was 831 in Mississippi versus 551 for all 50 states. Mississippi had the 7th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 86% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Mississippi had the 7th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Mississippi had the 8th highest parole population rate of From 2003 to 2011, the parole population rate in Mississippi inthe states in 2014. creased, exceeding the aggregate state rate for the first time in 2011. Large increases in the parole population occurred in 2009 and 2014; the increase in the parole population around 2009 resulted from legislation passed in 2008 which expanded parole elincrease in the parole population around 2009 resulted from legislation passed in 2008 which expanded igibility and additional legislation was adopted in 2014. In 2014, the paroleparole eligibility and additional legislation was adopted in 2014. In 2014, the parole population rate in population rate in Mississippi was 437 which is noticeably higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Mississippi had the 8th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 81% of admissions to parole were duethto a disMississippi was 437 which is noticeably higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Mississippi had the 8 cretionaryhighest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 81% of decision such as the decision of a parole board. admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 27% 26% 28% 25% 25% 20% 20% 21% 2010 2011 24% 21% 15% 10% 13% 12% 12% 12% 13% 2006 2007 2008 14% 3% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 Mississippi 2009 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Mississippi was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Mississippi had the 31st highremained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in Mississippi was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained est percentage of prison ad2011, the percentage in Mississippi shows a rather steady upward steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Mississippi shows a missions that were due to vioincrease until 2012. Following a slight decrease in 2013, and 2014, rather steady upward increase until 2012. Following a slight decrease in 2013, and 2014, the latter lations of conditional releases the latter reveals that one-fifth of prison admissions in Mississippi reveals that one‐fifth of prison admissions in Mississippi were due to violations of conditional release of the states in 2014. were due to violations of conditional release compared to just under st compared to just under one‐quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Mississippi had the 31 one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Mississippi highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states had the 31st highest percentage of prison admissions that were in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 95 MISSISSIPPI Chart 3. Mississippi Grant Rate *Data not available Information on the outcomes of parole hearings was not available from the state. However, one source stated, “Mississippi’s parole grant rate has fluctuated widely over a relatively short period, from as high as 57 percent in November 2011 to as low as 30 percent in October 2012.” Source: Final Report December 2013 Mississippi Corrections and Criminal Justice Task Force, www.legislature.ms.gov/Documents/MSTaskForce_FinalReport.pdf, pg. 12. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 10 0 6 7 2006 2007 9 4 2008 4 2009 Mississippi 2010 9 8 10 7 6 2011 State Total 2012 2013 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees has remained lower in Mississippi compared to the states in aggregate the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to throughout most years of the series with the exception of 2012. In 2013, the rate was 7 per 100 parolees in Mississippi parole during the year. compared to 9 per 100 for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees has remained lower in Mississippi compared to the states in aggregate throughout most years of the series with the exception of 2012. In 2013, the rate was 7 per 100 parolees in Mississippi compared to 9 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MISSISSIPPI 96 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2013 Mississippi 22% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Mississippi, just over one-fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN MISSOURI Missouri Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Missouri compared to the states as a whole. Parolees are also more likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Missouri currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Missouri compared to the states as a whole. Parolees are also more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Missouri currently practices discretionary th release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, Missouri had the 11 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 800 707 718 597 600 706 700 600 603 683 670 672 674 670 671 612 615 612 605 597 582 500 400 355 402 300 421 432 445 460 434 425 460 676 679 684 563 561 551 447 418 396 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 Missouri Prison Population State Prison Population Missouri Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MISSOURI 98 The prison population rate in Missouri is higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 718 occurred in 2004; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate stood at 684 in Missouri versus 551 for all 50 states. Missouri had the 11th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 92% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Missouri had the 11th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Missouri had the 11th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Missouri is also higher than the aggregate state rate. From 2003 to 2008, the parole population rate in Missouri increased; thereafter, it decreased every year except for 2011. In 2014, the parole population rate in Missouri was 396, higher than the aggregate state rate of 305. Missouri had the 11th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 78% 2014, the parole population rate in Missouri was 396, higher than the aggregate state rate of 305. of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such Missouri had the 11th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In as the decision of a parole board. 2014, 78% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 50% 43% 45% 40% 39% 42% 44% 44% 45% 35% 36% 35% 30% 31% 33% 34% 34% 46% 46% 35% 35% 48% 46% 46% 27% 26% 2012 2013 47% 33% 25% 28% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Missouri 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout this series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Missouri was higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Missouri had the 6th highest remained Throughout this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in steady for several years before decreasing beginning Missouri was higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained percentage of prison admisin 2011, the percentage in Missouri reached 48% in 2011 with steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Missouri reached 48% in sions due to violations of conroughly comparable rates thereafter. In 2014, nearly half of prison 2011 with roughly comparable rates thereafter. In 2014, nearly half of prison admissions in Missouri ditional releases of the states admissions in Missouri were due to violations of conditional were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for in 2014. release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for th states in aggregate. Missouri had the 6 states in aggregate. Missouri had the 6th highest highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of percentage of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 99 MISSOURI Chart 3. Missouri Grant Rate *Data not available Information that breaks down the outcomes of hearings for discretionary release and non-discretionary conditional release is not available. In 2014, the board approved the release of 11,316 prisoners. Source: Missouri Board of Probation and Parole Annual Report 2014, www.doc.mo.gov/Documents/prob/AR%202014%20P&P.pdf. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 24 25 20 20 10 15 20 21 17 14 15 20 14 14 11 12 8 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Missouri 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in Missouri compared to the states in aggregate and has been so for the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to seven out of nine years of the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 17 per 100 parolees in Missouri compared to 8 per 100 parole during the year. for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Missouri compared to the states in aggregate and has been so for seven out of nine years of the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 17 per 100 parolees in Missouri compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MISSOURI 100 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Missouri States Total 24% 49% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Missouri, 49% percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN MONTANA Montana Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Montana compared to the states as a whole. Parolees are also more likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. One‐quarter of parole hearings lead to a discretionary release, while one‐half are waived and another quarter are denied. Montana currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Montana compared to the states as a whole. Parolees offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. are also more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. One-quarter of parole hearings lead to a discretionary release, while one-half are waived and another quarter are denied. Montana currently practices rd Montana had the 33 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 500 520 400 300 488 488 447 317 308 312 316 117 114 116 115 2003 2004 2005 2006 597 582 563 561 551 463 467 474 484 475 461 460 463 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 130 118 132 129 124 121 129 137 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 Montana Prison Population State Prison Population Montana Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. MONTANA 102 The prison population rate in Montana is lower than the aggregate state rate. Though the rate in Montana has remained fairly stable over time, the peak rate was in 2005-2006; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 463 in Montana versus 551 for all 50 states. Montana had the 33rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 89% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Montana had the 33rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Montana had the 39th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. Throughout the series, the parole population rate in Montana has remained relatively stable, though the overall trend has shown a slight increase. In 2014, the rate in Montana was 137, significantly lower thanThroughout the series, the parole population rate in Montana has remained relatively stable, though the the aggregate rate of 305. Montana had the 39th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, all reported adoverall trend has shown a slight increase. In 2014, the rate in Montana was 137, significantly lower than th as the missions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. the aggregate rate of 305. Montana had the 39 decision of(CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary a parole board. decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 27% 25% 26% 25% 26% 20% 15% 19% 19% 19% 19% 2003 2004 2005 2006 25% 22% 22% 2010 2011 26% 28% 23% 23% 2013 2014 10% 5% 0% 2007 2008 Montana 2009 State Institutions 2012 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Montana was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately reMontana had the 28th highest Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in mained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in percentage of prison admisMontana was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained 2011, the percentage in Montana jumped in 2007, hovered for sevsions due to violations of consteady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Montana jumped in eral years approaching the aggregate state rate, but has shown a ditional releases of the states 2007, hovered for several years approaching the aggregate state rate, but has shown a slight decline slight decline recently. In 2014, twenty-three percent of prison adin 2014. recently. In 2014, twenty‐three percent of prison admissions in Montana were due to violations of missions in Montana were due to violations of conditional release comparedconditional release compared to twenty‐eight percent of the admissions for states in aggregate. to twenty-eight percent of the admissions for states in th highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases aggregate.Montana had the 28 Montana had the 28th highest percentage of prison of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 103 Chart 3. Montana Grant Rate, January ‐ October 2015 MONTANA Chart 3a. Montana Grant Rate, January - October 2015 Chart 3. Montana Grant Rate, January ‐ October 2015 Granted 25% Granted Denied 48% 48% 25% 27% Denied Waived 27% Waived Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in the first ten months of 2015 that resulted in parole being granted, denied, or waived. Nearly half of the hearings were waived, while a quarter of hearings resulted in parole being granted and the remaining twenty-seven percent resulted in parole being denied. Chart 3b. Montana Grants by Month, January 2013 ‐ October 2015 Chart 3b. Montana Grants by Month, January 2013 - October 2015 Chart 3b. Montana Grants by Month, January 2013 ‐ October 2015 250 250 200 150 100 30% 42% 25% 29% 29% 25% 30% 23% 23% 200 150 100 50 50 0 30% Jan 2013 2013 Feb Jan 2013 MarFeb 2013 2013 AprMar 2013 2013 May Apr 2013 2013 JunMay 2013 2013 Jul Jun 2013 2013 Aug 2013 Jul 2013 SepAug 2013 2013 OctSep 2013 2013 Nov Oct 2013 2013 Dec 2013 Nov 2013 Jan 2014 Dec 2013 Feb 2014 Jan 2014 Mar 2014 Feb 2014 Apr 2014 2014 MayMar 2014 Apr 2014 Jun 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jun 2014 Aug 2014 Jul 2014 Sep 2014 2014 OctAug 2014 2014 NovSep 2014 2014 Dec Oct 2014 JanNov 2015 2014 FebDec 2015 2014 Mar Jan 2015 2015 AprFeb 2015 2015 MayMar 2015 2015 Jun Apr 2015 2015 JulMay 2015 2015 Aug Jun 2015 2015 Sep 2015 Jul 2015 Oct 2015 Aug 2015 Sep 2015 Oct 2015 30% 42% Comme because 2013 0 Granted Denied Waived Granted Denied Waived The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in the first ten months of 2015 that resulted in Chart 3b shows the outcome of parole hearings each month from January, 2014 to October, 2015. The rate of parole being granted varies significantly over the months, The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in the first ten months of 2015 that resulted in parole being granted, denied, or waived. Nearly half of the hearings were waived, while a quarter of varying from 19% to 44%. parole being granted, denied, or waived. Nearly half of the hearings were waived, while a quarter of hearings resulted in parole being granted and the remaining twenty‐seven percent resulted in parole Source: State of Montana Board of Pardons and Parole Statistical Data 2015 (Jan-Oct), http://bopp.mt.gov/Portals/42/history/Statistical_Data_2015/Stats%20October%20 hearings resulted in parole being granted and the remaining twenty‐seven percent resulted in parole being denied. 2015%20Calendar%20year.pdf. being denied. The second chart shows the outcome of parole hearings each month from January, 2014 to October, The second chart shows the outcome of parole hearings each month from January, 2014 to October, 2015. The rate of parole being granted varies significantly over the months, varying from 19% to 44%. 2015. The rate of parole being granted varies significantly over the months, varying from 19% to 44%. (Source: State of Montana Board of Pardons and Parole Statistical Data 2015 (Jan‐Oct) (Source: State of Montana Board of Pardons and Parole Statistical Data 2015 (Jan‐Oct) http://bopp.mt.gov/Portals/42/history/Statistical_Data_2015/Stats%20October%202015%20Calendar% http://bopp.mt.gov/Portals/42/history/Statistical_Data_2015/Stats%20October%202015%20Calendar% 20year.pdf) 20year.pdf) 134 134 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES MONTANA 104 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 15 12 16 14 17 14 14 14 13 15 14 13 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 12 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Montana 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in theyear from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in Montana compared to the states in aggregate and has been so for six the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to out of nine years of the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 13 per 100 parolees in Montana compared to 8 per 100 for the parole during the year. states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in Montana compared to the states in aggregate and has Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 been so for six out of nine years of the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 13 per 100 parolees in Montana compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Montana States Total 24% 41% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Montana, forty-one percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. 135 ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NEBRASKA Nebraska Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Nebraska compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees who are at risk of incarceration in Nebraska are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. The majority of parole hearings lead to parole being granted. Nebraska currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Nebraska compared to the states as a whole. However, th paroleesNebraska had the 40 who are at risk of incarceration in Nebraska are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as highest prison population rate of the states in 2014 a whole. The majority of parole hearings lead to parole being granted. Nebraska currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 597 582 563 561 551 500 400 300 358 385 339 333 338 337 330 335 334 338 313 308 306 305 99 89 75 2012 2013 2014 313 317 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 50 62 51 60 60 63 61 69 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 200 100 83 0 2011 Nebraska Prison Population State Prison Population Nebraska Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Nebraska is much lower than the aggregate state rate. In recent years, NEBRASKA 106 The prison population rate in Nebraska is much lower than the aggregate state rate. In recent years, however, the Nebraska rate has increased while the aggregate state rate has decreased. In 2014, the prison population rate was 385 in Nebraska versus 551 for all 50 states. Nebraska had the 40th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 65% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Nebraska had the 40th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Nebraska had the 45th highest parole population rates of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Nebraska is also far lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has been increasing slightly over time. In 2014, the parole population rate was 75 in Nebraska versus 305 for all 50 states. Nebraska had one of the lowest parole The parole population rate in Nebraska is also far lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 98% of admissions been increasing slightly over time. In 2014, the parole population rate was 75 in Nebraska versus 305 for to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision all 50 states. Nebraska had one of the lowest parole population rates of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, of a parole board. LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 98% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 27% 26% 28% 25% 20% 20% 15% 10% 14% 15% 11% 16% 13% 13% 13% 14% 18% 13% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Nebraska 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Nebraska was much lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release Nebraska had the 34th highaggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing violators in Nebraska was much lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states est percentage of prison adbeginning in 2011, the percentage in Nebraska has been aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in missions that were due to vioincreasing over the past few years. In 2014, nearly a fifth of prison Nebraska has been increasing over the past few years. In 2014, nearly a fifth of prison admissions in lations of conditional releases admissions in Nebraska were due to violations of conditional Nebraska were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the of the states in 2014. release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for th admissions for states in aggregate. Nebraska had the 34 highest percentage of prison admissions that states in aggregate. Nebraska had the 34th highest percentage were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 107 Chart 3. Nevada Grant Rate, 2011 NEBRASKA Chart 3. Nebraska Grant Rate, 2011 Granted Denied Deferred 5% 8% 87% This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2011 (the most recent year for which Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2011 (the most recent year for which data are available) that resulted in parole being granted, denied, or data are available) that resulted in parole being granted, denied, or deferred. Eighty‐seven percent of deferred. Eighty-seven percent of hearings resulted in parole being granted while the remaining hearings resulted in a denial or deferral. hearings resulted in parole being granted while the remaining hearings resulted in a denial or deferral. Source: 37th Annual Report of the Nebraska Board of Parole FY2011, www.nlc1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/P1500/A001-201011.pdf. Source: 37th Annual Report of the Nebraska Board of Parole FY2011, Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 www.nlc1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/P1500/A001‐201011.pdf. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 15 15 14 14 15 14 13 11 12 14 19 18 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 15 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Nebraska 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees has been higher in Nebraska since 2011 compared to the states in aggregate, though it was equivalent to the aggregate state rate in the earlier years from 2006 through 2010. In 2014, the rate stood the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year plus, the reported number of entries to at 18 per 100 parolees in Nebraska compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees has been higher in Nebraska since 2011 compared to the states in aggregate, though it was equivalent to the aggregate state rate in the earlier years from 2006 through 2010. In 2014, the rate stood at 18 per 100 parolees in Nebraska compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 139 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES NEBRASKA 108 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Nebraska States Total 24% 30% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Nebraska, thirty percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NEVADA Nevada Summary: Prison population rates are slightly higher in Nevada compared to the states in aggregate while parole population rates are lower. Parolees are also less likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Just over one‐half of parole hearings lead to parole being granted while the rest resulted in parole being denied. Nevada currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public Summary: Prison population rates are slightly higher in Nevada compared to the states in aggregate while parole order offenders. population rates are lower. Parolees are also less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Just over one-half of parole hearings lead to parole being granted while the rest resulted in parole being denied. th Nevada had the 18 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Nevada currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 800 700 628 648 647 600 597 600 603 680 688 640 612 615 612 618 605 620 597 500 400 317 316 323 317 308 312 206 218 203 188 196 207 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 308 621 582 615 613 576 563 561 551 313 313 308 306 305 243 259 257 259 272 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 300 200 246 100 0 2003 Nevada Prison Population State Prison Population Nevada Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. NEVADA 110 The prison population rate in Nevada is slightly higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 688 occurred in 2007; since then, the rate has declined. In 2014, the prison population rate was 576 in Nevada versus 551 for all 50 states. Nevada had the 18th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 61% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Nevada had the 18th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Nevada had the 17th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Nevada is lower than the aggregate state rate. From 2003 to 2007, the parole population rate in Nevada decreased; thereafter, it began to increase. In 2014, the rate in Nevada was 272 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. The parole population rate in Nevada is lower than the aggregate state rate. From 2003 to 2007, the Nevada had the 17th highest parole population rate of the states parole population rate in Nevada decreased; thereafter, it began to increase. In 2014, the rate in Nevada in 2014. In 2014, 67% of admissions to parole were due to a discreth highest parole population was 272 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Nevada had the 17 tionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT)In 2014, 67% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 45% 40% 40% 35% 34% 33% 31% 35% 35% 35% 31% 34% 30% 36% 33% 28% 27% 26% 16% 16% 16% 16% 2011 2012 2013 2014 25% 20% 21% 15% 14% 10% 11% 11% 2006 2007 13% 13% 2009 2010 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2008 Nevada State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout most of the series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in Nevada was lower than that of the aggregate states. In 2014, sixteen percent of prison Throughout most of the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release Nevada had the 38th highest admissions in Nebraska were due to violations of conditional violators in Nevada was lower than that of the aggregate states. In 2014, sixteen percent of prison percentage of prison admisrelease compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for admissions in Nebraska were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter sions that were due to violastates in aggregate. Nevada had the 38th highest percentage of the admissions for states in aggregate. Nevada had the 38th highest percentage of prison admissions tions of conditional releases of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) of the states in 2014. releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 111 NEVADA Chart 3. Nevada Grant Rate, Discretionary Parole Hearings, 2015‐2016 Chart 3a. Nevada Grant Rate, Discretionary Parole Hearings, 2015-2016 Chart 3. Nevada Grant Rate, Discretionary Parole Hearings, 2015‐2016 Granted Granted Denied Denied 44% 44% 56% 56% Chart 3b. Nevada Grant Rate, Mandatory Parole Hearings, 2015‐2016 Chart 3b. Nevada Grant Rate, Mandatory Parole Hearings, 2015‐2016 Chart 3b. Nevada Grant Rate, Mandatory Parole Hearings, 2015-2016 Granted Granted Denied Denied 43% 43% 57% 57% The first chart shows the percentage of discretionary parole hearings from the first quarter of fiscal year The first chart shows the percentage of discretionary parole hearings from the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 to the first quarter of fiscal year 2016 that resulted in parole being granted or denied. The second 2015 to the first quarter of fiscal year 2016 that resulted in parole being granted or denied. The second Chart 3a shows the percentage of discretionary parole hearings from the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 to the first quarter of fiscal year 2016 that resulted in parole being chart shows the same information for mandatory parole releases. While discretionary parole release can granted or denied. The second chart shows the same information for mandatory parole releases. While discretionary parole release can be denied for numerous reasons, chart shows the same information for mandatory parole releases. While discretionary parole release can be denied for numerous reasons, "mandatory parole release" can only be denied if a determination is “mandatory parole release” can only be denied if a determination is made that there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner would be a danger to public safety if released on parole. Just over half of both types of hearings resulted in parole being granted. be denied for numerous reasons, "mandatory parole release" can only be denied if a determination is made that there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner would be a danger to public safety if Source: The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners Quarterly Reports (FY15Q1-FY16Q1), www.parole.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/parolenvgov/content/Information/Q1FY2016_ made that there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner would be a danger to public safety if released on parole. Just over half of both types of hearings resulted in parole being granted. Jul-Sep%202015.pdf. released on parole. Just over half of both types of hearings resulted in parole being granted. Source: The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners Quarterly Reports (FY15Q1‐FY16Q1), Source: The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners Quarterly Reports (FY15Q1‐FY16Q1), www.parole.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/parolenvgov/content/Information/Q1FY2016_Jul‐Sep%202015.pdf. www.parole.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/parolenvgov/content/Information/Q1FY2016_Jul‐Sep%202015.pdf. 144 144 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES NEVADA 112 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 10 9 7 6 2007 2008 0 2006 8 2009 Nevada 5 2010 7 2011 9 9 9 10 8 6 2012 2013 State Total 2014 Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number Throughout most of the series, the rate of incarceration for parolees has been lower in Nevada compared to the states of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as in aggregate. Since 2012, the rates have been similar. In 2014 the rate stood at 6 per 100 parolees in Nevada compared the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to to 8 per 100parole during the year. for the states in aggregate. Throughout most of the series, the rate of incarceration for parolees has been lower in Nevada Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 compared to the states in aggregate. Since 2012, the rates have been similar. In 2014 the rate stood at 6 per 100 parolees in Nevada compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Nevada 15% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Nevada, fifteen percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is noticeably lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. 145 ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE New Hampshire Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New Hampshire compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are more likely to be re‐incarcerated when compared to the states in aggregate. Eighty percent of parole hearings lead to the inmate being approved for release. New Hampshire currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New Hampshire compared to the states as a whole. offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. However, parolees are more likely to be re-incarcerated when compared to the states in aggregate. Eighty percent of parole hearings lead to the inmate being approved for release. New Hampshire currently practices discretionary New Hampshire had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 582 563 561 551 308 306 305 287 280 500 400 317 308 312 316 323 280 291 317 308 313 300 200 100 313 252 251 250 124 124 2003 2004 255 141 265 162 163 163 2006 2007 2008 266 268 178 191 2009 2010 267 212 207 214 225 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2005 New Hampshire Prison Population State Prison Population New Hampshire Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 shows theThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. NEW HAMPSHIRE 114 The prison population rate in New Hampshire is much lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 615 occurred in 2007; thereafter, the rate has since declined slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 280 in New Hampshire versus 551 for all 50 states. New Hampshire had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 96% of releases from prison were conditional releases. New Hampshire had the 47th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. New Hampshire had the 23rd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in New Hampshire is also lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has been increasing steadily for the past few years. In 2014, the parole population rate in New Hampshire was 225 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. The parole population rate in New Hampshire is also lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has New Hampshire had the 23rd highest parole population rate of the been increasing steadily for the past few years. In 2014, the parole population rate in New Hampshire states in 2014. In 2014, half of admissions to parole were due to a was 225 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. New Hampshire had the 23rd highest parole discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, half of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 60% 50% 40% 30% 47% 44% 37% 31% 41% 40% 33% 34% 34% 46% 43% 48% 44% 43% 39% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 20% 27% 26% 28% 2012 2013 2014 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 New Hampshire 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate The percentage of prison admissions that were conditional series for all 50 states is shown. release violators in New Hampshire is higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained The percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in New Hampshire is higher New Hampshire had the 9th steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained steady for several highest percentage of prison percentage in New Hampshire has been increasing. In 2014, fortyyears before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in New Hampshire has been increasing. In admissions that were due to three percent of prison admissions in New Hampshire were due 2014, forty‐three percent of prison admissions in New Hampshire were due to violations of conditional violations of conditional reto violations of conditional release compared to about a quarter release compared to about a quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. New Hampshire had the leases of the states in 2014. of the admissions for states in aggregate. New Hampshire had 9th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the the 9th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to states in 2014. violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 115 Chart 3. New Hampshire Grant Rate, 2014 NEW HAMPSHIRE Chart 3. New Hampshire Grant Rate, 2014 Inmates Approved for Parole 20% Inmates Denied Parole 80% Chart 3 shows the percentage of parole hearings in state fiscal year 2014 that resulted in inmates being approved for parole or denied parole. Eighty percent of hearings This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in state fiscal year 2014 that resulted in inmates resulted in the inmate being approved for parole while the remaining twenty percent resulted in parole being denied. being approved for parole or denied parole. Eighty percent of hearings resulted in the inmate being Source: New Hampshire Department of Corrections 2014 Annual Report, www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/publicinformation/documents/annual-report-2014.pdf. approved for parole while the remaining twenty percent resulted in parole being denied. Source: New Hampshire Department of Corrections 2014 Annual Report, Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/publicinformation/documents/annual‐report‐2014.pdf. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 24 17 15 15 14 20 20 14 14 22 21 21 21 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 12 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 New Hampshire 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in New Hampshire compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 21 per 100 parolees in New Hampshire compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in New Hampshire compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 21 per 100 parolees in New Hampshire compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 149 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES NEW HAMPSHIRE 116 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 New Hampshire States Total 24% 59% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In New Hampshire, fifty-nine percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NEW JERSEY New Jersey Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New Jersey compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are re‐incarcerated at rates compared to the states in aggregate. About one‐ third of parole hearings lead to parole being granted, though a fifth of all scheduled hearings did not occur. New Jersey currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including some violent offenders and sex offenders, as well as all property offenders, drug offenders, and public order Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New Jersey compared to the states as a whole. However, offenders. parolees are re-incarcerated at rates compared to the states in aggregate. About one-third of parole hearings lead to parole being granted, though a fifth of all scheduled hearings did not occur. New Jersey currently practices New Jersey had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including some violent offenders and sex offenders, as well as offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. all property Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 597 582 563 561 340 326 551 500 421 411 419 418 407 400 300 391 380 371 351 312 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 218 212 220 228 239 205 230 231 224 219 217 215 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 New Jersey Prison Population State Prison Population New Jersey Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. NEW JERSEY 118 The prison population rate in New Jersey is much lower than the aggregate state rate and has been steadily decreasing since 2005. In 2014, the prison population rate was 312 in New Jersey versus 551 for all 50 states. New Jersey had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 39% of releases from prison were conditional releases. New Jersey had the 45th highest prison population rates of the states in 2014. New Jersey had the 26th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in New Jersey is also lower than the aggregate state rate, remaining relatively stable over time. In 2014, the parole population rate in New Jersey was 215 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. New Jersey had the 26th highest parole The parole population rate in New Jersey is also lower than the aggregate state rate, remaining population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 64% of admissions to relatively stable over time. In 2014, the parole population rate in New Jersey was 215 which is lower parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of th highest parole population rate of the states in than the aggregate rate of 305. New Jersey had the 26 a parole board. 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 64% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 25% 29% 29% 27% 30% 28% 27% 25% 20% 23% 23% 2009 2010 25% 24% 26% 28% 26% 25% 2013 2014 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 New Jersey 2011 State Institutions 2012 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in New Jersey was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggreIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release New Jersey had the 25th highgately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginviolators in New Jersey was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states est percentage of prison admisning in 2011, the percentage in New Jersey decreased until 2010, aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in sions due to violations of conincreasing slightly thereafter. In 2014, one quarter of prison admisNew Jersey decreased until 2010, increasing slightly thereafter. In 2014, one quarter of prison ditional releases of the states sions in New Jersey were due to violations of conditional release in 2014. comparedadmissions in New Jersey were due to violations of conditional release compared to twenty‐eight to twenty-eight percent of the admissions for states in th highest percentage of prison percent of the admissions for states in aggregate. New Jersey had the 25 aggregate. New Jersey had the 25th highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 119 Chart 3. New Jersey Grant Rate, 2014 Chart 3. New Jersey Grant Rate, 2014 21% 1% 21% 1% Paroled 33% 45%33% Denied Paroled Deferred Denied Hearing Not Held Deferred 45% Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in an inmate being paroled, Not parole being Hearing Helddenied, a hearing being deferred, or a scheduled State and county hearings are combined. Nearly one-half of the hearings resulted in parole being denied, while one-third resulted in parole being granted. hearing not held. Another fifth of the hearings were not held. Chart 3b. New Jersey Grants by Year, 2011‐2014 18,000 Chart 3b. New Jersey Grants by Year, 2011‐2014 Chart 3b. New Jersey Grants by Year, 2011-2014 16,000 18,000 14,000 16,000 12,000 14,000 10,000 12,000 8,000 10,000 6,000 8,000 4,000 6,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 38% 0 38% FY2011 0 FY2011 35% 34% 35% 34% FY2013 FY2012 Paroled Denied FY2012 Deferred Hearing Not Held FY2013 NEW JERSEY Chart 3a. New Jersey Grant Rate, 2014 33% 33% FY2014 FY2014 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in an inmate Paroled Denied Deferred Hearing Not Held being paroled, parole being denied, a hearing being deferred, or a scheduled hearing not held. State and Chart 3b shows the outcomes of parole hearings for fiscal years 2011 to 2014. While the rate of parole being granted has decreased slightly over the years, the overall The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in an inmate county hearings are combined. Nearly one‐half of the hearings resulted in parole being denied, while number of hearings has decreased as well. being paroled, parole being denied, a hearing being deferred, or a scheduled hearing not held. State and one‐third resulted in parole being granted. Another fifth of the hearings were not held. Source: New Jersey State Parole Board 2014 Annual Report, www.nj.gov/parole/docs/reports/AnnualReport2014.pdf. county hearings are combined. Nearly one‐half of the hearings resulted in parole being denied, while one‐third resulted in parole being granted. Another fifth of the hearings were not held. The second chart shows the outcomes of parole hearings for fiscal years 2011 to 2014. While the rate of parole being granted has decreased slightly over the years, the overall number of hearings has The second chart shows the outcomes of parole hearings for fiscal years 2011 to 2014. While the rate of decreased as well. parole being granted has decreased slightly over the years, the overall number of hearings has decreased as well. Source: New Jersey State Parole Board 2014 Annual Report, www.nj.gov/parole/docs/reports/AnnualReport2014.pdf Source: New Jersey State Parole Board 2014 Annual Report, www.nj.gov/parole/docs/reports/AnnualReport2014.pdf 154 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE 154 PROFILES NEW JERSEY 120 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 14 15 14 14 14 12 12 9 9 8 7 8 8 8 9 8 7 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 New Jersey State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees has been similar in New Jersey compared to the states in the aggregate since 2012, though it was lower than the aggregate rate in earlier years. In 2014, the rate was 7 per 100 parolees in New the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to Jersey compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees has been similar in New Jersey compared to the states in the Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 aggregate since 2012, though it was lower than the aggregate rate in earlier years. In 2014, the rate was 7 per 100 parolees in New Jersey compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. New Jersey 25% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In New Jersey, a quarter of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is similar to the aggregate state proportion 155 of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NEW MEXICO New Mexico Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New Mexico compared to the states as a whole. While data on the likelihood of incarceration for parolees are not available, conditional release violators make up a larger share of prison admissions in New Mexico than in the states in aggregate. New Mexico currently practices discretionary release only for inmates convicted prior to the effective Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New Mexico compared to the states as a whole. While date of the determinate sentencing statute in 1979 and for inmates serving life sentences. data on the likelihood of incarceration for parolees are not available, conditional release violators make up a larger share of prison admissionsthin New Mexico than in the states in aggregate. New Mexico currently practices New Mexico had the 36 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014 discretionary release only for inmates convicted prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute in 1979 and for inmates serving life sentences. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 582 500 400 300 561 551 439 443 306 305 428 452 317 455 308 460 312 456 316 200 100 563 175 191 200 436 437 448 308 313 313 208 203 201 422 418 323 317 238 248 201 323 308 127 142 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 New Mexico Prison Population State Prison Population New Mexico Parole Population State Parole Population 2013 2014 *Recent changes in the New Mexico parole population may be because of changes to parolees serving their parole time in prison. The 2011 parole population is estimated. This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for The state changed their reporting method in 2007, causing the reported population to increase. each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andUnited States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in New Mexico is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate has remained NEW MEXICO 122 The prison population rate in New Mexico is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate has remained fairly stable over the years, with the peak rate of 448 occurring in 2011. In 2014, the prison population rate was 443 in New Mexico versus 551 for all 50 states. New Mexico had the 36th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 74% of releases from prison were conditional releases. New Mexico had the 36th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. New Mexico had the 36th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in New Mexico is also lower than the aggregateThe parole population rate in New Mexico is also lower than the aggregate state rate. The state changed state rate. The state changed their reporting method in 2007, causing the reported population to increase. The 2011 their reporting method in 2007, causing the reported population to increase. The 2011 parole parole population is estimated. Recent changes in the New population is estimated. Recent changes in the New Mexico parole population may be because of Mexico parole population may be because of changes to parolees serving their parole time in prison. In 2014, the parole changes to parolees serving their parole time in prison. In 2014, the parole population rate in New population rate in New Mexico was reported to be 142, lower than the aggregate rate of 305. New Mexicothhad the 36th highest Mexico was reported to be 142, lower than the aggregate rate of 305. New Mexico had the 36 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, no reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionparole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, no reported admissions ary decision such as the decision of a parole board. to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2.Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 60% 53% 54% 50% 40% 31% 33% 34% 30% 30% 20% 24% 25% 2003 2004 34% 35% 33% 32% 38% 36% 34% 34% 35% 35% 31% 34% 33% 27% 26% 28% 2012 2013 2014 10% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 New Mexico 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series In the earlypublished by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were series for all 50 states is shown. conditional release violators in New Mexico was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states New Mexico had the 16th aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release highest percentage of prison beginningviolators in New Mexico was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states in 2011, the percentage in New Mexico increased until admissions due to violations recent years. The state reported a much larger than usual volume aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in of conditional releases of the of conditional release violators in 2009 and 2010, dropping New Mexico increased until recent years. The state reported a much larger than usual volume of thereafterconditional release violators in 2009 and 2010, dropping thereafter but still remaining above the but still remaining above the aggregate state rate. In states in 2014. 2014, roughly a third of prison admissions in New Mexico were aggregate state rate. In 2014, roughly a third of prison admissions in New Mexico were due to violations due to violations of conditional release compared to one-quarter of conditional release compared to one‐quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. New Mexico of the admissions for states in aggregate. New Mexico had the had the 16th highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the 16th highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 123 NEW MEXICO Chart 3. New Mexico Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings in New Mexico are not available. The state conducts limited discretionary parole releases and most releases are mandatory releases. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 10 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarceratedStates series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as Data on thethe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to rate of incarceration for parolees at risk of incarceration are not available for New Mexico as it was not reported to BJS during any years of the series. parole during the year. Data on the rate of incarceration for parolees at risk of incarceration are not available for New Mexico as it was not reported to BJS during any years of the series. *Data for New Mexico are not available. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES NEW MEXICO 124 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 New Mexico States Total 24% *Data not available Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions.” The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Data on the percentage of exits from parole that were to incarceration are not available. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NEW YORK New York Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New York compared to the states as a whole, though parole population rates were once higher than the aggregate state rate. Parolees are more likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states’ overall rate. New York currently practices discretionary release for many types of offenders, while sentences for others, including violent offenders sentenced Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in New York compared to the states as a whole, though after the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute, receive determinate sentences. parole population rates were once higher than the aggregate state rate. Parolees are more likely to be re incarcerated compared to the states’ overall rate. New York currently practices discretionary release for many rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. types ofNew York had the 43 offenders, while sentences for others, including violent offenders sentenced after the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute, receive determinate sentences. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 500 400 300 448 437 429 432 425 384 374 366 362 365 317 308 312 316 323 407 352 317 392 597 582 563 561 551 347 338 306 305 376 334 365 322 354 311 302 308 313 313 308 292 200 289 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 New York Prison Population State Prison Population New York Parole Population State Parole Population 2013 2014 Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. NEW YORK 126 The prison population rate in New York is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate has steadily declined over time and, in 2014, the prison population rate was 338 in New York versus 551 for all 50 states. New York had the 43rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 89% of releases from prison were conditional releases. New York had the 43rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. New York had the 16th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in New York was slightly higher than the aggregate state rate through 2010. However, like the prison population rate, it has steadily declined over the years and has been lower than the aggregate rate since 2011. In 2014, the parole population rate in New York was 289 and is slightly lower than The parole population rate in New York was slightly higher than the aggregate state rate through 2010. the aggregate rate of 305. New York had the 16th highest parole However, like the prison population rate, it has steadily declined over the years and has been lower than population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 26% of admissions the aggregate rate since 2011. In 2014, the parole population rate in New York was 289 and is slightly th to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision highest parole population rate of the states lower than the aggregate rate of 305. New York had the 16 of a parolein 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 26% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary board. decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 45% 39% 40% 35% 30% 36% 32% 32% 33% 33% 34% 34% 36% 35% 36% 37% 37% 35% 35% 31% 38% 39% 40% 27% 26% 2012 2013 38% 33% 25% 28% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 New York 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series In the earlypublished by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were series for all 50 states is shown. conditional release violators in New York was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately New York had the 14th highremained In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release steady for several years before decreasing beginning in est percentage of prison ad2011, the violators in New York was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately percentage in New York shows steady, but incremental missions that were due to vioremained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in New York growth, peaking in 2013 at forty percent. In 2014, thirty-eight lations of conditional releases percent ofshows steady, but incremental growth, peaking in 2013 at forty percent. In 2014, thirty‐eight percent of prison admissions in New York were due to violations of the states in 2014. prison admissions in New York were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐ of conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the th highest percentage of prison quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. New York had the 14 admissions for states in aggregate. New York had the 14th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN conditional releases of the states in 2014. TEXT) ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 127 NEW YORK Chart 3. New York Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for New York. While outcomes of individual hearings are publicly available, aggregate rates are not available. Source: Parole Board Interview Calendar, www.parole.ny.gov/calendar.html. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 16 14 15 15 15 14 14 14 15 15 16 15 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 12 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 New York 2010 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees in New York was similar to the aggregate state rate until 2010. Since 2011, the rate in Newthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to York has been lower. In 2014, the rate stood at 15 per 100 parolees in the state compared to 8 per 100 for the states inparole during the year. aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees in New York was similar to the aggregate state rate until 2010. Since 2011, the rate in New York has been lower. In 2014, the rate stood at 15 per 100 parolees in the state compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES NEW YORK 128 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 New York States Total 24% 47% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In New York, almost half of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in North Carolina compared to the states as a whole. Parolees are also less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. North Carolina currently practices discretionary release only for offenders sentenced prior to the 1994 Structured Sentencing Act. Prison and parole population rates are lower in North Carolina compared to the states as a whole. Summary: th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Parolees North Carolina had the 30 are also less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. North Carolina currently practices discretionary release only for offenders sentenced prior to the 1994 Structured Sentencing Act. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 500 528 548 552 555 550 559 555 555 582 563 561 551 498 488 485 308 306 305 535 400 300 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 200 131 95 100 42 45 47 48 48 48 49 50 51 58 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0 North Carolina Prison Population State Prison Population North Carolina Parole Population State Parole Population 2013 2014 *In December,This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for 2011, North Carolina passed legislation as part of the Justice Reinvestment Act which mandated post-release supervision for more offenders, increasing the reported parole population (S.L. 2011-192). each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in North Carolina is lower than the aggregate state rate. In recent years, the NORTH CAROLINA 130 The prison population rate in North Carolina is lower than the aggregate state rate. In recent years, the rate in North Carolina has decreased faster than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 485 in North Carolina versus 551 for all 50 states. North Carolina had the 30th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 71% of releases from prison were conditional releases. North Carolina had the 30th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. North Carolina had the 40th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in North Carolina is also much lower than the aggregate state rate. In December, 2011, North Carolina passed legislationmandated post‐release supervision for more offenders, increasing the reported parole population (S.L. as part of the Justice Reinvestment Act which mandated post-release supervision for more offenders, increasing the report2011‐192). The rate in 2014 was 131, still lower than the aggregate rate of 305. North Carolina had the ed parole population (S.L. 2011-192). The rate in 2014 was 131, still th lower than40 the highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, no aggregate rate of 305. North Carolina had the 40th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole 2014, no reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 33% 34% 34% 36% 35% 35% 35% 33% 31% 30% 27% 26% 28% 25% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 4% 3% 4% 2004 2005 1% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0% 2003 2006 North Carolina State Institutions 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in North Carolina was much of the aggregate states. However, while the states lower to that Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in North Carolina had the 40th aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing highest percentage of prison beginningNorth Carolina was much lower to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately in 2011, the percentage in North Carolina has been admissions that were due to increasingremained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in North since 2012, corresponding to the timeframe when the Carolina has been increasing since 2012, corresponding to the timeframe when the parole population violations of conditional reparole population increased. However, it still remains noticeably leases of the states in 2014. increased. However, it still remains noticeably lower than the aggregate rate. In 2014, fifteen percent of lower than the aggregate rate. In 2014, fifteen percent of prison admissions in North Carolina were due to violations of conditional prison admissions in North Carolina were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over th release compared to just over one quarter of the admissions one quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. North Carolina had the 40 highest percentage of for statesprison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, in aggregate. North Carolina had the 40th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of LEAVE IN TEXT) conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 131 *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings in North Carolina are not available. The state conducts limited discretionary parole releases for offenders sentenced before the 1994 Structured Sentencing Act and most releases are mandatory releases. Source: North Carolina Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission, www.ncdps.gov/Index2.cfm?a=000003,002210. NORTH CAROLINA Chart 3. North Carolina Grant Rate Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 10 3 3 4 14 14 5 4 12 9 9 8 5 5 5 2012 2013 2014 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 North Carolina 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is lower in North Carolina compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate was 5 per 100 parolees in North Carolina compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in North Carolina compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate was 5 per 100 parolees in North Carolina compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES NORTH CAROLINA 132 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 North Carolina States Total 12% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In North Carolina, twelve percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN NORTH DAKOTA North Dakota Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in North Dakota compared to the states as a whole. However, in recent years, parolees at risk of incarceration are more likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. North Dakota currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in North Dakota compared to the states as a whole. However,North Dakota had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. in recent years, parolees at risk of incarceration are more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. North Dakota currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 582 563 561 551 313 308 306 305 267 278 281 500 400 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 268 278 271 280 285 288 284 74 68 75 69 81 82 79 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 300 200 100 254 46 48 58 2003 2004 2005 301 100 102 2013 2014 0 North Dakota Prison Population State Prison Population North Dakota Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in North Dakota is much lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate in NORTH DAKOTA 134 The prison population rate in North Dakota is much lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate in North Dakota has remained fairly stable over the years, with increases in the last three years. In 2014, the prison population rate was 301 in North Dakota versus 551 for all 50 states. North Dakota had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 87% of releases from prison were conditional releases. North Dakota had the 41st highest prison population rates of the states in 2014. North Dakota had the 46th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in North Dakota is also significantly lower than theThe parole population rate in North Dakota is also significantly lower than the aggregate state rate, aggregate state rate, though it has increased steadily over the years. In 2014, the parole population rate in North Dakota though it has increased steadily over the years. In 2014, the parole population rate in North Dakota was th was 102, lower than the aggregate rate of 305. North Dakota had 102, lower than the aggregate rate of 305. North Dakota had the 41 highest parole population rate of the 46th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2.Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 60% 50% 50% 40% 31% 33% 34% 34% 35% 30% 36% 35% 35% 32% 20% 22% 23% 44% 44% 27% 26% 33% 32% 28% 26% 22% 17% 16% 10% 9% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 North Dakota 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 State Institutions chart Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this come from the This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series Over the years in the series, the percentage of prison admissions published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate that were conditional release violators in North Dakota has varied series for all 50 states is shown. widely, though it has been lower than the aggregate state rate North Dakota had the 38th in most years. Large percentage changes may be due to the Over the years in the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators small numbers of prison admission in North Dakota. While the highest percentage of prison in North Dakota has varied widely, though it has been lower than the aggregate state rate in most years. percentage changes are large, the number of conditional release admissions that were due to Large percentage changes may be due to the small numbers of prison admission in North Dakota. While violators admitted to prison does not change greatly year to violations of conditional reyear. For example, in 2004, 93 conditional release violators were leases of the states in 2014. the percentage changes are large, the number of conditional release violators admitted to prison does admitted, while 240 were admitted in 2005. 350 were admitted not change greatly year to year. For example, in 2004, 93 conditional release violators were admitted, in 2008 and 521 were admitted in 2009. In 2014, sixteen percent while 240 were admitted in 2005. 350 were admitted in 2008 and 521 were admitted in 2009. of reported prison admissions in North Dakota were due to In 2014, sixteen percent of reported prison admissions in North Dakota were due to violations of violations of conditional release compared to just over one-quarter conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. North of the admissions for states in aggregate. North Dakota had the th Dakota had the 38 highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional 38th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 135 NORTH DAKOTA Chart 3. North Dakota Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings in North Dakota are not available. Source: North Dakota Parole Board, www.nd.gov/docr/adult/tps/board.html. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 20 10 14 15 15 15 16 15 14 14 13 14 16 14 17 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 North Dakota 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees has been higher in North Dakota for several years compared to the states in aggregate,the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to though it was similar to the aggregate rate through 2011. In 2014, the rate stood at 17 per 100 parolees in parole during the year. North Dakota compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees has been higher in North Dakota for several years compared to the states in aggregate, though it was similar to the aggregate rate through 2011. In 2014, the rate stood at 17 per 100 parolees in North Dakota compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES NORTH DAKOTA 136 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 North Dakota 27% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In North Dakota, 27% of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is similar to the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN OHIO Ohio Summary: Prison population rates have increased slightly and are similar in Ohio compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower than the aggregate state rate. However, parolees have a slightly lower likelihood of being re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Less than one tenth of parole hearings result in release being granted, a percentage that has decreased over the past six years. Ohio currently practices discretionary release only for offenders sentenced prior to the July 1, 1996 determinate sentencing statute, and for offenders serving a life sentence who were Summary: Prison population rates have increased slightly and are similar in Ohio compared to the states as a sentenced on or after July 1, 1996 whole while parole population rates are lower than the aggregate state rate. However, parolees have a slightly Source: www.drc.ohio.gov/web/ParoleBoardHandbook2013.pdf. lower likelihood of being re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Less than one tenth of parole hearings result in release being granted, a percentage that has decreased over the past six years. Ohio currently practices th Ohio had the 19 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014 discretionary release only for offenders sentenced prior to the July 1, 1996 determinate sentencing statute, and for offenders serving a life sentence who were sentenced on or after July 1, 1996. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 500 522 520 317 308 312 215 219 226 563 561 551 582 591 588 586 575 573 580 575 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 203 202 188 193 2013 2014 567 531 582 400 300 219 166 200 137 139 2010 2011 165 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 Ohio Prison Population State Prison Population Ohio Parole Population State Parole Population *The decrease in Ohio’s parole population beginning in 2009 was related to an Ohio Supreme Court case from October 2009. The result was a mandate to discharge This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for certain persons subject to post-release control, formerly called parole supervision, which was first implemented in November 2009 and continued through February 2010. each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the A database cleaning in 2010 also contributed to the decrease. Chart 1 showsUnited States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Ohio has increased over the series and, in 2012, slightly surpassed the aggregate rate. The peak rate of 591 was in 2008; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the OHIO 138 The prison population rate in Ohio has increased over the series and, in 2012, slightly surpassed the aggregate rate. The peak rate of 591 Ohio had the 19th highest priswas in 2008; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the prison on population rate of the states population rate was 575 in Ohio versus 551 for all 50 states. Ohio in 2014. had the 19th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In th highest prison 2014, 55%prison population rate was 575 in Ohio versus 551 for all 50 states. Ohio had the 19 of releases from prison were conditional releases. Ohio had the 27th highest population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 55% of releases from prison were conditional releases. parole population rate of the The parole population rate in Ohio is lower than the aggregate state states in 2014. rate. The rate decreased in 2009 and 2010. The decrease in Ohio’s The parole population rate in Ohio is lower than the aggregate state rate. The rate decreased in 2009 parole population beginning in 2009 was related to an Ohio Suand 2010. The decrease in Ohio’s parole population beginning in 2009 was related to an Ohio Supreme preme Court case from October 2009. The result was a mandate to Court case from October 2009. The result was a mandate to discharge certain persons subject to post‐ discharge certain persons subject to post-release control, formerly release control, formerly parole supervision, from parole. This decision was first implemented in parole supervision, from parole. This decision was first implemented November 2009 and continued through February 2010. A database cleaning in 2010 also contributed to in November 2009 and continued through February 2010. A database cleaning in 2010 also contributed to the decrease. the decrease. Since 2011, the rate has increased again and in 2014 was 193, still lower than the Since 2011, the rate has increased again and in 2014 was 193, still lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Ohio had the 27th th aggregate rate of 305. Ohio had the 27 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, In 2014, just one percent of reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, just one percent of reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 40% 35% 30% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 25% 27% 26% 28% 20% 20% 18% 15% 16% 14% 10% 17% 16% 12% 12% 10% 5% 11% 12% 13% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ohio 2009 2010 State Institutions 2011 2012 2013 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Ohio was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately reThroughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in mained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in Ohio had the 36th highest perOhio was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained 2011, the percentage in Ohio decreased through 2010, after which centage of prison admissions steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Ohio decreased through it began to increase again. In 2014, seventeen percent of prison due to violations of conditional 2010, after which it began to increase again. In 2014, seventeen percent of prison admissions in Ohio admissions in Ohio were due to violations of conditional release releases of the states in 2014. comparedwere due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in th states in aggregate. Ohio had the 36 highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of aggregate. Ohio had the 36th highest percentage of prison admissions dueconditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 178 139 Chart 3. Ohio Grant Rate, 2015 Chart 3. Ohio Grant Rate, 2015 OHIO Chart 3. Ohio Grant Rate, 2015 Release Granted 7% Release Not Granted Release Granted 93% 7% Release Not Granted Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole release being granted or not granted. Just seven percent of hearings in the year Chart 3b. Ohio Grants by Year, 2010‐2015 93% resulted in parole release being granted. However, only old code cases and life sentences are eligible for discretionary release. 3000 Chart 3b. Ohio Grants by Year, 2010-2015 2500 Chart 3b. Ohio Grants by Year, 2010‐2015 3000 2000 2500 1500 2000 1000 1500 500 1000 22% 0 500FY2010 12% 11% 9% FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 4% FY2014 7% FY2015 22% Release 11% Granted Release Not Granted 7% 12% 9% 4% 0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole release being granted or not granted. Just seven percent of hearings in the year resulted in parole release being Release Granted Release Not Granted granted. However, only old code cases and life sentences are eligible for discretionary release. The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in parole release Chart 3b shows the same information for fiscal years 2010 to 2015. While the overall number of hearings has decreased over time, the overall percentage of hearings that result in release being granted has also decreased, despite a small uptick in FY 2015. This is likely due to a shifting of the composition of old code cases to more serious being granted or not granted. Just seven percent of hearings in the year resulted in parole release being The second chart shows the same information for fiscal years 2010 to 2015. While the overall number of offenders. granted. However, only old code cases and life sentences are eligible for discretionary release. hearings has decreased over time, the overall percentage of hearings that result in release being granted Source: Ohio Adult Parole Authority Parole Board Report FY2015, www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/ParoleBoard/Fiscal%20Year%202015%20Report.pdf. has also decreased, despite a small uptick in FY 2015. This is likely due to a shifting of the composition The second chart shows the same information for fiscal years 2010 to 2015. While the overall number of of old code cases to more serious offenders. hearings has decreased over time, the overall percentage of hearings that result in release being granted has also decreased, despite a small uptick in FY 2015. This is likely due to a shifting of the composition of old code cases to more serious offenders. Source: Ohio Adult Parole Authority Parole Board Report FY2015, www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/ParoleBoard/Fiscal%20Year%202015%20Report.pdf. Source: Ohio Adult Parole Authority Parole Board Report FY2015, www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/ParoleBoard/Fiscal%20Year%202015%20Report.pdf. 180 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE 180 PROFILES OHIO 140 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 10 14 14 14 12 9 9 8 6 5 6 6 2011 2012 2013 2014 11 7 7 4 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ohio 4 2010 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is lower in Ohio compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the Ohio rate stood at 6 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in Ohio compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the Ohio rate stood at 6 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Ohio States Total 20% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Ohio, a fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 181 PAROLE IN OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Oklahoma compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. Parolees are also less likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Oklahoma currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, Summary: Prison population rates are higher in Oklahoma compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. Parolees are also less likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order Oklahoma currently offenders. practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Oklahoma had the 4th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1000 900 800 927 932 871 700 603 597 600 317 308 312 154 164 151 900 901 894 887 612 615 612 605 928 912 949 945 877 597 582 563 561 551 600 500 400 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 111 106 93 86 80 88 88 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 300 200 114 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Oklahoma Prison Population State Prison Population Oklahoma Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES OKLAHOMA 142 The prison population rate in Oklahoma is higher than the aggregate state rate. The rate has not declined in recent years. In 2014, the prison population rate was 945 in Oklahoma versus 551 for all 50 states. Oklahoma had the 4th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 51% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Oklahoma had the 4th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Oklahoma had the 44th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Oklahoma is lower than the aggregate state rate and has decreased somewhat over time. Data was not reported in 2007. In 2014, the rate was 88 in Oklahoma, much lower than the aggregate state rate of 305. Oklahoma had the 44th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision in 2014 (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT). In 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a such as the decision of a parole board. discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Percentage of Prison Admissions that were Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Conditional Release Violators 0.4 0.35 31% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 0.3 0.25 35% 32% 26% 27% 28% 27% 2005 2006 2007 29% 35% 33% 32% 30% 31% 32% 27% 26% 28% 31% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 24% 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2008 Oklahoma 2009 State Institutions This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from theviolations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Oklahoma was lower than that of theIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Oklahoma had the 20th highremained violators in Oklahoma was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states steady for several years before decreasing beginning est percentage of prison adaggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in in 2011, the percentage in Oklahoma showed slight increases missions that were due to viobeginningOklahoma showed slight increases beginning in 2005, with a peak of thirty‐two percent in 2011 and in 2005, with a peak of thirty-two percent in 2011 and lations of conditional releases relative stability thereafter. In 2014, thirty‐one percent of prison admissions in Oklahoma were due to relative stability thereafter. In 2014, thirty-one percent of prison of the states in 2014. violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for states in admissions in Oklahoma were due to violations of conditional th aggregate. Oklahoma had the 20 highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Oklahoma had the 20th highest percentage of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 143 OKLAHOMA Chart 3. Oklahoma Grant Rates *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for Oklahoma. While outcomes for individual hearings are publicly available, aggregate information is not available. Source: Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board 2015 Dockets and Results, www.ok.gov/ppb/Dockets_and_Results/2015_Dockets_&_Results_.html Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 10 8 6 0 2006 2007 2008 4 2009 Oklahoma 3 2010 3 2011 State Total 9 9 8 3 2012 2 2013 2 2014 This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is lower in Oklahoma compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate was 2 per 100 parolees in Oklahoma compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate.parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in Oklahoma compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate was 2 per 100 parolees in Oklahoma compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES OKLAHOMA 144 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Oklahoma States Total 8% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Oklahoma, 8% of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN OREGON Oregon Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Oregon compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are much higher. Parolees at risk of reincarceration have a similar likelihood of being re‐incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Oregon currently practices discretionary release only for inmates convicted prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute (November 1, 1989), inmates serving life sentences who are eligible for parole, and inmates designated by the courts Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Oregon compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates areas dangerous offenders. much higher. Parolees at risk of reincarceration have a similar likelihood of being re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Oregon currently practices discretionary release only for inmates convicted prior to the st highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. effectiveOregon had the 31 date of the determinate sentencing statute (November 1, 1989), inmates serving life sentences who are parole, and inmates designated by the courts as dangerous offenders. eligible for Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 900 800 733 766 778 600 603 700 597 796 612 792 615 765 761 757 754 612 605 597 582 600 752 757 770 563 561 551 500 400 300 471 484 485 487 488 488 489 501 483 488 505 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 484 200 100 0 Oregon Prison Population State Prison Population Oregon Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. OREGON 146 The prison population rate in Oregon is lower than the aggregate state rate, remaining fairly stable over time. In 2014, the prison population rate was 484 in Oregon versus 551 for all 50 states. Oregon had the 31st highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, nearly all reported releases from prison were conditional releases. Oregon had the 31st highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Oregon had the 4th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Oregon is much higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 796 was reported in 2006; thereafter, the rate declined slightly before increasing again. The rate in 2014 of 770 is still much higher than the aggregate rate The parole population rate in Oregon is much higher than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 796 of 305. Oregon had the 4th highest parole population rate of the was reported in 2006; thereafter, the rate declined slightly before increasing again. The rate in 2014 of states in 2014. In 2014, 23% of admissions to parole were due to a 770 is still much higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Oregon had the 4th highest parole population discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 23% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.4 0.35 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 0.3 0.25 26% 26% 2003 2004 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 26% 28% 27% 26% 27% 27% 27% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 25% 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 Oregon 2009 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions series for all 50 states is shown. that were conditional release violators in Oregon was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, in recent years, the In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release Oregon had the 23rd highest aggregate state rate has decreased while the rate in Oregon has violators in Oregon was lower than that of the aggregate states. However, in recent years, the aggregate percentage of prison admisremained fairly stable. By 2012, the rates were effectively equal. In sions that were due to viola2014, 27%state rate has decreased while the rate in Oregon has remained fairly stable. By 2012, the rates were of prison admissions in Oregon were due to violations of effectively equal. In 2014, 27% of prison admissions in Oregon were due to violations of conditional tions of conditional releases conditional release compared to 28% of the admissions for states rd highest release compared to 28% of the admissions for states in aggregate. Oregon had the 23 of the states in 2014. in aggregate. Oregon had the 23rd highest percentage of prison percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 147 OREGON Chart 3. Oregon Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for Oregon. However, the board conducts about 20 release hearings a month for old cold cases, inmates with life sentences that are eligible for parole, and inmates designated by the courts as dangerous offenders. Source: Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision Annual Performance Progress Report (APPR) for Fiscal Year (2013-2014), www.oregon.gov/BOPPPS/docs/ APPR13-14.pdf. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 10 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 Oregon State Total Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees has remained noticeably stable throughout the series. By 2012, the aggregate the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to state rate declined becoming equivalent to the rate in Oregon. In 2014, the rate was 8 per 100 parolees in Oregon and parole during the year. for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees has remained noticeably stable throughout the series. By 2012, the aggregate state rate declined becoming equivalent to the rate in Oregon. In 2014, the rate was 8 per 100 parolees in Oregon and for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES OREGON 148 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Oregon States Total 24% 31% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Oregon, almost a third of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Summary: Prison population rates are slightly lower in Pennsylvania compared to the states as a whole. However, parole population rates are much higher. In addition, parolees are about as likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. In recent years, a much higher percentage of prison admissions in Pennsylvania are conditional release violators compared to the states in aggregate. More than one-half of parole hearings lead to release being granted. Pennsylvania currently practices Summary: Prison population rates are slightly lower in Pennsylvania compared to the states as a whole. However, discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property parole population rates are much higher. In addition, parolees are about as likely to be re-incarcerated compared offenders, more than half of drug offenders, and less than half of public order offenders. to the states as a whole. In recent years, a much higher percentage of prison admissions in Pennsylvania are conditional release violators compared to the states in aggregate. More than one-half of parole hearings lead th to releasePennsylvania had the 27 being granted. Pennsylvania currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, more than half of drug offenders, and less than half of public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1,200 1,000 791 809 597 600 790 791 803 603 612 615 473 800 948 745 762 612 605 597 582 563 561 551 503 521 517 517 510 511 503 600 400 200 1,037 1,011 1,032 966 431 429 442 460 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 Pennsylvania Prison Population State Prison Population Pennsylvania Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 showseach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES *In 2010, Pennsylvania changed its method of reporting county parole data to include some parolees that had previously been classified and reported as probationers. PENNSYLVANIA 150 The prison population rate in Pennsylvania is slightly lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 521 occurred in 2009; thereafter, the rate declined. In 2014, the prison population rate was 503 in Pennsylvania versus 551 for all 50 states. Pennsylvania had the 27th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 84% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Pennsylvania had the 27th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Pennsylvania had the highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Pennsylvania, has consistently been far higher than the aggregate state rate. Since 2010, when Pennsylvania changed their reporting methods, the rate has increased (to The parole population rate in Pennsylvania, has consistently been far higher than the aggregate state 1,037 in 2014) and is much higher than the aggregate rate of 305. rate. Since 2010, when Pennsylvania changed their reporting methods, the rate has increased (to 1,037 Pennsylvania had the highest parole population rate of the states in in 2014) and is much higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Pennsylvania had the highest parole 2014. In 2014, 94% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionpopulation rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 94% of admissions to parole ary decision such as the decision of a parole board. were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2.Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 50% 45% 45% 40% 39% 38% 35% 34% 35% 30% 31% 33% 34% 35% 34% 31% 38% 36% 35% 35% 34% 33% 33% 39% 40% 27% 26% 2012 2013 33% 25% 28% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Pennsylvania 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the middle years of this series, 2006-2010, the percentage series for all 50 states is shown. of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Pennsylvania was similar to that of the aggregate states. In the middle years of this series, 2006‐2010, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional Pennsylvania had the 7th However, while the states aggregately remained steady for several release violators in Pennsylvania was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states highest percentage of prison years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in admissions due to violations Pennsylvania has shown a marked increase since then. In 2014, Pennsylvania has shown a marked increase since then. In 2014, nearly half of prison admissions in of conditional releases of the nearly half of prison admissions in Pennsylvania were due to Pennsylvania were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one quarter of the states in 2014. violations of conditional release compared to just over one quarter th admissions for states in aggregate. Pennsylvania had the 7 highest percentage of prison admissions of the admissions for states in aggregate. Pennsylvania had the due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) 7th highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 151 Chart 3a. Pennsylvania Grant Rate, 2015 Granted: Parole to Street 42% 51% 7% Granted: Parole to Detainer Refused PENNSYLVANIA Chart 3. Pennsylvania Grant Rate, 2015 This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in a decision to grant Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in a decision to grant parole and be released from incarceration (parole to street), to grant parole and be released from incarceration (parole to street), to grant parole to serve another detainer parole to serve another detainer (parole to detainer), and to refuse parole. Just over one-half of the hearings resulted in release from incarceration, while 42% led to a refusal of parole and seven percent were paroled to a detainer. (parole to detainer), and to refuse parole. Just over one‐half of the hearings resulted in release from Source: Monthlyincarceration, while 42% led to a refusal of parole and seven percent were paroled to a detainer. statistic reports for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, September 2014-August 2015, www.pbpp.pa.gov/Information/reports/Pages/MonthlyProgram.aspx. Source: Monthly statistic reports for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, September 2014‐ Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 August 2015, www.pbpp.pa.gov/Information/reports/Pages/Monthly‐Program.aspx. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 9 8 10 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Pennsylvania State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as The Pennsylvania rate of incarceration for parolees is similar when compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower at the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the beginning of the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 7 per 100 parolees in Pennsylvania compared to 8 per 100 in aggregate. parole during the year. for the states The Pennsylvania rate of incarceration for parolees is similar when compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower at the beginning of the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 7 per 100 parolees in Pennsylvania compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. 195 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES PENNSYLVANIA 152 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Pennsylvania 18% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Pennsylvania, just less than one-fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Rhode Island compared to the states as a whole as are its parole population rates. However, parolees in Rhode Island have a similar likelihood of being reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Rhode Island currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Rhode Island compared to the states as a whole as are its parole th population rates. However, parolees in Rhode Island have a similar likelihood of being re-incarcerated compared to Rhode Island had the 38 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. the states as a whole. Rhode Island currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 582 563 561 551 500 484 400 300 428 414 488 490 444 442 405 402 398 401 399 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 48 44 41 44 56 62 71 67 65 60 55 56 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 Rhode Island Prison Population State Prison Population Rhode Island Parole Population State Parole Population *The prison s and jails form one integrated system in Rhode Island, so the population count includes both. The population also includes inmates under the DOC’s jurisdicThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for tion on Home Confinement and at the Institute for Mental Health. each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andUnited States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Rhode is lower than the aggregate state rate. The prisons and jails form RHODE ISLAND 154 The prison population rate in Rhode is lower than the aggregate state rate. The prisons and jails form one integrated system Rhode Island had the 38th in Rhode Island, so the prison population count includes both. highest prison population rate The population also includes inmates under the DOC’s jurisdicof the states in 2014. tion on Home Confinement and at the Institute for Mental Health. The peak rate occurred during 2006-2008; thereafter, the rate deRhode Island had the 46th clined. In recent years, the rate has remained stable. In 2014, the highest parole population rate prison population rate was 399 in Rhode Island versus 551 for all of the states in 2014. 50 states. Rhode Island had the 38th highest prison population th states. Rhode Island had the 38 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 26% of rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 26% of releases from prison were conditionalreleases from prison were conditional releases. releases. The paroleThe parole population rate is far lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate in Rhode Island population rate is far lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate in Rhode Island was 55 which is significantly less than the aggregate rate of 305. Rhode Island had one of the lowest parole population rate of the states in was 56 which is significantly less than the aggregate rate of 305. Rhode Island had one of the lowest 2014. In 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.4 0.35 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 0.3 27% 26% 19% 18% 28% 23% 0.25 18% 0.2 18% 15% 0.15 18% 15% 14% 13% 11% 0.1 0.05 4% 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Rhode Island 2011 2012 2013 2014 State Institutions This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators was lower in Rhode Island compared Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators was to that of the aggregate states. However, improved Rhode Island had the 40th lower in Rhode Island compared to that of the aggregate states. However, improved methods for methods for measuring admissions and releases were introduced highest percentage of prison in 2007, someasuring admissions and releases were introduced in 2007, so numbers are not comparable between numbers are not comparable between 2006 and 2007. admissions due to violations In 2014, fifteen percent of prison admissions in Rhode Island were 2006 and 2007. In 2014, fifteen percent of prison admissions in Rhode Island were due to violations of of conditional releases of the due to violations of conditional release compared to just over oneconditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Rhode states in 2014. th quarter of Island had the 40 the admissions for highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of states in aggregate. Rhode Island had the 40th highest percentage of prison admissions due to the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) *Improved methods for measuring admissions and releases were introduced in 2007, so numbers are not comparable between 2006 and 2007. violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 155 RHODE ISLAND Chart 3. Rhode Island Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for Rhode Island. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 14 16 13 12 14 14 13 14 12 13 15 8 8 9 9 2011 2012 2013 7 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Rhode Island State Total 2014 Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is similar in Rhode Island when compared to the states in aggregate. In 2014, the rate for the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to Rhode Island was 7 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is similar in Rhode Island when compared to the states in aggregate. In 2014, the rate for Rhode Island was 7 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES RHODE ISLAND 156 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Rhode Island 22% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Rhode Island, 22% of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is comparable to the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN SOUTH CAROLINA South Carolina Summary: Prison population rates are higher in South Carolina compared to the states as a whole while its parole population rates are lower. Parolees are less likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. South Carolina currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are higher in South Carolina compared to the states as a whole while its parole population rates are lower. Parolees are less likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. South th CarolinaSouth Carolina had the 20 currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 800 759 736 716 714 717 704 700 600 597 600 603 612 615 612 692 605 663 597 500 400 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 637 582 614 597 571 563 561 551 306 305 150 139 2013 2014 313 313 308 180 178 168 300 200 103 103 98 100 83 72 56 46 2006 2007 2008 2009 0 2003 2004 2005 2010 2011 2012 South Carolina Prison Population State Prison Population South Carolina Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES SOUTH CAROLINA 158 The prison population rate in South Carolina is higher than the aggregate state rate. Over time, the rate in South Carolina has declined and is now just slightly higher than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 571 in South Carolina versus 551 for all 50 states. South Carolina had the 20th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 63% of releases from prison were conditional releases. South Carolina had the 20th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. South Carolina had the 37th highest parole population rate The paroleThe parole population rate in South Carolina is lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2010, South population rate in South Carolina is lower than the agof the states in 2014. Carolina changed its method of reporting parole data to include people on Community Supervision who gregate state rate. In 2010, South Carolina changed its method of reporting receive both mandatory and discretionary releases and to include those released under the Youthful parole data to include people on Community Supervision who Offender Act (young adults ages 18 to 24). These changes increased the reported parole population receive both mandatory and discretionary releases and to includeresulting in the data that are not comparable between 2009 and 2010. Even after the reporting changes those released under the Youthful Offender Act (young adults ages 18 to 24). These changes increased the increased the reported prison population rate, however, South Carolina retains a lower parole reported parole population resulting in the data that are not comparable between 2009 and 2010. Even after the reportpopulation rate than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate was 139 compared to the aggregate rate ing changes increased the reported prison population rate, however, South Carolina retains a lower parole population th rate than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate was 139 compared to the aggregate rate of 305. South Carolina had of 305. South Carolina had the 37 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, the 37th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 36% of admissions to parole were due to a discreLEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 36% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the tionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. decision of a parole board. Chart 2.Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.4 0.35 0.3 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 32% 32% 31% 32% 32% 31% 31% 0.25 27% 26% 28% 29% 0.2 22% 23% 0.15 20% 19% 2013 2014 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 South Carolina 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2012 Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admispublished by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate sions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in South Carolina was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, the rate in South South Carolina had the 33rd Carolina has decreased faster than the aggregate state rate. Over In the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release highest percentage of prison the years,violators in South Carolina was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, the rate in South both new admissions and conditional release violation admissions decreased in South Carolina, but conditional release admissions that were due to vioCarolina has decreased faster than the aggregate state rate. Over the years, both new admissions and violation admissions decreased faster. In 2014, about a fifth of lations of conditional releases conditional release violation admissions decreased in South Carolina, but conditional release violation prison admissions in South Carolina were due to violations of conof the states in 2014. admissions decreased faster. In 2014, about a fifth of prison admissions in South Carolina were due to ditional release compared to just over one quarter of the admisviolations of conditional release compared to just over one quarter of the admissions for states in sions for states in aggregate. South Carolina had the 33rd highest aggregate. South Carolina had the 33rd highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 159 SOUTH CAROLINA Chart 3. South Carolina Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for South Carolina. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 9 8 7 6 5 4 2011 2012 2013 2014 10 7 6 6 2006 2007 2008 0 8 5 2009 2010 South Carolina State Total Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is lower in South Carolina compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 4 per 100 parolees in South Carolina compared to 8 per 100 for the parole during the year. states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in South Carolina compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 4 per 100 parolees in South Carolina compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES SOUTH CAROLINA 160 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 South Carolina States Total 13% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In South Carolina, thirteen percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is noticeably lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN SOUTH DAKOTA South Dakota Summary: Prison population rates are similar in South Dakota compared to the states as a whole, while parole population rates are higher. Parolees are also more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. South Dakota currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are similar in South Dakota compared to the states as a whole, while parole population rates are higher. Parolees are also more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. rd South Dakota currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex South Dakota had the 23 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 598 500 400 300 534 574 540 472 343 559 474 422 597 558 567 560 454 454 464 582 563 561 570 581 578 446 439 387 551 561 407 406 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 South Dakota Prison Population State Prison Population South Dakota Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES SOUTH DAKOTA 162 The prison population rate in South Dakota is similar to the aggregate state rate, though it was slightly lower in the early and middle years of the series. In 2014, the prison population rate was 561 in South Dakota versus 551 for all 50 states. South Dakota had the 23rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 84% of releases from prison were conditional releases. South Dakota had the 23rd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. South Dakota had the 9th highest parole population rate The parole population rate in South Dakota is higher than the agof the states in 2014. gregate state rate. After increasing from 2003 to 2006, the rate beThe parole population rate in South Dakota is higher than the aggregate state rate. After increasing from gan to decline slightly. In 2014, the rate in South Dakota was 406, 2003 to 2006, the rate began to decline slightly. In 2014, the rate in South Dakota was 406, higher than higher than the aggregate rate of 305. South Dakota had the 9th the aggregate rate of 305. highest parole population rate of th the states in 2014. In 2014, 39% South Dakota had the 9 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such TEXT) In 2014, 39% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a as the decision of a parole board; however, the figures reported to parole board; however, the figures reported to BJS do not separate discretionary and presumptive BJS do not separate discretionary and presumptive parole releases. parole releases. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.5 0.45 41% 37% 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 43% 43% 40% 38% 36% 42% 38% 33% 29% 31% 33% 32% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 27% 26% 28% 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 South Dakota 2011 2012 2013 2014 State Institutions Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate After increases in early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Southseries for all 50 states is shown. Dakota was higher than that of the aggregate states. The category of “other admissions” was excluded from the total in South Dakota as this category was not consistently reported every year. It is unclear what this figure includes and including it reduces the ability to compare the numbers in South Dakota across years. When “other admissions” are After increases in early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional included,release violators in South Dakota was higher than that of the aggregate states. The category of "other the trend is similar to the one reported here, other than large increases in the years for which these figures are not reported. 2014 admissions are not comparable to earlier years because of changes in reporting methods. In 2014, admissions" was excluded from the total in South Dakota as this category was not consistently reported nearly a third of prison admissions in South Dakota were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over every year. It is unclear what this figure includes and including it reduces the ability to compare the one quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. numbers in South Dakota across years. When “other admissions” are included, the trend is similar to the one reported here, other than large increases in the years for which these figures are not reported. 2014 admissions are not comparable to earlier years because of changes in reporting methods. In 2014, nearly a third of prison admissions in South Dakota were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 163 SOUTH DAKOTA Chart 3. South Dakota Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for South Dakota. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 18 19 19 20 18 21 19 18 13 10 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 South Dakota 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is higher in South Dakota compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the state’s rate stood at 13 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate.parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is higher in South Dakota compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the state’s rate stood at 13 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES SOUTH DAKOTA 164 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 South Dakota States Total 24% 35% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In South Dakota, just over one-third of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN TENNESSEE Tennessee Summary: Prison population rates are similar in Tennessee compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. However, parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Tennessee currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Summary: Prison population rates are similar in Tennessee compared to the states as a whole while parole st population rates are lower. However, parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a Tennessee had the 21 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. whole. Tennessee currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 603 600 612 615 612 605 597 600 574 578 581 317 308 312 500 582 563 561 551 580 573 570 569 557 560 573 560 565 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 242 250 255 265 273 267 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 400 300 200 180 188 192 2003 2004 2005 210 224 223 2006 2007 2008 100 0 Tennessee Prison Population State Prison Population Tennessee Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Tennessee is similar to the aggregate state rate. It has been relatively TENNESSEE 166 The prison population rate in Tennessee is similar to the aggregate state rate. It has been relatively stable over time, with the lowest rate observed in 2006 and peak rates in 2005 and 2011. In 2014, the prison population rate was 569 in Tennessee versus 551 for all 50 states. Tennessee had the 21st highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 68% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Tennessee had the 21st highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Tennessee had the 18th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Tennessee is lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has been slowly increasing over time. In 2014, the rate in Tennessee was 267, lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Tennessee had the 18th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 97% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the th decision of a parole board. 305. Tennessee had the 18 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 97% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a Chart 2.parole board. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.45 0.4 38% 40% 40% 42% 41% 38% 0.35 0.3 33% 34% 41% 34% 35% 36% 35% 36% 35% 31% 37% 38% 40% 40% 33% 0.25 27% 26% 2012 2013 28% 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Tennessee 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Tennessee was higher than the aggregate state rate. After declining from 2007 to 2010, the Tennessee had the 11th highproportionThroughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in in Tennessee increased again as the aggregate rate est percentage of prison addeclined. Tennessee was higher than the aggregate state rate. After declining from 2007 to 2010, the proportion In 2014, forty percent of prison admissions in Tennessee in Tennessee increased again as the aggregate rate declined. In 2014, forty percent of prison admissions missions that were due to viowere due to violations of conditional release compared to just over in Tennessee were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one quarter of the lations of conditional releases one quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Tennessee th highest percentage of prison admissions that admissions for states in aggregate. Tennessee had the 11 of the states in 2014. had the 11th highest percentage of prison admissions that were were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 167 TENNESSEE Chart 3. Tennessee Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcome of parole release hearings are not available for Tennessee. While the outcomes are not reported, 5,938 release hearings were conducted by Board Members and Parole Hearing officers in fiscal year 2014-2015. Source: State of Tennessee Board of Parole Annual Report 2014-2015, www.tn.gov/assets/entities/bop/attachments/2014-15_BOP_Annual_Report.pdf, pg. 6. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 12 15 11 14 11 14 14 8 8 2009 2010 12 11 11 11 10 9 9 8 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 Tennessee State Total Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is slightly higher in Tennessee compared to the states in aggregate, though it the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to was lower through 2011. In 2014, the rate was 11 per 100 parolees in Tennessee compared to 8 per 100 for the states parole during the year. in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is slightly higher in Tennessee compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower through 2011. In 2014, the rate was 11 per 100 parolees in Tennessee compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES TENNESSEE 168 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Tennessee States Total 24% 40% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Tennessee, forty percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN TEXAS Texas Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Texas compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are less likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. About a third of parole hearings lead to parole being granted. Texas currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are higher in Texas compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are less likely tothbe reincarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. About a third of parole hearings Texas had the 6 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. lead to parole being granted. Texas currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 1200 1000 1,050 1,039 1,025 1,018 995 978 951 945 800 600 597 600 603 643 631 618 612 615 612 921 872 867 837 605 597 582 563 561 551 592 589 584 583 570 569 589 574 562 400 200 317 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 Texas Prison Population State Prison Population Texas Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Texas is much higher than the aggregate state rate. However, throughout TEXAS 170 The prison population rate in Texas is much higher than the aggregate state rate. However, throughout the series, the rate has shown a steady decline. In 2014, the prison population rate was 837 in Texas versus 551 for all 50 states. Texas had the 6th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 85% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Texas had the 6th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Texas had the 5th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Texas is also much higher than the aggregate state rate, and has slightly declined over time. In 2014, the parole population rate in Texas was 562 which is much higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Texas had the 5th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 96% of admissionsthto parole were aggregate rate of 305. Texas had the 5 due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, parole board. LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 96% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.45 39% 0.4 36% 33% 0.35 0.3 38% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 31% 35% 33% 35% 32% 33% 32% 27% 26% 32% 32% 0.25 0.2 32% 28% 15% 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Texas 2011 2012 2013 2014 State Institutions *In 2003, Texas reported a large number of admissions (20,411) categorized as “other admissions.” Excluding these admissions for 2003, 21% of admissions to prison were conditional This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to release violators. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Texas declined faster than the aggregate state rate from The percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Texas declined faster 2006 to 2011. However, while the aggregate state rate declined Texas had the 18th highest at this point,than the aggregate state rate from 2006 to 2011. However, while the aggregate state rate declined at the rate in Texas remained unchanged. A very low percentage of prison admisthis point, the rate in Texas remained unchanged. A very low rate is reported in 2003 and is not rate is reported in 2003 and is not comparable to other years sions that were due to violacomparable to other years due to reporting differences. In 2003, a large number of “other admissions” due to reporting differences. In 2003, a large number of “other tions of conditional releases of admissions”were reported; when this category is excluded, 21% of admissions to prison in 2003 were conditional were reported; when this category is excluded, 21% the states in 2014. of admissions to prison in 2003 were conditional release violators release violators in Texas. In 2014, nearly a third of prison admissions in Texas were due to violations of in Texas. In 2014, nearly a third of prison admissions in Texas were conditional release compared to just over one quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Texas th due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one had the 18 highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Texas had the of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) 18th highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 171 Chart 3. Texas Grant Rate, 2014 Granted Chart 3. Texas Grant Rate, 2014 TEXAS Chart 3. Texas Grant Rate, 2014 Denied 36% 64% Granted Denied 36% Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being granted or denied. The second chart shows this information for fiscal years Chart 3b. Texas Grants by Year, 1999‐2014 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014. In fiscal year 2014, thirty-six percent of parole hearings resulted in parole being granted. The grant rate has increased over time, doubling from an 64% earlier figure of just eighteen percent in fiscal year 1999. 100% Source: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles FY2014 Annual Statistical Report, www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/publications/FY2014%20BPP%20StatisticalReport.pdf. 90% 80% Chart 3b. Texas Grants by Year, 1999-2014 Chart 3b. Texas Grants by Year, 1999‐2014 70% 100% 60% 90% 50% 80% 40% 70% 30% 60% 20% 50% 10% 18% 40% 0% 30%FY1999 20% 30% 30% FY2004 FY2009 30% Granted Denied 30% 36% FY2014 36% 18% The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being 0% granted or denied. The second chart shows this information for fiscal years 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014. FY1999 FY2004 FY2009 FY2014 In fiscal year 2014, thirty‐six percent of parole hearings resulted in parole being granted. The grant rate Granted Denied has increased over time, doubling from an earlier figure of just eighteen percent in fiscal year 1999. The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2014 that resulted in parole being Source: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles FY2014 Annual Statistical Report, granted or denied. The second chart shows this information for fiscal years 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014. www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/publications/FY2014%20BPP%20StatisticalReport.pdf. In fiscal year 2014, thirty‐six percent of parole hearings resulted in parole being granted. The grant rate has increased over time, doubling from an earlier figure of just eighteen percent in fiscal year 1999. Source: Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles FY2014 Annual Statistical Report, www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/publications/FY2014%20BPP%20StatisticalReport.pdf. 220 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES 10% TEXAS 172 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 10 8 7 0 2006 2007 5 5 5 2008 2009 2010 Texas 4 2011 9 9 8 4 5 5 2012 2013 2014 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is lower in Texas compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate for Texas stood at 5 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 The rate of incarceration for parolees is lower in Texas compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate for Texas stood at 5 per 100 parolees compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Texas States Total 19% 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Texas, about one-fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 221 PAROLE IN UTAH Utah Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Utah compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to states in aggregate. Utah currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Utah compared to the states as a whole. However, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. parolees are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to states in aggregate. Utah currently practices discretionary release for the majority ofndoffenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, Utah had the 42 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 597 582 563 561 551 500 400 300 378 371 366 359 350 358 356 354 353 345 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 201 194 194 202 197 155 152 152 164 162 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 356 363 317 204 200 100 172 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Utah Prison Population State Prison Population Utah Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 showsThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES UTAH 174 The prison population rate in Utah is much lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 378 occurred in 2005; thereafter, the rate declined slightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 345 in Utah versus 551 for all 50 states. Utah had the 42nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 67% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Utah had the 42nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Utah had the 32nd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Utah is also much lower than the aggregate state rate. Since 2007, the rate in Utah has declined overall. In 2014, the rate was 162 in Utah which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Utah had the 32nd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 92% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. nd 305. Utah had the 32 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 92% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a Chart 2.parole board. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.5 46% 0.45 44% 46% 47% 47% 48% 45% 39% 0.4 0.35 0.3 45% 31% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 38% 38% 36% 33% 0.25 27% 26% 28% 2012 2013 2014 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Utah 2009 2010 State Institutions 2011 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Utah was higher than that of the aggregate states. In 2014, nearly half of prison admissions in Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Utah had the 7th highest perUtah were due to violations of conditional release compared to Utah was higher than that of the aggregate states. In 2014, nearly half of prison admissions in Utah were centage of prison admissions just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for states in due to violations of condiUtah had the 7th highest percentageth of prison admissions due to aggregate. Utah had the 7 highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional tional releases of the states in violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 175 UTAH Chart 3. Utah Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for Utah. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 28 15 28 15 27 14 29 14 26 26 14 25 23 26 12 10 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Utah 2010 2011 State Total Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is much higher in Utah compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 26 per 100 parolees in Utah compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate.parole during the year. The rate of incarceration for parolees is much higher in Utah compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2014, the rate stood at 26 per 100 parolees in Utah compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES UTAH 176 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Utah States Total 24% 70% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Utah, seventy percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN VERMONT Vermont Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Vermont compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are somewhat more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. Vermont currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. th Vermont had the 39 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Vermont compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are somewhat more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states in aggregate. Vermont currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 582 563 561 551 500 400 300 409 411 317 308 200 100 168 193 431 312 220 456 433 316 323 198 191 2006 2007 430 449 418 411 406 412 392 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 220 220 208 214 207 217 219 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2003 2004 2005 Vermont Prison Population State Prison Population Vermont Parole Population State Parole Population *Prisons and jails form one integrated system in Rhode Island, so the state’s prison population counts include both prisons and jail populations. This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Vermont is lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 456 VERMONT 178 The prison population rate in Vermont is lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 456 occurred in 2006; thereafter, the rate declined across most years. In 2014, the prison population rate was 392 in Vermont versus 551 for all 50 states. Vermont had the 39th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 84% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Vermont had the 39th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Vermont had the 24th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Vermont is also lower than the aggregate rate. In 2014, the rate in Vermont was 219 which is noticeably lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Vermont had the 24th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 75% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT)In 2014, 75% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.8 0.7 0.6 52% 54% 53% 54% 33% 34% 34% 65% 65% 66% 65% 35% 36% 35% 35% 69% 69% 64% 65% 27% 26% 28% 2012 2013 2014 0.5 0.4 31% 33% 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Vermont 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Vermont was higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately Vermont tied with Idaho for Throughout the series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in the highest percentage of Vermont was higher than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained 2011, the percentage in Vermont has remained relatively steady prison admissions that were steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Vermont has remained since jumping in 2007 to sixty-five percent. In 2014, almost two due to violations of condirelatively steady since jumping in 2007 to sixty‐five percent. In 2014, almost two thirds of prison thirds of prison admissions in Vermont were due to violations tional releases of the states in admissions in Vermont were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the 2014. of the admissions for states in aggregate. Vermont tied with Idaho for the highest percentage of prison admissions for states in aggregate. Vermont tied with Idaho for admissions that were due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN the highest percentage of prison admissions that were due to TEXT) violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 179 VERMONT Chart 3. Vermont Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for Vermont. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 10 15 10 12 2006 2007 14 14 11 11 2008 2009 14 12 11 11 2010 2011 12 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 10 0 Vermont State Total Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees was slightly lower in Vermont compared to the states in aggregate through the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to 2011. In 2012, the aggregate rate declined while the rate in Vermont remained steady. In 2014, the rate stood at 10 parole during the year. per 100 parolees in Vermont compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees was slightly lower in Vermont compared to the states in aggregate through 2011. In 2012, the aggregate rate declined while the rate in Vermont remained steady. In 2014, the rate stood at 10 per 100 parolees in Vermont compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES VERMONT 180 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Vermont States Total 24% 30% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Vermont, thirty percent of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN VIRGINIA Virginia Summary: Prison population rates are similar in Virginia compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are lower. However, parolees at risk of incarceration are more likely to be reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Virginia currently practices discretionary release only for inmates convicted prior to the effective date of the determinate sentencing statute (January 1, 1995), for those with multiple misdemeanors committed prior to July 1, 2008, and for offenders who Summary: Prison population rates are similar in Virginia compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are have indeterminate sentences under the Youthful Offender Act. lower. However, parolees at risk of incarceration are more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Virginia currently practices discretionary release only for inmates convicted prior to the effective th date of the determinate sentencing statute (January 1, 1995), for those with multiple misdemeanors committed highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Virginia had the 17 prior to July 1, 2008, and for offenders who have indeterminate sentences under the Youthful Offender Act. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 628 627 614 600 597 600 603 627 612 642 615 637 612 626 605 610 597 610 582 500 586 578 581 563 561 551 400 300 317 308 312 87 77 78 316 323 317 308 75 76 313 313 308 306 305 43 36 31 28 27 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 116 68 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Virginia Prison Population State Prison Population Virginia Parole Population State Parole Population This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 showseach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Virginia is similar to the aggregate state rate, though it has consistently *Due to several changes in recordkeeping procedures between 2007 and 2010, data on parole populations in Virginia are not comparable between these years. VIRGINIA 182 The prison population rate in Virginia is similar to the aggregate state rate, though it has consistently remained slightly higher than the aggregate rate. The peak rate of 642 occurred in 2007; thereafter, the rate declined along with the aggregate rate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 581 in Virginia versus 551 for all 50 states. Virginia had the 17th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 91% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Virginia had the 17th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Virginia had the second lowest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Virginia is much lower than the aggregate rate. Due to several changes in recordkeeping procedures between 2007 and 2010, data on parole populations in Virginia The parole population rate in Virginia is much lower than the aggregate rate. Due to several changes in are not comparable between these years. In 2014, the parole poprecordkeeping procedures between 2007 and 2010, data on parole populations in Virginia are not ulation rate in Virginia was 27 which is much lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Virginia had the second lowest parole comparable between these years. In 2014, the parole population rate in Virginia was 27 which is much population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 34% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Virginia had the second lowest parole population rate of the the decision of a parole board. states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 34% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.4 0.35 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 0.3 27% 26% 28% 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 5% 0.05 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2010 2011 2012 1% 1% 2013 2014 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Virginia 2009 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate Throughout this series, the percentage of prison admissions that series for all 50 states is shown. were conditional release violators in Virginia was much lower than that of the aggregate states. This is likely due to the very small Throughout this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Virginia had one of the lowest population that is under parole supervision in the state. In 2014, Virginia was much lower than that of the aggregate states. This is likely due to the very small population percentages of prison admisjust under one percent of prison admissions in Virginia were due to that is under parole supervision in the state. In 2014, just under one percent of prison admissions in sions that were due to violaviolations of conditional release compared to about a quarter of the Virginia were due to violations of conditional release compared to about a quarter of the admissions for tions of conditional releases admissions for states in aggregate. Virginia had one of the lowest states in aggregate. Virginia had one of the lowest percentages of prison admissions that were due to of the states in 2014. percentages of prison admissions that were due to violations of violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 183 VIRGINIA Chart 3. Virginia Grant Rate *Data not available Aggregate data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available from Virginia. However, outcomes for individual hearings are publicly available. Source: Monthly Parole Decisions, http://vpb.virginia.gov/parole-decisions/. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 10 1 7 6 6 2009 2010 2011 2012 0 2006 2007 2008 Virginia State Total 10 11 9 8 2013 2014 Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number Data on theof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as rate of incarceration for parolees in Virginia is available beginning in 2009. In 2013, after fairly steady increases the rate of incarceration for paroles in Virginia surpassed the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate stood at the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to 11 per 100 parole during the year. parolees in Virginia compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. Data on the rate of incarceration for parolees in Virginia is available beginning in 2009. In 2013, after fairly steady increases the rate of incarceration for paroles in Virginia surpassed the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate stood at 11 per 100 parolees in Virginia compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES VIRGINIA 184 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 Virginia States Total 24% 46% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Virginia, nearly half of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN WASHINGTON Washington Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Washington compared to the states as a whole. However, a larger share of prison admissions is due to conditional release violators compared to the states as a whole. About half of release hearings for sex offenders with indeterminate sentences result in a finding that the inmate is releasable; the proportion is lower for hearings for old code cases. Washington has an indeterminate sentence review board which currently practices discretionary release Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Washington compared to the states as a whole. However, only for inmates imprisoned for a felony committed prior to the effective date of the determinate a larger share of prison admissions is due to conditional release violators compared to the states as a whole. sentencing statute (July 1, 1984), for inmates serving life sentences, and for some sex offenders who About half of release hearings for sex offenders with indeterminate sentences result in a finding that the inmate committed an offense after August 31, 2001. is releasable; the proportion is lower for hearings for old code cases. Washington has an indeterminate sentence which currently practices discretionary release only for inmates imprisoned for a felony committed review board prior to the Washington had one of the lowest prison population rates of the states in 2014. effective date of the determinate sentencing statute (July 1, 1984), for inmates serving life sentences, sex offenders who committed an offense after August 31, 2001. and for some Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 582 563 561 551 325 335 296 332 306 305 500 400 300 352 357 367 317 308 312 244 200 363 362 316 323 261 265 358 358 353 341 317 308 313 313 308 161 168 129 135 2009 2010 2011 2012 235 181 100 2 3 2003 2004 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 Washington Prison Population State Prison Population Washington Parole Population State Parole Population 2013 2014 This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows theeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. *Due to changes in recordkeeping procedures, parole population data between 2004 and 2005 and between 2012, 2013, and 2014 are not comparable for Washington. WASHINGTON 186 The prison population rate in Washington is much lower than the aggregate state rate. In recent years, the Washington rate has declined Washington had the 44th highslightly. In 2014, the prison population rate was 332 in Washington est prison population rates of versus 551 for all 50 states. Washington had one of the lowest pristhe states in 2014. on population rates of the states in 2014. In 2014, 89% of releases from prison that were either conditional or unconditional were conWashington had the 31st highditional releases, including releases to probation, supervised man2014. In 2014, 89% of releases from prison that were either conditional or unconditional were est parole population rate of datory releases, and other unspecified conditional releases. conditional releases, including releases to probation, supervised mandatory releases, and other the states in 2014. The paroleunspecified conditional releases. population rate in Washington is also lower than the ag rate. Due to changes in recordkeeping procedures, gregate state The parole population rate in Washington is also lower than the aggregate state rate. Due to changes in parole population data between 2004 and 2005 and between recordkeeping procedures, parole population data between 2004 and 2005 and between 2012‐2014 are 2012-2014 are not comparable for Washington. In 2014, the parole population rate in Washington was 181 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Washington had the 31st highest not comparable for Washington. In 2014, the parole population rate in Washington was 181 which is st parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, just four percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary highest parole population rate of the lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Washington had the 31 decision such as the decision of a parole board. states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, just four percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.7 0.6 55% 50% 0.5 46% 0.4 31% 33% 0.3 34% 35% 55% 63% 27% 26% 28% 2012 2013 2014 58% 47% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 26% 0.2 0.1 34% 57% 62% 13% 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Washington 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate The percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release series for all 50 states is shown. violators in Washington has been rising over time and surpassed the aggregate state rate by 2006. In 2014, nearly two thirds of prison The percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Washington has been Washington had the 3rd admissions in Washington were due to violations of conditional rising over time and surpassed the aggregate state rate by 2006. In 2014, nearly two thirds of prison highest percentage of prison release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for admissions in Washington were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐ admissions due to violations rd states in aggregate. Washington had the 3rd highest percentage highest percentage of prison quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Washington had the 3 of conditional releases of the of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) admissions due to violations of conditional releases of states in 2014. the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 187 Chart 3. Washington Grant Rate, CCB Releases, 2015 Co iss WASHINGTON Chart 3a. Washington Grant Rate, CCB Releases, 2015 Releasable Not Releasable 1% Pending 43% 56% Chart 3. Washington Grant Rate, CCB Releases, 2015 Commented [ALW18] issue! Chart 3a shows the outcomes of CCB parole release hearings during fiscal year 2015 while theReleasable second chart shows this information for fiscal years 2012 to 2015. CCB hearings are for offenders who committed certain sex crimes after August 31, 2001. The second set of charts shows this same information for indeterminate hearings Chart 3b. Washington Grants by Year, CCB Releases, 2012‐2015 Releasable which includes old code cases. In fiscal year 2015, more than1% one-half of CCB release hearingsNot resulted in a finding that the inmate was releasable, while nearly all of the remaining hearings resulted in a finding that the inmate was not releasable. This is much higher than for indeterminate sentence hearings; just fourteen percent of these 350 Pending hearings resulted in a finding that the inmate was releasable. An additional twenty-eight percent resulted in a conditional release, for a total of forty-two percent that were 43% granted some type of release. Half of the hearings resulted in a finding of not releasable. The percentage of indeterminate sentence release hearings that resulted in a 56% finding of releasable has been declining over time, likely as the composition of old code cases shifted to more serious offenders. 300 Source: Washington Indeterminate Sentence Review Board Fiscal Year Data Reports 2012 to 2015, www.doc.wa.gov/isrb/docs/isrb-fiscal-year-reports.pdf. 250 Chart 3b. Washington Grants by Year, CCB Releases, 2012-2015 200 Chart 3b. Washington Grants by Year, CCB Releases, 2012‐2015 350 150 300 100 250 52% 61% 56% 54% 50 200 150 0 FY2012 100 FY2013 52% 61% Releasable FY2014 Not Releasable 54% 50 FY2015 Pending 56% 0 Chart 3c. Washington Grant Rate, Indeterminate Hearings, 2015 FY2012 FY2013 Releasable FY2014 Not Releasable FY2015 Pending Releasable Chart 3c. Washington Grant Rate, Indeterminate Hearings, 2015 Chart 3c. Washington Grants by Year, Indeterminate Hearings, 2012-2015 Not Releasable Chart 3d. Washington Grants by Year, Indeterminate Hearings, 2012‐2015 8% 14% Conditional Release 180 28% 160 8% 14% 140 120 100 50% 28% Pending Releasable Not Releasable Conditional Release Pending 50% 80 60 40 20 241 32% 27% 0 FY2012 FY2013 Releasable Not Releasable 14% 27% FY2014 Conditional Release 241 FY2015 Pending The first chart shows the outcomes of CCB parole release hearings during fiscal year 2015 while the ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES second chart shows this information for fiscal years 2012 to 2015. CCB hearings are for offenders who committed certain sex crimes after August 31, 2001. The second set of charts shows this same WASHINGTON 188 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 10 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Washington 2011 State Total Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. Washington States Total Information on the rate of incarceration for parolees is not available for Washington. 24% *Data not available Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Data on the percentage of exits from parole due to incarceration is not available for Washington. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 243 PAROLE IN WEST VIRGINIA West Virginia Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in West Virginia compared to the states as a whole. Parolees have a similar likelihood of being re‐incarcerated compared to the aggregate state rate. Just over one third of parole hearings lead to release being granted, while the remaining hearings result in parole being denied or further consideration is required. West Virginia currently practices Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in West Virginia compared to the states as a whole. Parolees discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property have a similar likelihood of being re-incarcerated compared to the aggregate state rate. Just over one third of offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. parole hearings lead to release being granted, while the remaining hearings result in parole being denied or further consideration is required. West Virginia currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, nd West Virginia had the 32 highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 600 500 400 300 335 317 356 308 371 312 399 316 420 418 323 317 200 100 81 85 99 2003 2004 2005 106 2006 436 308 597 582 455 464 313 313 127 138 129 122 2007 2008 2009 2010 563 480 308 139 139 2011 2012 561 551 463 469 306 305 173 187 2013 2014 0 West Virginia Prison Population State Prison Population West Virginia Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 shows theThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. WEST VIRGINIA 190 The prison population rate in West Virginia is lower than the aggregate state rate, though it has been steadily increasing over time. In 2014, the prison population rate was 469 in West Virginia versus 551 for all 50 states. West Virginia had the 32nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 67% of releases from prison were conditional releases. West Virginia had the 32nd highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. West Virginia had the 29th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in West Virginia is also lower than the aggregate state rate, yet it too has been steadily increasing over time. In 2014, the parole population rate was 187 which is much lowThe parole population rate in West Virginia is also lower than the aggregate state rate, yet it too has er than the aggregate rate of 305. West Virginia had the 29th highest parolebeen steadily increasing over time. In 2014, the parole population rate was 187 which is much lower population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, all reported th than the aggregate rate of 305. West Virginia had the 29 admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary the decision of a parole board. decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 0.45 40% 0.4 34% 0.35 0.3 33% 34% 34% 35% 34% 35% 36% 35% 36% 35% 31% 35% 34% 27% 0.2 39% 33% 0.25 0.15 38% 26% 28% 15% 11% 10% 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 West Virginia 2011 2012 2013 2014 State Institutions in 2006. *Large percentage changes in West Virginia are due to small base rates; in 2005, 386 admissions to prison were due to conditional release violations versus 965 This chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to Chart 2 shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. Since 2006, the percentage of prison admissions that were release violators in West Virginia has been equal to or conditional higher than that of the aggregate states. Large percentage changes Since 2006, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in West Virginia West Virginia had the 16th in West Virginia are due to small base rates; in 2005, 386 admissions has been equal to or higher than that of the aggregate states. Large percentage changes in West Virginia highest percentage of prison to prison are due to small base rates; in 2005, 386 admissions to prison were due to conditional release violations were due to conditional release violations versus 965 in admissions due to violations 2006. In 2014, about a third of prison admissions in West Virginia versus 965 in 2006. In 2014, about a third of prison admissions in West Virginia were due to violations of of conditional releases of the were due to violations of conditional release compared to just states in 2014. conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. West over one-quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. West th Virginia had the 16 highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of Virginia had the 16th highest percentage of prison admissions due the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 191 Chart 3. West Virginia Grant Rate, 2009 WEST VIRGINIA Chart 3a. West Virginia Grant Rate, 2009 West Virginia Grant Rates Granted Denied Chart 3. West Virginia Grant Rate, 2009 35% 36% Further Consideration West Virginia Grant Rates Granted 29% Denied 35% 36% Further Consideration Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2009 that resulted in parole being granted, parole being denied, or further consideration required. This is the most recentChart 3b. West Virginia Grants by Year, 2007‐2009 information publically available. Thirty-six percent of release hearings resulted in parole being granted, while nearly the same amount resulted in parole being denied. The remaining twenty-nine percent resulted in further consideration being required. Over the last three years of available data, the percentage of hearings 29% that result in parole being granted or denied has decreased while the percentage requiring further consideration has increased. West Virginia Grants by Year Source: 55th West Virginia Parole Board Annual Report July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009, www.paroleboard.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/55th%20Annual%20Report%20 FY%2008.09.pdf. 4000 Chart 3b. West Virginia Grants by Year, 2007‐2009 3500 Chart 3b. West Virginia Grants by Year, 2007-2009 West Virginia Grants by Year 3000 4000 2500 3500 2000 3000 1500 2500 1000 2000 500 45% 41% 1500 0 1000 FY07 41% 500 Granted 36% FY08 45% Denied Further Consideration FY09 36% 0 This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2009 that resulted in parole being FY07 FY08 FY09 granted, parole being denied, or further consideration required. This is the most recent information publically available. Thirty‐six percent of release hearings resulted in parole being granted, while nearly Granted Denied Further Consideration the same amount resulted in parole being denied. The remaining twenty‐nine percent resulted in This chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2009 that resulted in parole being further consideration being required. Over the last three years of available data, the percentage of granted, parole being denied, or further consideration required. This is the most recent information hearings that result in parole being granted or denied has decreased while the percentage requiring publically available. Thirty‐six percent of release hearings resulted in parole being granted, while nearly further consideration has increased. the same amount resulted in parole being denied. The remaining twenty‐nine percent resulted in further consideration being required. Over the last three years of available data, the percentage of Source: 55th West Virginia Parole Board Annual Report July 1, 2008 ‐ June 30, 2009, hearings that result in parole being granted or denied has decreased while the percentage requiring www.paroleboard.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/55th%20Annual%20Report%20FY%2008.09.pdf. further consideration has increased. Source: 55th West Virginia Parole Board Annual Report July 1, 2008 ‐ June 30, 2009, www.paroleboard.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/55th%20Annual%20Report%20FY%2008.09.pdf. 247 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES 192 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 WEST VIRGINIA Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 50 40 30 20 17 10 15 14 15 16 15 16 14 14 14 15 14 13 8 12 9 9 8 2012 2013 2014 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 West Virginia 2011 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate of of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees in West Virginia has been similar to or slightly higher than the aggregate state rate throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2014, the rate declined to 8 per 100 parolees in West Virginia which is equal to the rate for the parole during the year. states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees in West Virginia has been similar to or slightly higher than the Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 aggregate state rate throughout the series. In 2014, the rate declined to 8 per 100 parolees in West Virginia which is equal to the rate for the states in aggregate. West Virginia 20% States Total 24% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In West Virginia, one-fifth of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This is slightly lower than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 248 PAROLE IN WISCONSIN Wisconsin Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Wisconsin compared to the states as a whole while parole population rates are higher. However, parolees at risk of incarceration have a similar likelihood of being reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Wisconsin currently practices discretionary release only for inmates convicted prior to the effective date of its determinate sentencing statute Summary: Prison population rates are lower in Wisconsin compared to the states as a whole while parole popu(December 31, 1999). lation rates are higher. However, parolees at risk of incarceration have a similar likelihood of being reincarcerated compared to the states as a whole. Wisconsin currently practices discretionary release only for inmates convicted Wisconsin had the 26th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. prior to the effective date of its determinate sentencing statute (December 31, 1999). Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 500 549 552 541 369 400 317 300 290 554 557 544 383 334 399 421 582 563 561 551 535 522 517 513 507 507 447 450 460 454 457 449 308 312 316 323 317 308 313 313 308 306 305 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 200 100 0 2003 Wisconsin Prison Population State Prison Population Wisconsin Parole Population State Parole Population Chart 1 shows theThis chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. WISCONSIN 194 The prison population rate in Wisconsin is lower than the aggregate state rate. The peak rate of 557 occurred in 2007; thereafter, the rate declined along with the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 507 in Wisconsin versus 551 for all 50 states. Wisconsin had the 26th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 95% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Wisconsin had the 26th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Wisconsin had the 7th highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. From 2003 to 20011, the parole population rate in Wisconsin increased, staying higher than the aggregate rate. In 2014, the parole population rate in Wisconsin was 449, much higher than the aggregate rate of 305. Wisconsin had the 7th highest parole popFrom 2003 to 20011, the parole population rate in Wisconsin increased, staying higher than the ulation rate of the states in 2014. In 2013, two percent of admisaggregate rate. In 2014, the parole population rate in Wisconsin was 449, much higher than the sions to parole were due to a discretionary decision thsuch as the aggregate rate of 305. Wisconsin had the 7 highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL decision of a parole board. OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2013, two percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.45 40% 0.4 0.35 0.3 41% 39% 40% 39% 40% 39% 36% 31% 36% 33% 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 32% 35% 35% 31% 33% 0.25 27% 26% 2012 2013 28% 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Wisconsin 2009 2010 2011 State Institutions 2014 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate In the earlyseries for all 50 states is shown. years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Wisconsin was similar to that of theIn the early years of this series, the percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained steady for several years before decreasing beginning Wisconsin had the 18th highviolators in Wisconsin was similar to that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately in 2011, the percentage in Wisconsin increased until 2007 and est percentage of prison adremained steady for several years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Wisconsin remained steady until 2013. In 2014, nearly a third of prison missions due to violations of increased until 2007 and remained steady until 2013. In 2014, nearly a third of prison admissions in admissions in Wisconsin were due to violations of conditional conditional releases of the Wisconsin were due to violations of conditional release compared to just over one‐quarter of the release compared to just over one-quarter of the admissions for th states in 2014. admissions for states in aggregate. Wisconsin had the 18 highest percentage of prison admissions due states in aggregate. Wisconsin had the 18th highest percentage to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 195 WISCONSIN Chart 3. Wisconsin Grant Rate *Data not available Data on the outcomes of parole release hearings are not available for Wisconsin. Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006‐2014 50 40 30 20 10 15 15 16 16 14 14 14 13 14 12 9 9 11 10 11 10 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 Wisconsin State Total 2014 Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number The rate ofof parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at‐risk population is calculated as incarceration for parolees is similar in Wisconsin compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughoutthe number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to the series. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, the rate stood at 10 per 100 parolees parole during the year. in Wisconsin compared to 9 per 100 for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is similar in Wisconsin compared to the states in aggregate and has been so throughout the series. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, the rate stood at 10 per 100 parolees in Wisconsin compared to 9 per 100 for the states in aggregate. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES WISCONSIN 196 Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2013 Wisconsin States Total 24% 39% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Wisconsin, thirty-nine percent of the exits from parole were due to incarceration in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available. This is noticeably higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24% in 2014 (28% in 2013). ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES PAROLE IN WYOMING Wyoming Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Wyoming compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are more likely to be re‐incarcerated compared to the aggregate state rate. Nearly two‐thirds of parole hearings lead to release being granted. Wyoming currently practices discretionary release for the majority of offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Summary: Prison and parole population rates are lower in Wyoming compared to the states as a whole. However, parolees are more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the aggregate state rate. Nearly two-thirds of parole th granted. Wyoming currently practices discretionary release for the majority of hearingsWyoming had the 24 lead to release being highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. offenders, including violent offenders, sex offenders, property offenders, drug offenders, and public order offenders. Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003‐2014 Chart 1. Prison and Parole Population per 100,000 Adult Residents, 2003-2014 700 597 600 603 612 615 612 605 597 600 500 514 525 317 308 312 152 146 2003 2004 494 532 513 503 316 323 317 156 170 174 175 2005 2006 2007 2008 582 563 561 519 488 492 505 501 308 313 313 308 306 159 148 173 174 2010 2011 2012 2013 551 535 400 300 200 145 305 160 100 0 2009 Wyoming Prison Population State Prison Population Wyoming Parole Population State Parole Population 2014 This chart shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for Chart 1 shows the population in prison and on parole per 100,000 adult residents at yearend for each year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation andeach year from 2003 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the Parole in the United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. United States series and the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES The prison population rate in Wyoming is lower than the aggregate state rate. However, in recent years, WYOMING 198 The prison population rate in Wyoming is lower than the aggregate state rate. However, in recent years, the rate has increased in Wyoming while the rate has decreased for the states in aggregate. In 2014, the prison population rate was 535 in Wyoming versus 551 for all 50 states. Wyoming had the 24th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 69% of releases from prison were conditional releases. Wyoming had the 24th highest prison population rate of the states in 2014. Wyoming had the 33rd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. The parole population rate in Wyoming is also lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate in Wyoming was 160 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Wyoming had the 33rd highest parole population rate of the states in 2014. In 2014, 89% The parole population rate in Wyoming is also lower than the aggregate state rate. In 2014, the rate in rd of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as highest parole Wyoming was 160 which is lower than the aggregate rate of 305. Wyoming had the 33 the decision of a parole board. population rate of the states in 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) In 2014, 89% of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision such as the decision of a parole board. Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003-2014 Chart 2. Conditional Release Violators as a Percentage of Prison Admissions, 2003‐2014 0.4 0.35 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 35% 35% 33% 31% 0.3 27% 26% 28% 0.25 0.2 16% 16% 0.15 12% 13% 2005 2006 15% 14% 14% 14% 2008 2009 2010 2011 12% 19% 20% 2013 2014 15% 0.1 0.05 0 2003 2004 2007 Wyoming State Institutions 2012 Chart 2 showsThis chart shows the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to the percentage of prison admissions each year from 2003 to 2014 that were due to violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. violations of parole or other conditional release. The data for this chart come from the Prisoners series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate The percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release series for all 50 states is shown. violators in Wyoming is lower than that of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained steady for several Wyoming had the 32nd highThe percentage of prison admissions that were conditional release violators in Wyoming is lower than years before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in est percentage of prison adWyomingthat of the aggregate states. However, while the states aggregately remained steady for several years has shown an increase recently increasing. In 2014, missions due to violations of before decreasing beginning in 2011, the percentage in Wyoming has shown an increase recently one-fifth of prison admissions in Wyoming were due to violations conditional releases of the increasing. In 2014, one‐fifth of prison admissions in Wyoming were due to violations of conditional of conditional release compared to just over one-quarter of the states in 2014. release compared to just over one‐quarter of the admissions for states in aggregate. Wyoming had the admissions for states in aggregate. Wyoming had the 32nd highest nd 32 of highest percentage of prison admissions due to violations of conditional releases of the states in percentage prison admissions due to violations of conditional 2014. (CALL OUT, LEAVE IN TEXT) releases of the states in 2014. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 199 Chart 3. Wyoming Grant Rate, 2012 WYOMING Chart 3a. Wyoming Grant Rate, 2012 Wyoming Grant Rates Granted Not Granted Chart 3. Wyoming Grant Rate, 2012 37% 63% Wyoming Grant Rates Granted Not Granted 37% Chart 3a shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2012 that resulted release being granted or not granted. The second chart shows this information for fiscal Chart 3b. Wyoming Grants by Year, 2010‐2012 years 2010 to 2012. In 2012, nearly two-thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being granted. This percentage has increased during the fiscal years for which there is 63% 1200 Source: Wyoming Board of Parole Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012, www-wsl.state.wy.us/slpub/reports/Board%20of%20Parole.pdf. information. 1000 Chart 3b. Wyoming Grants by Year, 2010-2012 Chart 3b. Wyoming Grants by Year, 2010‐2012 800 1200 600 1000 400 800 200 600 48% 4000 FY10 200 48% 63% 57% FY11 57% Granted Not Granted 63% FY12 The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2012 that resulted release being 0 granted or not granted. The second chart shows this information for fiscal years 2010 to 2012. In 2012, FY10 FY11 FY12 nearly two‐thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being granted. This percentage has increased during Granted Not Granted the fiscal years for which there is information. The first chart shows the percentage of parole hearings in fiscal year 2012 that resulted release being Source: Wyoming Board of Parole Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012, www‐ granted or not granted. The second chart shows this information for fiscal years 2010 to 2012. In 2012, wsl.state.wy.us/slpub/reports/Board%20of%20Parole.pdf. nearly two‐thirds of the hearings resulted in parole being granted. This percentage has increased during the fiscal years for which there is information. Source: Wyoming Board of Parole Annual Report Fiscal Year 2012, www‐ wsl.state.wy.us/slpub/reports/Board%20of%20Parole.pdf. 257 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES WYOMING 200 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 Chart 4. Rate of Incarceration Per 100 Parolees at Risk, 2006-2014 50 40 30 30 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 9 10 9 8 10 0 2006 2007 9 8 2010 2011 6 2008 2009 Wyoming 7 2012 12 9 8 2013 2014 State Total This chart shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each Chart 4 shows the rate of incarceration per 100 parolees who are at risk of reincarceration each year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation year from 2006 to 2014. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as the States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). A series for the individual state and an number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to parole during the year. aggregate series for all 50 states is shown. The incarcerated population includes the reported number of parolees who exited parole to incarceration for any reason. The at-risk population is calculated as The rate of incarceration for parolees is much higher in Wyoming for 2014 compared to the states in aggregate, though the number reported on parole at the beginning of the year, plus the reported number of entries to it was lower than the aggregate state rate through 2012. The large changes between 2013 and 2014 for Wyoming parole during the year. are due to low base rates. In 2013, 80 parolees were incarcerated versus 151 in 2014. In 2014, the rate was 30 per 100 parolees in Wyoming compared to 8 per 100 for the states in aggregate. The rate of incarceration for parolees is much higher in Wyoming for 2014 compared to the states in aggregate, though it was lower than the aggregate state rate through 2012. The large changes between Chart 5. Parole Exits, 2014 2013 and 2014 for Wyoming are due to low base rates. In 2013, 80 parolees were incarcerated versus 151 in 2014. In 2014, the rate was 30 per 100 parolees in Wyoming compared to 8 per 100 for the states Wyoming States Total in aggregate. *The large changes between 2013 and 2014 for Wyoming are due to low base rates. In 2013, 80 parolees were incarcerated versus 151 in 2014. 24% 69% Completions n Incarcerations Chart 5 shows the percentage of people who exit parole to incarceration. All other exits are included in “completions”. The data for this chart come from the Probation and Parole in the United States series published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In Wyoming, more than two-thirds of the exits from parole are due to incarceration. This figure is much higher than the aggregate state proportion of 24%. ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES 259 201 The purpose of this report is to enable and encourage comparisons among state parole systems that have never before been possible. As discussed in the report’s Introduction, the statistics collected here should not automatically be accepted at face value. We counsel readers to use caution, and to treat the 50-State Data Briefs as a first step toward an understanding of the bigpicture outcomes associated with different prison release and parole revocation systems across the country. We are proud of the range of questions raised by the data—but the use to which the data will be put is largely up to the report’s consumers. For example, we make no claim of having discovered “best” and “worst” practices across the states. Certain patterns, or noticeable lack of patterns, appear in the Data Briefs as a whole. For instance, there does not always appear to be a clear connection between a state’s prison rate and its parole supervision rate; nor do large numbers of parolees on supervision reliably signal that parole boards are especially liberal in their release decisions. The statistical history of many states defy such common-sense expectations. Some have high prison and parole supervision rates. Louisiana is an example. In 2014, Louisiana had the highest prison population rate and the third highest parole population rate of all of the states. However, only five percent of admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision of the parole board in 2014. Other states, in contrast, have low prison and parole population rates. An example of this is Massachusetts which had the lowest prison population rate and one of the lowest parole population rates. Unlike Louisiana, the majority of admissions to parole (ninety percent) were due to the discretionary action of the paroling authority. For other states, the prison population rate may be low while the parole population rate is high. Oklahoma serves as an example. It had the fourth highest prison population rate of the states and the forty-fourth highest parole population rate; all reported admissions to parole were due to a discretionary decision. A final category of states includes those with a high prison population rate and a low parole population rate, such as New York. New York has the eighth lowest prison population rate (or the fortythird highest rates) of all 50 states but the sixteenth highest parole population rate. About a quarter of admissions to parole were due to discretionary decisions in 2014. From an analysis of this kind, we can begin to group states that fall into similar classifications—at least on the statistical dimensions collected in this report. Table 1 below is an example of the comparisons that may be drawn. Table 1. 2X2 Comparison of Selected States According to Their Rates of Imprisonment and Parole Supervision, 2014. Low Parole High Parole Low Prison High Prison Massachusetts Alabama Maine Arizona Minnesota Delaware North Dakota Oklahoma Iowa Alaska New Hampshire Louisiana New Jersey Mississippi New York Texas INTRODUCTION CONCLUSION States may also be grouped by (1) the percentages of their prison admissions that are due to parole revocations, matched against (2) their parole supervision rates. For some states, both the parole supervision rate (PR) and the percentage of prison admissions due to parole revocations (AR) are high—a combination that many would expect. Missouri is an example of this: the state had the eleventh highest PR while nearly half of prison admissions were due to conditional release violators (compared to an aggregate rate of twenty-eight percent for the states). For other jurisdictions, such as Rhode Island, both the PR and the AR are low. Rhode Island had one of the lowest PRs of any state in 2014. At the same time, the Rhode Island’s AR stands at fifteen percent, well below the norm. However, for other states, these two factors are not ranked similarly. For example, states such as Vermont have a low PR and a high AR. For example, Vermont had the 24th highest PR in 2014 (about a third lower than the aggregate state rate), yet nearly two-thirds of admissions to prison were due to conditional release violators. Flipping commonsense expectations in the opposite direction, states such as Mississippi had a high PR but a low AR compared with other states. In recent years, the parole population rate ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES CONCLUSION 202 in Mississippi has surpassed the aggregate state rate; however, only about a fifth of prison admissions in 2014 were due to conditional release violators. Once again, states with different experiences can be organized under headings suggested by the data. Table 2 makes the point, pictorially, that parole supervision populations have very different impacts on prison admissions from state to state. Table 2. 2X2 Comparison of Selected States According to Their Rates of Parole Supervision and Percentage of Prison Admissions Due to Parole Revocations, 2014. Low Parole High Parole Low CR Violator High CR Violator Florida Colorado Massachusetts Vermont Rhode Island Washington Virginia Utah Louisiana Arkansas Mississippi Kentucky Oregon Missouri South Dakota Pennsylvania Lastly, states vary quite a bit in rates of parole revocations measured against the number of parolees who were on supervision in their systems in any given year. For example, Utah—which has a low parole population rate compared to the aggregate state rate—incarcerates parolees at-risk at a rate more than three times higher than other states. The probability of revocation among all at-risk parolees was 26 per 100 parolees in Utah in 2014, and about 8 per 100 for the states aggregately. On the other hand, Wisconsin—which has a higher than average parole population rate—revokes parolees-at-risk at a rate similar to the states in aggregate (around 9 per 100 parolees). ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES The discussion above is intended only to be suggestive of the innumerable possible uses of the 50 State Data Briefs. In preparing the report, we were surprised time and again by the reactions of individual readers of early drafts. For anyone with a genuine interest in the professional and academic “fields” of prison release policy, we expect the report to be a “page-turner.” (Our apologies to the majority of readers, who will not be quite so enthralled.) We are looking forward to the many observations, hypotheses, conclusions, corrections, criticisms, and suggestions for improvement that this report will provoke. And most of all, the Robina Institute as a whole looks forward to a reinvigoration of policy debate aimed at improving the work of American paroling agencies. 203 Appendix (see if we can put in two columns) Appendix, continued (2 columns) 1. State Prison Rates 2014, Ranked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Louisiana Delaware Alaska Oklahoma Alabama Texas Mississippi Arizona Arkansas Georgia Missouri Idaho Florida Kentucky Connecticut Indiana Virginia Nevada Ohio South Carolina Tennessee Michigan South Dakota State Institutions (Total) Wyoming Hawaii Wisconsin Pennsylvania Colorado Illinois North Carolina Oregon West Virginia Montana California Maryland New Mexico Kansas Rhode Island Vermont Nebraska Iowa Utah New York Washington New Jersey North Dakota New Hampshire Minnesota Maine Massachusetts 1,075 951 948 945 849 837 831 827 791 696 684 675 649 637 590 584 581 576 575 571 569 565 561 551 535 528 507 503 502 488 485 484 469 463 459 454 443 443 399 392 385 371 345 338 332 312 301 280 255 209 200 2. State Parole Rates 2014, Ranked 3. Conditional Release Violators 2014, % of Prison Admissions, Ranked 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 23 24 25 25 27 28 28 28 31 32 33 34 34 36 36 38 38 40 40 40 43 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Pennsylvania Arkansas Louisiana Oregon Texas Kentucky Wisconsin Mississippi South Dakota Alaska Missouri Idaho Georgia State Institutions (Total) Illinois California New York Nevada Tennessee Maryland Colorado Iowa Michigan New Hampshire Vermont Alabama New Jersey Ohio Indiana West Virginia Kansas Washington Utah Wyoming Minnesota Arizona New Mexico South Carolina Hawaii Montana North Carolina North Dakota Delaware Connecticut Oklahoma Nebraska Rhode Island Massachusetts Florida Virginia Maine 1037 962 838 770 562 492 449 437 406 402 396 350 336 305 300 294 289 272 267 249 245 242 240 225 219 216 215 193 189 187 186 181 162 160 159 147 142 139 139 137 131 102 92 91 88 75 56 36 29 27 2 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 7 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 16 18 18 20 21 22 Vermont Idaho* Washington Arkansas Colorado Missouri Utah Pennsylvania New Hampshire Kentucky Tennessee Maryland Hawaii New York Minnesota West Virginia New Mexico Texas Wisconsin Oklahoma Illinois Louisiana State Institutions Oregon Iowa New Jersey Michigan Maine Kansas South Dakota Montana Mississippi Wyoming South Carolina Delaware Nebraska Ohio Arizona North Dakota Nevada Connecticut North Carolina Rhode Island California Indiana Georgia Alabama Massachusetts Virginia Florida Alaska 263 65% 65% 63% 55% 48% 47% 45% 45% 43% 41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 35% 34% 34% 32% 32% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 25% 24% 23% 23% 23% 21% 20% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 16% 16% 15% 15% 15% 14% 13% 10% 10% 9% 1% 0% N/A CONCLUSION Appendix 265 ROBINA INSTITUTE: STATE DATA PAROLE PROFILES About the Parole Release and Revocation Project The Parole Release and Revocation Project is committed to engaging paroling authorities in both indeterminate and determinate sentencing states in examining all elements of the discretionary parole release and post-release violations process. A goal of this project is to enhance the quality of decision-making at every stage. As described below, the project is currently engaged in the development of legal profiles and conducting a comprehensive survey of parole boards. This project will also feature on-site work with selected paroling jurisdictions ROBINA INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL About the Robina Institute The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice brings legal education, legal and sociological research, theory, policy, and practice together to solve common problems in the field of criminal justice. Through this work, we initiate and support coordinated research and policy analysis and partner with multiple local and state jurisdictions from across the nation to provide recommendations and build links between researchers, practitioners, lawmakers, governing authorities, and the public. The Robina Institute’s focus is to build these connections through three program areas: Criminal Justice Policy, Criminal Law Theory, and Sentencing Law and Policy. The emphasis in all three areas is on new ways of conceptualizing criminal law and its roles, and new ways of thinking about responses to crime. The Robina Institute is currently working on several research projects, including four in the Sentencing Law and Policy Program Area that take a close look at issues states and jurisdictions face in sentencing policy and guidelines: the Probation Revocation Project; the Parole Release and Revocation Project; the Criminal History Project; and the Sentencing Guidelines Repository Project. The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice was established in 2011 at the University of Minnesota Law School thanks to a generous gift from the Robina Foundation. Created by James H. Binger (’41), the Robina Foundation provides funding to major institutions that generate transformative ideas and promising approaches ROBINA INSTITUTE: PAROLE RELEASE AND REVOCATION ACROSS 50 STATES