One in 100:
Behind Bars in America 2008

The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most
challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy,
inform the public and stimulate civic life. We partner with a diverse range of donors,
public and private organizations and concerned citizens who share our commitment to
fact-based solutions and goal-driven investments to improve society.

Table of Contents
About this Report ....................................................................................................................................................2
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................3
A Snapshot of Prison Growth .....................................................................................................................5
1 in 100 Adults Behind Bars ......................................................................................................................5
State Trends Vary Widely ..........................................................................................................................7
Florida: A Case Study in Growth ..............................................................................................................9
The Costs – High and Climbing Fast .....................................................................................................11
California: $8.8 Billion and Growing ......................................................................................................11
Health Care, Geriatrics Drive Costs........................................................................................................12
Staff Vacancies, Overtime Spike...............................................................................................................13
Restitution, Child Support, Tax Payments Lag .......................................................................................13
Crowding Out Other Priorities ................................................................................................................14
Pre-K, Higher Ed Funding Lags...............................................................................................................15
Controlling Crime and Costs .....................................................................................................................17
A New Path in Texas ................................................................................................................................17
Managing Prison Admissions...................................................................................................................18
Adjusting Length of Stay ..........................................................................................................................19
A Final Word ....................................................................................................................................................21
Figures

Prison Count Pushes Up ................................................................................................................5
Doing the Math................................................................................................................................6
Who’s Behind Bars ..........................................................................................................................7
Wide Variation in Prison Growth....................................................................................................8
High Growth Rates Spread Across Nation......................................................................................9
Twenty Years of Rising Costs ........................................................................................................12
Taking a Bigger Cut.......................................................................................................................14
Of Books and Bars ........................................................................................................................15
Making Decisions Where to Spend ...............................................................................................16
Controlling Crime and Prison Populations: Two Levers..............................................................20

Endnotes ..........................................................................................................................................................23
Methodology Notes.........................................................................................................................................24
Jurisdictional Notes .........................................................................................................................................28
Appendix Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

A-1:
A-2:
A-3:
A-4:
A-5:
A-6:
A-7:

State, Regional and National Prison Counts...............................................................29
State Corrections Spending, FY 2007 .........................................................................30
State Spending on Corrections and Higher Education, FY 1987-2007.......................31
National Corrections and Higher Education Spending Trends, FY 1987-2007 .........32
State Employees in Corrections Workforce, 2006 .....................................................33
1 in X: Incarceration Rates by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age and State ...........................34
International Comparisons ..........................................................................................35

Public Safety Performance Project

1

About this Report
The Pew Charitable Trusts applies the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems.
Pew’s Center on the States identifies and advances effective policy approaches to critical issues facing states.
Launched in 2006 as an initiative of the Center, the Public Safety Performance Project seeks to help states
advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies and practices in sentencing and corrections that protect public
safety, hold offenders accountable, and control corrections costs.
Pew Center on the States
Susan Urahn, managing director
Lori Grange, senior officer
Tim Lynch, officer
Project Team
Jenifer Warren, principal author
Adam Gelb, project director, Public Safety Performance Project
Jake Horowitz, senior associate, Public Safety Performance Project
Jessica Riordan, senior associate, Communications
Data Consultants
Association of State Correctional Administrators

The JFA Institute

• George Camp, co-executive director

• James F. Austin, president

• Jennifer Raley, project manager

• Wendy Naro, vice president
• Gillian Thomson, consultant

Report Design
202design
• Mike Heffner, partner
• Lucy Pope, partner
• Denise Kooper
We also would like to thank the 50 state correctional agencies, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, and the National Association of State Budget Officers, which provided much of the
data for this report.
For additional information on the Pew Center on the States and the Public Safety Performance Project,
please visit www.pewcenteronthestates.org.

2 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

Executive Summary

For some groups, the incarceration numbers are
especially startling. While one in 30 men between
the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black

There is reason to suspect
“There isn’t a person in
those states may soon
public office that’s not
have lots of company.
sensitive to the accusation
Prison costs are blowing
of being soft on crime. But
holes in state budgets but
you don’t have to be soft
barely making a dent in
on crime to be smart in
recidivism rates. At the
dealing with criminals.”
same time, policy makers
are becoming increasingly
OH Gov. Ted Strickland (D)
aware of research-backed
The Columbus Dispatch
January 26, 2008
strategies for community
corrections—better ways to identify which offenders
need a prison cell and which can be safely handled
in the community, new technologies to monitor their
whereabouts and behavior, and more effective

males in that age group the figure is one in nine.

supervision and treatment programs to help them

Gender adds another dimension to the picture. Men
still are roughly 10 times more likely to be in jail or

stay on the straight and narrow. Taken together,

prison, but the female population is burgeoning at a
far brisker pace. For black women in their mid- to

diversify their states’ array of criminal sanctions with
options for low-risk offenders that save tax dollars

late-30s, the incarceration rate also has hit the 1-in-

but still hold offenders accountable for their actions.

Three decades of growth in America’s prison
population has quietly nudged the nation across a
sobering threshold: for the first time, more than one
in every 100 adults is now confined in an American
jail or prison. According to figures gathered and
analyzed by the Pew Public Safety Performance
Project, the number of people behind bars in the
United States continued to climb in 2007, saddling
cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill
afford and failing to have a clear impact either on
recidivism or overall crime.

100 mark. Growing older, meanwhile, continues to
have a dramatic chilling effect on criminal behavior.
While one in every 53 people in their 20s is behind
bars, the rate for those over 55 falls to one in 837.
While the national incarceration trend remains on
the rise, some states report a flattening of growth,
or even a decline, figures from January 1 of this
year show. Texas’ count dropped slightly over the
previous year, but with California’s massive system
dipping by 4,068 inmates, Texas has become the
nation’s imprisonment leader. New York and
Michigan, also among the country’s biggest
systems, reported declines as well.

these trends are encouraging policy makers to

Policy Choices Drive Growth
In exploring such alternatives, lawmakers are
learning that current prison growth is not driven
primarily by a parallel increase in crime, or a
corresponding surge in the population at large.
Rather, it flows principally from a wave of policy
choices that are sending more lawbreakers to prison
and, through popular “three-strikes” measures and
other sentencing enhancements, keeping them there
longer. Overlaying that picture in some states has
been the habitual use of prison stays to punish

Public Safety Performance Project

3

“There’s a shift away
from the mindset of lock
them up and throw away
the key. That cannot
sustain itself.”

those who break rules
governing their probation
or parole. In California,
for example, such
violators make up a large
proportion of prison
admissions, churning in
OH State Rep. John J. White
(R-Kettering)
and out of badly
Dayton Daily News
overloaded facilities.
February 11, 2007
Nationally, more than
half of released offenders
are back in prison within three years, either for a
new crime or for violating the terms of their
release.1
Few doubt the necessity of locking up violent
criminals and those who repeatedly threaten
community safety. And policy makers
understandably are moved to act by especially
heinous crimes or victims seeking justice in the
name of a loved one.

National Association of State Budget Officers
show. Adjusted to 2007 dollars, the increase was
127 percent. Over the same period, adjusted
spending on higher education rose just 21 percent.

Taking a Different Tack
Faced with the mushrooming bills, many states are
confronting agonizing choices and weathering
bitter divisions in their legislatures. But lawmakers
are by no means powerless before the budget
onslaught. Indeed, a rising number of states
already are diversifying their menu of sanctions
with new approaches that save money but still
ensure that the public is protected and that
offenders are held accountable. And some already
are reaping encouraging results.
Kansas and Texas are well on their way. Facing
daunting projections of prison population growth,
they have embraced a strategy that blends

Increasingly, however, states are discovering that

incentives for reduced recidivism with greater use

casting such a wide net for prisoners creates a
vexing fiscal burden—especially in lean times.

of community supervision for lower-risk offenders.
In addition, the two states increasingly are

Finding enough dollars to house, feed and provide

imposing sanctions other than prison for parole

a doctor’s care to a low-risk inmate is a struggle
besetting states from Arizona to Vermont. In the
absence of tax hikes, lawmakers may find
themselves forced to cut or limit other vital
programs—from transportation to education and
healthcare—to foot the incarceration tab.

and probation violators whose infractions are
considered “technical,” such as missing a
counseling session. The new approach, born of
bipartisan leadership, is allowing the two states to
ensure they have enough prison beds for violent
offenders while helping less dangerous lawbreakers
become productive, taxpaying citizens.

That tab, meanwhile, is exploding, fueled in part
by staff overtime expenses and a steep rise in
inmate healthcare costs. In 1987, the states
collectively spent $10.6 billion of their general
funds—their primary pool of discretionary tax
dollars—on corrections. Last year, they spent more
than $44 billion, a 315 percent jump, data from the

4 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

No policy maker would choose this path if it
meant sacrificing public safety. But gradually, some
states are proving that deploying a broad range of
sanctions can protect communities, punish
lawbreakers and conserve tax dollars for other
pressing public needs.

A Snapshot of
Prison Growth
he United States incarcerates
more people than any country in the
world, including the far more populous
nation of China. At the start of the new year, the
American penal system held more than 2.3 million
adults. China was second, with 1.5 million people
behind bars, and Russia was a distant third with
890,000 inmates, according to the latest available
figures. Beyond the sheer number of inmates,
America also is the global leader in the rate at
which it incarcerates its citizenry, outpacing nations
like South Africa and Iran. In Germany, 93 people
are in prison for every 100,000 adults and
children. In the U.S, the rate is roughly eight times
that, or 750 per 100,000.2 (See Appendix A-7 for

T

PRISON COUNT PUSHES UP
Between 1987 and 2007, the national prison population has
nearly tripled.
2.0 million
1,596,127
1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

585,084

NOTE: 1987-2006 data are
year-end prison counts from
the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2007 figure is Pew Public
Safety Performance Project's
count as of Jan. 1, 2008.

0.0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
SOURCES: Bureau of Justice Statistics; Pew Public Safety Performance Project

additional international analysis.)
To produce a fresh portrait of incarceration levels
at the start of 2008, Pew conducted a survey of
inmate counts from the states and the federal
government. Our finding: the U.S. prison

1 in 100 Adults Behind Bars

population rose by more than 25,000 inmates in
2007—a 1.6 percent rate of growth that brought the
national prison census to 1,596,127. Although the
2007 expansion didn’t match the 3.1 percent hike
during 2006, the growth tracks projections3 and
continues a pattern of steady expansion that has
characterized the U.S. penal system for more than
30 years.

but few can rival this: more than 1 in 100 adults is
now locked up in America. With 1,596,127 in state
or federal prison custody, and another 723,131 in
local jails, the total adult inmate count at the
beginning of 2008 stood at 2,319,258. With the
number of adults just shy of 230 million, the actual
incarceration rate is 1 in every 99.1 adults.

The consequences of that upward trend are many,

That statistic masks far higher incarceration rates
by race, age and gender. A separate analysis of
midyear 2006 data from the U.S. Department of
Justice shows that for Hispanic and black men, for
instance, imprisonment is a far more prevalent

Public Safety Performance Project

5

WHO’S BEHIND BARS
A sampling of incarceration rates by various demographics. Additional information available in Appendix A-6.

According to data analyzed for this report, as of Jan. 1,
2008 more than 1 in every 100 adults is behind bars.
For the most part, though,
incarceration is heavily
concentrated among men, racial
and ethnic minorities, and 20and 30-year olds. Among men the
highest rate is with black males
aged 20-34. Among women it’s
with black females aged 35-39.

WOMEN
White women ages 35-39 1

in 355

MEN
White men ages 18 or older 1

All men ages 18 or older 1

in 106

Hispanic women ages 35-39

in 54
All women ages 35-39

Hispanic men ages 18 or older 1

Black men ages 18 or older 1

1 in 265

in 36

in 15
Black women ages 35-39 1

Black men ages 20-34 1

1 in 297

in 100

in 9

SOURCE: Analysis of "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006," published June 2007 by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. All
demographic statistics, with exception of "1 in every 100 adults" are midyear 2006, not 2008 figures.

6 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

“I don’t think we’re getting the worst
drug lords into the prisons. We’re just
getting the people who went out and got
caught. It’s the low-hanging fruit.”

reality than it is for white men.4 The young,
meanwhile, are disproportionately more likely to
wind up in prison than their elders. While one in
every 15 black males aged 18 or older is in prison
or jail, for black men over 55, the rate is one in
115. (See Appendix A-6 for additional analysis of
incarceration rates by race, sex and age.)

KY State Justice Secretary J. Michael Brown
Testimony to KY Senate Judiciary Committee
Lexington Herald-Leader
January 24, 2008

State Trends Vary Widely
Look beneath the national incarceration
numbers and you’ll find the growth in 2007
transcended geographical boundaries. A majority
of states in all four regions of the country finished
the year with more prisoners than they housed at
the start. The South led the way, with its
population jumping from 623,563 to 641,024—a
rise of 2.8 percent. Only three of the 16 states in
the southern region reported a drop in inmates,

All told, 36 states reported higher numbers as 2008
dawned. Among the eight largest correctional
agencies—those with more than 50,000 inmates—four
grew (Ohio, Florida, Georgia and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons) while four (New York, Michigan,
Texas and California) saw their populations dip.
Ten states, meanwhile, experienced an inmate
population jump of 5 percent or greater, a list
topped by Kentucky, with a surge of 12 percent.

while nine experienced growth exceeding 4
percent. In the West, meanwhile, Arizona outpaced

Kentucky and Nevada are two states with

all other states, and in the Northeast, New
Hampshire’s population grew the fastest. Among
Midwestern states, Iowa was the growth leader,

relatively small correctional systems hit hard by
growth. In Kentucky, an indeterminate sentencing
structure means the parole board has broad powers

expanding its inmate count by 6.1 percent.

to determine when a prisoner is suitable for
release—and thus, to a large degree, how big the
crowd behind bars will be. Guidelines require

DOING THE MATH
The calculation behind the 1 in 100 U.S. adults behind bars statistic.

1

2
PRISON POPULATION 1,596,127

3
ADULT POPULATION

ONE IN EVERY

229,786,080
JAIL POPULATION 723,131
TOTAL BEHIND BARS 2,319,258

99.1
U.S. ADULTS ARE
BEHIND BARS

TOTAL BEHIND BARS 2,319,258

NOTE: See Methodology Notes for jail and adult population estimates.

Public Safety Performance Project

7

WIDE VARIANCE IN PRISON GROWTH
State prisoner change, 2007, by quintile

Wash.
+565

N.H.
+186
Mont.
-141

N.D.
+77

Minn.
+465

Ore.
+148
Idaho
+195

Nev.
+651

Wy.
-61

S.D.
-57

Wisc.
-741

Calif.
-4,068
(lowest)
Ariz.
+1,908

Colo.
+360

Ill.
+199
Kan.
-60

Mo.
+157

Okla.
-325

N.M.
-99

Mich.
-1,251
Ohio
+1,564

Md.
+397
W. Va.
Va.
+323 +1,867

S.C.
+601
Ala.
+1,171

Ga.
+2,413

Fla.
+4,447
(highest)
Hawaii
+69

Maine
+24

Mass.
+332
R.I.
Conn. +28
+218
N.J.
-549
Del.
-125

N.C.
+965

Tenn.
+1,093

Ark.
+585

La.
+706

Texas
-326

Ind.
+158

Pa.
+1,631

Ky.
+2,402

Miss.
+1,267

Alaska
+237

N.Y.
-695

Iowa
+544

Neb.
+65
Utah
+103

Vt.
-83

Change in
prison inmates
Lowest fifth
Second lowest
Middle fifth
Second highest
Highest fifth

SOURCE: Pew Public Safety Performance
Project
NOTE: Change is from 12/31/06 to 1/1/08
unless otherwise noted in the appendix.

inmates to serve a certain proportion of their
sentence, but beyond that, board discretion comes
into play in deciding whether to grant or deny
parole. Over the past year, under new appointees
to the board, the parole grant rate declined and the
prison population increased as more inmates
stayed locked up for a longer time. The result of
this and other policies was a 12 percent jump in
the incarcerated population in 2007. Absent a
change of direction, projections show the inmate
count will continue to rise to nearly 31,000—an
increase of 40 percent—over the next decade.
Out West, Nevada at the start of the 2007
legislative session also faced a rapidly expanding
prison population, fueled by an unexpected jump
in prison admissions from the Las Vegas area. New

8 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

forecasts warned that without intervention by the
state, the population would continue its steep
ascent, climbing from 13,000 prisoners to more
than 18,000 over the next 10 years. The fiscal
consequences were alarming. Among other things,
the growth forced prisoners from Washington and
Wyoming who were housed in Nevada back to
those states. That meant both lost revenue and
new appropriations from the state general fund. At
the beginning of 2008, Nevada’s jails and prisons
held 13,552 inmates, a 5 percent jump over the
number incarcerated in the Silver State at the end
of 2006.

Florida: A Case Study in
Growth
For policy makers keen on understanding the
dynamics of prison growth, Florida serves as a
compelling case. Between 1993 and 2007, the state’s
inmate population has increased from 53,000 to
over 97,000. While crime and a growing resident
population play a role, most of the growth, analysts
agree, stemmed from a host of correctional policies
and practices adopted by the state.

release by the parole board, and required that all
prisoners—regardless of their crime, prior record,
or risk to recidivate—serve 85 percent of their
sentence. Next came a “zero tolerance” policy and
other measures mandating that probation officers
report every offender who violated any condition
of supervision and increasing prison time for these
“technical violations.” As a result, the number of
violators in Florida prisons has jumped by an
estimated 12,000.5 Crime in Florida has dropped
substantially during this period, but it has fallen as

One of the first came in 1995, when the legislature
abolished “good time” credits and discretionary

HIGH GROWTH RATES SPREAD ACROSS NATION
Percent change in state prison populations, 2007, by quintile

Wash.
+3.2%

N.H.
+6.6%
Mont.
-3.9%
(lowest)

N.D.
+5.6%

Minn.
+5.1%

Ore.
+1.1%
Idaho
+2.7%
Wy.
-2.9%

Mich.
-2.4%

Utah
+1.6%
Calif.
-2.3%

Colo.
+1.6%

Ind.
Ill.
+0.6%
+0.4%

Kan.
-0.7%

Ariz.
+5.3%

Mo.
+0.5%

Okla.
-1.2%

N.M.
-1.5%

Pa.
+3.7%

Iowa
+6.1%

Neb.
+1.5%

Ark.
+4.3%
Miss.
+6.0%

Texas
-0.2%

Alaska
+4.7%

Ohio
+3.2%

Md.
+1.7%

W. Va.
Va.
Ky.
+5.6% +5.1%
+12.0%
(highest)
N.C.
Tenn.
+2.6%
+4.2%
S.C.
+2.5%
Ga.
Ala.
+4.6%
+4.1%

La.
+1.9%

Fla.
+4.8%
Hawaii
+1.2%

Mass.
+3.0%

N.Y.
-1.1%

Wisc.
-3.2%

S.D.
-1.7%

Nev.
+5.0%

Maine
+1.1%

Vt.
-3.7%

SOURCE: Pew Public Safety Performance
Project
NOTE: Change is from 12/31/06 to 1/1/08
unless otherwise noted in the appendix.

R.I.
Conn. +0.7%
+1.1%
N.J.
-2.0%
Del.
-1.7%

Percent change
in prison
population
Lowest fifth
Second lowest
Middle fifth
Second highest
Highest fifth

Public Safety Performance Project

9

much or more in some states that have not grown
their prison systems, or even have shrunk them,
such as New York.
Without a change of direction, Florida is expected
to reach a peak of nearly 125,000 inmates by 2013.
Based on that projection, the state will run out of
prison capacity by early 2009 and will need to add
another 16,500 beds to keep pace.6

10 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

The Costs – High
and Climbing Fast
risons and jails are “24-7”
operations. They require large, highly
trained staffs. Their inhabitants are troubled,
aging and generally sicker than people outside
prison walls. Even absent continued growth, the cost
of keeping the nation’s lock-ups running safely is
staggering. Total state spending on corrections—
including bonds and federal contributions—topped
$49 billion last year, up from $12 billion in 1987. By
2011, continued prison growth is expected to cost
states an additional $25 billion.7

P

The primary catalyst behind the increase is obvious:
prison growth means more bodies to feed, clothe,
house and supervise. While figures vary widely by
state, the average per prisoner operating cost was
$23,876 in 2005, the most recent year for which
data were available. Rhode Island spent the most
per inmate ($44,860) while Louisiana had the lowest
per inmate cost, $13,009.8 While employee wages
and benefits account for much of the variance
among states, other factors—such as the inmate-tostaff ratio—play a role as well. Capital expenses,
meanwhile, are difficult to estimate, but researchers
cite $65,000 per bed as the best approximation for a
typical medium security facility.9

California: $8.8 Billion
and Growing
Remarkably, 13 states now devote more than $1
billion a year in general funds to their corrections
systems. The undisputed leader is California,
where spending totaled $8.8 billion last year. Even

“We are jammed up
with this situation
right now because
we have fallen in
love with one of
most undocumented
beliefs: That somehow
you get safer if you put
more people in jail.”

when adjusted for inflation, that
represents a 216 percent increase
over the amount California spent
on corrections 20 years earlier.
And last year, the governor
signed a bill authorizing
the
another $7.9 billion in

spending, through lease
revenue bonds, for 53,000
more prison and jail beds.
Texas, with a slightly larger
CA Senate President Pro Tem
number of inmates, ranks a
Don Perata (D-East Bay)
Associated Press
distant second in spending, investing
December
8, 2007
roughly $3.3 billion last year.
California vividly symbolizes the financial perils of
the state prison business. On top of the perennial
political tug-of-war, the state’s whopping
corrections budget is shaped by a bevy of court
settlements that make predicting and controlling
spending tricky. Following successful lawsuits by
prisoner plaintiffs, California now is subject to
court oversight of inmate medical and dental care,
mental health services, its juvenile offenders, and
the treatment of disabled inmates. Even its parole
revocation system is controlled by a legal
settlement, and thereby subject to judicial orders
that influence spending.
Healthcare costs have been affected more than any
other category. In FY 2000-01, California spent $676
million on such costs. By FY 2004-05, after the state
settled a lawsuit alleging negligent and insufficient
medical care, spending had soared to $1.05 billion,
an increase of 55 percent.10 And that was before a

Public Safety Performance Project

11

TWENTY YEARS OF RISING COSTS
Between fiscal years 1987 and 2007, total state general fund
expenditures on corrections rose 315 percent.
$50 million
$44.06 billion
40

Beyond that mandate, the rise in medical outlays
largely stems from mushrooming costs associated
with special needs populations, including HIVpositive prisoners and geriatric inmates.

30
$19.38
billion
20

10
$10.62 billion

General fund expenditures
Inflation adjusted

0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

SOURCE: National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditure
Report" series; Inflation adjusted figures are based on a reanalysis of data in
this series.
NOTE: These figures represent state general funds. They do not include
federal or local government corrections expenditures and typically do not
include funding from other state sources.

Communicable diseases are a particular concern,
spreading quickly in a crowded prison environment
where risky behaviors such as tattooing and
piercing, unprotected sex, fighting and intravenous
drug use are not uncommon.12 Hepatitis C, a bloodborne, life-threatening disease, is the biggest worry.
The latest Hepatitis C treatments cost as much as
$30,000 per inmate annually. At one California
prison, in Vacaville, the chief medical officer
estimates that half of the 3,200 inmates have been
infected with Hepatitis C.13 Other states put the inprison prevalence at between 25 and 40 percent.14

judge appointed a federal receiver to run prison
healthcare, a move that is driving such spending up

Increasingly, the graying of the nation’s prisons is
causing costs to swell. While crime remains

even more dramatically. It now stands at $2.1 billion

overwhelmingly a young man’s game, between

annually, a 210 percent increase since 2000.

1992 and 2001, the number of state and federal
inmates aged 50 or older rose from 41,586 to

Health Care, Geriatrics Drive
Costs
As California has learned, medical care is one of
the principal cost drivers in corrections budgets
today. From 1998 to 2001, healthcare spending in
state prisons grew 10 percent annually, a 2004
report by the Council of State Governments found.
At the time of the study, medical care costs totaled
$3.7 billion annually and accounted for about 10
percent of correctional spending.11
Under the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Estelle v. Gamble, states are compelled to provide a
constitutionally adequate level of medical care, or
care that generally meets a “community standard.”

12 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

113,358, a staggering jump of 173 percent, a 2004
National Institute of Corrections report found.15
And older inmates are gradually making up a
larger proportion of the overall count. In the
federal prisons, for example, about one-quarter of
the population was over 50 in 1989. By 2010, that
proportion is forecast to grow to one-third. On the
state level, Oklahoma recently found that 16
percent of newly admitted inmates were over 45
years old—more than double the rate in 1990.16
While aging decreases criminal activity, it brings a
multitude of challenges in a prison setting. Because
they are often preyed upon by younger, stronger
inmates, older convicts may require special housing.17
Hearing and visual impairments, incontinence,
dietary intolerance, depression and the early onset of

chronic diseases are other complicating management
factors. As a result, the average cost associated with
an older prisoner is $70,000—two to three times that
of a younger prisoner.18
The bottom line: Some crimes are so heinous they
warrant a lifetime behind bars. But states are
spending more and more on inmates who are less
and less of a threat to public safety.

Staff Vacancies, Overtime
Spike
Another key cost driver is compensation for the
officers who patrol cellblocks.
In 2006, the most recent year for which data were
available, there were approximately 4.25 million
state government employees. About 11 percent of
them—or one in nine—worked in corrections,19 but
prisons are struggling mightily to keep a full
complement of officers on staff. The result—the
extensive use of overtime—is one of the biggest
budget busters confronting states.
In Wisconsin, for instance, overtime rose 27 percent
between 2005 and 2006, largely due to an
unanticipated 1,200-inmate jump in the prison
population.20 California’s overtime costs, meanwhile,
exploded by 35 percent between 2005 and 2006, as
the state struggled to keep its 33 prisons staffed
despite nearly 4,000 vacancies. Overtime costs in
California topped half a billion dollars in 2006, with
15 percent of the corrections workforce earning at
least $25,000 in overtime that year. Six employees
even earned more than the $212,179 annual salary
set aside for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.21

“Our policy and funding
The economic picture is so
dire in California, where a
decisions need to be
budget deficit of $14.5
based on good data and
billion is predicted for the
the latest research.
coming fiscal year, that the
Unless we have that
Republican governor has
foundation, I’m not
proposed releasing more than
confident we’re doing
22,100 inmates before their
everything we can to
terms are up. Eligibility would
fight crime effectively
be limited to nonviolent, nonand to be efficient with
serious offenders, and the
taxpayer dollars.”
plan excludes sex offenders
and those convicted of 25
AZ State Sen. John Huppenthal
other specific crimes.
(R-Phoenix)
Governor Schwarzenegger
Press release
February 6, 2007
says the state would save $1.1 billion through
his proposal, but so far it has received a cool
reception from both parties in the legislature.

Restitution, Child Support,
Tax Payments Lag
While overtime and healthcare costs show up
vividly in budget documents, the nation’s reliance
on incarceration for many low-risk offenders
inflicts economic hardship in many other, less
obvious ways. If they have a job at all, prisoners
are typically unable to earn more than a very low
wage, making it unlikely they will pay much, if
anything, in child support, victim restitution or
taxes. National statistics on such impacts are
scarce. But a few state-level reports document the
difference incarceration can make.
In a 2001 study, Massachusetts found that more
than three-quarters of the state’s prison population
had paid none of its mandated child support in the
previous 12 months. During the same timeframe,
more than two-thirds of parolees with child

Public Safety Performance Project

13

TAKING A BIGGER CUT
In fiscal year 2007, an estimated 1 in every 15 state general
fund dollars was spent on corrections.
Corrections as a percentage of
total general fund
expenditures, 2007
Oregon
Florida
Vermont
Colorado
California
Texas
Arizona
Montana
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Maryland
Louisiana
Missouri
Delaware
Ohio
South Dakota
Idaho
Utah
South Carolina
Virginia
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Washington
North Carolina
Kansas
Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
Alaska
Indiana
North Dakota
Illinois
Kentucky
Nebraska
Massachusetts
New York
New Jersey
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Connecticut
New Mexico
Maine
Wyoming
Hawaii
Minnesota
Alabama
National average

1987-2007
percentage
point change

10.9%
9.3%
9.3%
8.8%
8.6%
8.6%
8.5%
8.3%
7.8%
7.7%
7.6%
7.5%
7.4%
7.1%
7.0%
7.0%
6.9%
6.9%
6.7%
6.7%
6.7%
States in bold
6.6%
saw a decrease
6.4%
in the
6.2%
percentage of
5.9%
their general
5.9%
fund dedicated
to corrections.
5.7%
5.6%
5.6%
5.4%
5.4%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.1%
5.1%
4.9%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
4.2%
4.1%
4.0%
3.8%
2.7%
2.6%
6.8%

+4.6
+3.6
+5.2
+5.1
+3.8
+4.2
+0.8
+2.4
+4.1
+5.1
-1.5
+1.7
+3.7
+1.9
+2.5
+3.1
+3.8
+2.5
+0.8
-8.1
+4.0
+2.5
-2.1
+4.1
+2.6
+2.4
+0.9
+1.3
-2.0
-0.5
+1.5
+2.0
+0.3
+3.7
+0.8
+1.8
+1.1
+1.9
-2.0
+0.7
+1.4
+3.3
+2.0
-0.5
+0.4
+0.1
+1.3
+1.0
-2.4
+1.8

SOURCE: National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditure Report"
series; Percentage point increases are based on a reanalysis of data in this series.
NOTE: Michigan does not have a comparable figure because of the state’s general
fund definition. See Jurisdictional Notes.

14 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

support obligations managed to make at least
partial payments. Overall, the average prisoner
paid only $206 over the previous year for
child support obligations, while the average
amount paid by parolees was $1,538—more
than seven times as much.22
In Florida, meanwhile, statistics show that
offenders under supervision in the community
make substantial restitution payments to
victims. In FY 2004-2005, one study showed,
Florida probationers paid more than $37.3
million in restitution under mandatory
financial obligation agreements established at
the onset of their supervision.23

Crowding Out Other
Priorities
Year by year, corrections budgets are
consuming an ever larger chunk of state
general funds, leaving less and less in the pot
for other needs. Collectively, correctional
agencies now consume 6.8 percent of state
general funds, 2007 data show.24 That means
one in every 15 dollars in the states’ main pool
of discretionary money goes to corrections.
Considering all types of funds, corrections had
the second fastest rate of growth in FY 2006.
With a 9.2 percent jump, it trailed
transportation but outpaced increases in
spending on education and Medicaid.25
Some states spend an even larger proportion of
their budgets on corrections. Oregon, for
example, directed one in every 10 dollars to
corrections, while Florida and Vermont spent
one in 11. Minnesota and Alabama are at the
other extreme, spending less than 3 percent of

OF BOOKS AND BARS
their general fund dollars on corrections. Over
the past 20 years, corrections spending took up a
larger share of overall general fund expenditures
in 42 states.

Between 1987 and 2007, the amount states spent on
corrections more than doubled while the increase in higher
education spending has been moderate.

+127%

Corrections

Some policy makers are questioning the wisdom of
devoting an increasingly large slice of the budget
pie to incarceration, especially when recidivism
rates have remained discouragingly high. Are we
getting our money’s worth? Is our investment in
this system returning sufficient dividends for
victims, taxpayers and society at large?
On average, corrections is the fifth-largest state
budget category, behind health, elementary and
secondary education, higher education and
transportation. But nearly all corrections dollars
come from the states’ own coffers; healthcare, by
contrast, draws a majority of funding from the
federal government, primarily through Medicaid.
For some public officials, that distinction highlights
the effect of corrections spending on other priorities.

+21%
Higher
education

SOURCE: National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditure
Report" series; Inflation adjusted general fund figures are based on a
reanalysis of data in this series.

percent. Adjusted
to 2007 dollars, the
increase was 21
percent. Over the

Pre-K, Higher Ed Funding Lags
Higher education is of particular concern. Higher
education spending accounts for a roughly
comparable portion of state expenditures as
corrections, and other than tuition is paid for
almost entirely out of state rather than federal
funds. States don’t necessarily make explicit
choices between higher education and corrections
funding, but they do have to balance their budgets.
So, unlike the federal government, a dollar spent in
one area is unavailable for another.
In 1987, states collectively spent $33 billion of their
general funds on higher education. By 2007, they
were spending $72.88 billion, an increase of 121

“If we don’t change the course
now,we will be building
prisons forever and ever—
prisons we can’t afford.”

same timeframe,
inflation-adjusted
corrections

TX State Senator John Whitmire
(D-Houston)
Chair,
Senate
Criminal
Justice
Committee
spending rose 127
Austin-American Statesman
percent, from $10.6
January 31, 2007
billion ($19.4
billion in 2007
dollars) to more than $44 billion.
Some regional differences were more dramatic.
While inflation-adjusted prison spending rose 61
percent in the Northeast in the last 20 years, higher
education spending went the other way, dropping
by 5.5 percent. In the West, meanwhile, the number
of dollars allocated to prisons skyrocketed by 205
percent. At the same time, higher education
spending rose just 28 percent.

Public Safety Performance Project

15

MAKING DECISIONS
WHERE TO SPEND
While states don’t necessarily choose between higher
education and corrections, a dollar spent in one area is
unavailable for another.
Ratio of corrections to higher education
spending, 2007
Vermont
Michigan
Oregon
Connecticut
Delaware
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
California
Pennsylvania
Montana
Colorado
Arizona
Alaska
Maryland
Wisconsin
New York
New Hampshire
Ohio
New Jersey
Missouri
Florida
Virginia
Idaho
Washington
Oklahoma
Texas
Illinois
Georgia
Maine
South Carolina
Louisiana
Arkansas
Nevada
South Dakota
Utah
Tennessee
Indiana
Kansas
Iowa
West Virginia
Kentucky
North Carolina
New Mexico
Hawaii
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Dakota
Wyoming
Alabama
Minnesota

1.37
1.19
1.06
1.03
1.00 Five states
spent as much
0.98
or more on
0.83
corrections
0.83
than they did
0.81
on higher
0.81
education
0.78
0.77
For every
0.77
dollar spent on
0.74
higher
0.73
education,
0.73
Alaska spent
0.73
77 cents on
0.69
corrections
0.67
0.67
0.66
0.60
0.56
0.55
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.46
0.46
0.43
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.38
0.36
0.35
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.17

For every
dollar spent on
higher
education,
Georgia spent
50 cents on
corrections

50-state average: 60
cents spent on
corrections for every
dollar spent on higher
education

For every dollar
spent on higher
education,
Minnesota
spent 17 cents
on corrections.

SOURCE: Reanalysis of data presented in the National Association of State
Budget Officers, "State Expenditure Report" series

16 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

Corrections spending also competes with the
funding many states want to devote to early
childhood education, one of the most proven
crime prevention strategies. Research shows that
attending a high-quality pre-kindergarten
influences a child’s success both in school and in
life. One rigorous study that followed severely
disadvantaged children into adulthood showed
that participation in pre-kindergarten
dramatically reduced participation in juvenile
and adult crime, and increased high school
graduation, employment and earnings, with a
total benefit-cost ratio of 16 to 1.26
Backed with such evidence of success, states have
substantially increased support for high-quality,
voluntary pre-kindergarten. New state pre-k
funding exceeded $525 million in FY 2008, an
increase of more than 12 percent over FY07
expenditures, bringing total state investments in
early education across the country to $4.8 billion.27
Increasingly, state policy makers are finding that
a dollar spent for pre-k classes now can forestall
many more dollars for prison beds down the
road.

“It’s not good public
policy to take all of these
taxpayer dollars at a very
tough time, and invest it
in the prison system when
we ought to be investing
it in the things that are
going to transform the
economy, like education
and diversifying the
economy.”
MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D)
Associated Press
December 12, 2007

Controlling Crime
and Costs
he politics of crime fighting have
made most lawmakers understandably
wary of advocating a diverse punishment
strategy. There are politicians who have seen their
careers torpedoed by opponents who used a lone
vote, or even a comment, to create a dreaded “softon-crime” image at election time.

T

Still, in some states, policy makers on both sides of
the aisle are finding a safe path through this
minefield. In some cases, the soaring costs of
imprisonment have hindered spending on other
vital programs to a degree that many find
unacceptible. At the same time, polls show a shift in
public attitudes toward crime, which has dropped

offenders from returning to
crime and drugs. These
systems typically blend
incarceration for high-risk and
violent offenders with the
increased use of other
punishments for lawbreakers
guilty of less serious crimes.
Those at the vanguard include
states with longstanding
reputations for tough
sentencing. Texas, with the
second highest incarceration
rate in the nation, is one of
them.

“It’s far better for our
society if we can get
rid of the drug habit
than if they just serve
a short period of
incarceration and go
back to drugs after
they come out.”
TX State Rep. Jerry Madden
(R-Plano)
Chair, House
Corrections Committee

down the list of issues of most concern to voters.28
Taken together, these factors—coupled with new
strategies that can cut recidivism rates—are fueling

A New Path in Texas

a bipartisan appetite for new approaches.
Between 1985 and 2005, the Texas prison
Fortunately, public officials today enjoy a panoply

population jumped 300 percent, forcing a vast

of options as they consider how to rein in
expansion of their prison population while
maintaining public safety. Indeed, policy choices—
more than crime rates, general population growth
or other factors—are what determine the number of
people behind bars. Policy makers largely control
the levers that govern who goes in and when they
get out. In short, they control their own fiscal
destiny.

expansion of prison capacity. After investing $2.3
billion to add 108,000 beds, Texas didn’t get much
of a breather. Within less than a decade, its prisons
were teeming and experts forecast the arrival of
another 14,000-17,000 inmates within five years.

Some states already have broken away from old,
prison-fits-all patterns to create more diverse
correctional systems that are proving more costeffective and at least as effective at preventing

In 2007, legislators from both parties decided it
was time for a course change. Rather than spend
$523 million on more prison cells, they authorized
a virtual makeover of the correctional system.
Anchoring their approach was a dramatic
expansion of drug treatment and diversion beds,
many of them in secure facilities. Legislators also
approved broad changes in parole practices and

Public Safety Performance Project

17

expanded drug courts. In all, the reforms are
expected to save Texas $210 million over the next
two years—plus an additional $233 million if the
recidivism rate drops and the state can avoid
contingency plans to build three new prisons.29
“It’s always been safer politically to build the next
prison, rather than stop and see whether that’s
really the smartest thing to do,” said state Sen.
John Whitmire of
Houston, chairman of the
“For continued
senate’s criminal justice
funding, we have to
committee. “But we’re at a
achieve that goal
point where I don’t think
statewide. The DOC
we can afford to do that
has announced to us
anymore.”

our funding will no
longer be based solely
on how many clients
we have, but on our
performance.”
Ken Moore, Director,
Reno County (KS)
Community Corrections
The Hutchinson News
January 19, 2008

At the start of 2008, the
future looked promising in
the Lone Star state. For the
next five years, new
projections by the

“intermediate” sanctions for parolees and
probationers who violate conditions of their
release.
One common target for diversion is nonviolent
offenders with drug addictions or mental illnesses.
Since 2004, at least 13 states have adopted
legislation creating or expanding community
corrections options for nonviolent offenders,
including drug courts that combine the “carrot” of
substance abuse treatment with the “stick” of
penalties for missing treatment or failing a drug
test.30
Another focus of diversion programs is those who
have broken the rules of their release on probation
or parole. In 2005, parole violators accounted for
more than one-third of all prison admissions, the
federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reports.31
Similarly, half the people in U.S. jails are there
because they failed on probation in the
community.

Legislative Budget Board
show, the prison trend is a
flat line.

Managing Prison Admissions
As Texas has found, two principal variables govern
the size of the crowd on a state’s prison yards—the
number of admissions and the length of time an
inmate remains behind bars. Even the smallest
modifications can yield a marked slowdown—or
acceleration—in population growth.
At the front end of the pipeline, states are reaping
savings primarily through two maneuvers—the
diversion of lower-risk offenders away from prison
into less-costly settings and the use of a variety of

18 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

While some violators are reincarcerated for new
crimes, a significant number wind up back in
prison for so-called “technical” violations—
transgressions such as a failed drug test or missed
appointment with a supervisory agent. California
locks up massive numbers of violators, scrambling
to accommodate them in a sprawling, 171,444inmate system so crowded that a three-judge panel
may order a population reduction. A 2005 study
showed that more than two-thirds of parolees in
the Golden State were returned to prison within
three years of release; of those, 39 percent were
due to technical violations.32
Viewing technical violators as a lesser threat to
society than other offenders, states are increasingly
opting to punish them with community-based

sanctions. These include a mix of day reporting
centers, electronic monitoring systems, and
community service. This strategy makes offenders
pay for their missteps but keeps prison beds free
for more violent and chronic lawbreakers. And, it
makes it more likely the violators will be able to
pay victim restitution, child support and taxes.

Adjusting
Length of Stay

“Community release
programs that are
conducted under strict
guidelines and
conditions enhance
public safety because
offenders who re-enter
society under parole
supervision are far less
likely to re-offend than
those who are released
without the benefit of a
supervised release.”

To gain a sense of public attitudes about such

The other key lever states
can pull to tame prison
growth is adjusting the
length of time inmates
remain behind bars. In some
states with indeterminate
sentencing, such as Texas,
parole boards are taking
pains to ensure their parole
grant rates are meeting the
minimum level mandated by
law. Even a small tweak—
CT Gov. Jodi Rell (R)
such as the 5 percent
Press release
January 27, 2008
increase in grants by the
Texas Board of Pardons and
Parole between 2006 and 2007—can have an
appreciable thinning effect on the prison population.

significant new spending, legislators commissioned
a survey, which revealed that most Kansans

More commonly, states are opting to use “earned

favored combining some construction with

time,” or credits that shorten an inmate’s term, to

programs to help offenders on probation succeed
and avoid reincarceration. At the recommendation

control the prison numbers. Typically, offenders
are offered such credits if they complete

of a bipartisan task force, the Kansas Legislature

rehabilitation or education programs, demonstrate

offered grants to community corrections agencies
to cut revocations for those on parole and
probation by 20 percent. Key elements of the
strategy include tracking and monitoring
revocations and creating guidelines to assist judges
and officers in revocation decisions.33

good behavior or meet some other benchmark. In
addition to freeing up cell space, this strategy aids
wardens and correctional officers by giving
inmates an incentive to behave, and helps cut
reoffense rates by increasing participation in riskreducing programs.

“By holding individuals who committed less
serious crimes accountable for completing
treatment and vocational programs, we will ensure
we have space in our prisons to keep violent
offenders behind bars,” said Gov. Kathleen

Nevada is among the states enjoying benefits from
this approach. With projections for dramatic prison
growth over the coming decade, Nevada at the
start of 2007 faced a serious fiscal struggle that
threatened spending on other key government
services. With public safety paramount, policy
makers decided to get creative. First, the legislature

Kansas is among the states giving this approach an
aggressive try. In 2006, Kansas faced bleak failure
rates among offenders, with probation or parole
revocations accounting for two-thirds of prison
admissions, and nine out of 10 of those revocations
resulting from technical violations. Meanwhile, the
state was bracing for a 22 percent increase in its
incarcerated population by 2016—and a bill of
nearly $500 million for new prison construction
and operations.

Sebelius, a vocal supporter of her state’s direction.

Public Safety Performance Project

19

CONTROLLING CRIME AND PRISON POPULATIONS: TWO LEVERS
States that want to protect public safety while slowing the growth of their prison populations can pull two basic
policy levers: they can divert a greater number of low-risk offenders from prison; they can reduce the length of time
that the lowest-risk offenders stay behind bars; and, of course, they can do some combination of the two.
Both options require strong community corrections programs to ensure that offenders in the community remain crimeand drug-free.

Front-End:
Sentencing
and Diversion

Targeted penalty changes that steer selected low-risk offenders to
community corrections programs or modify mandatory minimums.
Comprehensive sentencing guidelines that allow states to decide as a
matter of policy which types of offenders should go to prison and which
are appropriate for community corrections.

REDUCE
PRISON
ADMISSIONS
Back-End:
Accountability
for Parole and
Probation
Violations

REDUCE
LENGTH
OF STAY

Drug courts that break the cycle of crime and addiction with frequent
drug tests, a continuum of treatment services and increasing penalties
for violations.

Release:
Risk
Reduction
Before
Reentry

Intermediate sanctions such as day reporting centers for offenders
who break the rules of their release, to ensure that each violation
receives a swift, certain and proportionate response.
Short-term residential facilities for persistent rule violators with
substance abuse problems.
Performance incentives that shorten terms of supervision for offenders
who comply with their conditions and fulfill obligations such as victim
restitution and child support.

Risk reduction credits that allow slightly earlier release for inmates
who complete treatment and education programs designed to reduce
recidivism.
Risk-based release instruments that use analysis of actual recidivism
patterns to help releasing authorities decide who should remain behind
bars and who is ready for release.
Sufficient program availability in prisons and the community so
release isn’t delayed because inmates cannot complete requirements.

NOTE: For a summary of recent and upcoming state activity on sentencing and corrections issues, see National Conference of State Legislatures, “State
Sentencing and Corrections Legislation: 2007 Action, 2008 Outlook,” January 2008. www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/pewpublicsafety.htm.

and executive branch agreed to expand earned
time credits for prisoners, except sex offenders and
those convicted of violent crimes. In passing AB
510, lawmakers increased the amount of good time
an inmate could earn for good conduct and
completion of education and treatment programs.
To achieve an added population benefit, Nevada
made the law retroactive to prisoners sentenced as
long ago as 2000.

20 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

So far, the results in Nevada have fulfilled
expectations, and, after the bump upward in 2007,
the prison population has begun a moderate
decline. A commission created to track impacts of
the reforms has found no increases in key
indicators such as crime, arrests or court filings.

A Final Word
As a nation, the United States has long anchored its
punishment policy in bricks and mortar. The
tangible feel of a jail or prison, with its surefire
incapacitation of convicts, has been an unquestioned
weapon of choice in our battle against crime. Recent
studies show, however, that a continual increase in
our reliance on incarceration will pay declining
dividends in crime prevention. In short, experts say,
expanding prisons will accomplish less and cost
more than it has in the past.34

The national inmate count marches onward and
upward, almost exactly as it was projected to do
last year. And with one in 100 adults looking out at
this country from behind an expensive wall of bars,
the potential of new approaches cannot be ignored.

Meanwhile, the breathtaking rise in correctional
costs is triggering alarm in statehouses around the
nation. By inevitably reducing the amount of tax
dollars that are available for other vital needs,
relentless prison growth is drawing closer scrutiny
from lawmakers and the public. In some states,
that scrutiny has evolved into action, producing
encouraging results both for public safety and
public spending. These states are finding that by
broadening the mix of sanctions in their
correctional tool box, they can save money and
still make lawbreakers pay.

“Nebraska’s prison population is
projected to grow in the coming years,
and the concept we’ve embraced through
community corrections is that there are
better solutions to this challenge than to
simply build another maximum-security
prison.”
NE Gov. Dave Heineman (R)
Press release
February 12, 2007

Public Safety Performance Project

21

Endnotes
1

2

3

4

5

Langan, Dr. Patrick A., and Dr. David J. Levin, Recidivism of
Prisoners Released in 1994, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: June 2002)
International incarceration rates from International Centre for
Prison Studies at King's College, London, “World Prison
Brief.” www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/worldbrief/world_brief.html
State projections were reported in Public Safety, Public Spending:
Forecasting America’s Prison Population, 2007-2011, Public Safety
Performance Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts
(Washington, D.C.: February 2007).
Sabol, Dr. William J., et al, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear
2006. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
(Washington, D.C.: June 2007) All incarceration rates for
subpopulations in this report are derived from this and other
Bureau of Justice Statistics reports.
The number of offenders sentenced to prison for technical
violations increased 7.1 percent in FY 2004-05, 4.3 percent in
FY 2005-06, and 5.8 percent in FY 2006-07.

6

Workpapers of the Criminal Justice Estimating Conference,
October 8, 2007. Tallahassee, FL: EDR.

7

Public Safety, Public Spending, p. ii. These cost estimates are
cumulative, including operating and capital expenditures
from 2007 to 2011.

8

Public Safety, Public Spending, p. 33.

9

Public Safety, Public Spending, p.22.

10 Office of California State Controller Steve Westly, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Review Report:
Healthcare Delivery System (Sacramento, CA: August, 2006).
11 Council of State Governments, Trends Alert, Information for
State Decision-Makers, Corrections Health Care Costs, by Chad
Kinsella, January 2004.
12 Ibid.
13 Prison’s Deadliest Inmate, Hepatitis C, Escaping: Publichealth Workers Warn of Looming Epidemic of ‘Silent Killer,’
Associated Press (Vacaville, CA: March 14, 2007).
14 Fox, Rena K. et al, “Hepatitis C Virus Infection Among
Prisoners in the California State Correctional System,”
Clinical Infectious Diseases (June 2005).
15 Anno, Jaye B., et al, Addressing the Needs of Elderly, Chronically
Ill, and Terminally Ill Inmates, U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections, Criminal Justice Institute
(Middleton, CT: February, 2004).
16 Turley, Jonathan, George Washington University Law
School professor. Testimony before the House Judiciary
Committee, Dec. 6, 2007.
17 Addressing the Needs of Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Terminally Ill
Inmates

18 Ibid.
19 U.S. Census Bureau, State Government Employment and
Payroll data: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesst.html.
For more, see Appendix A-5.
20 Marley, Patrick, “Prison officers rack up overtime,”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 12, 2007.
21 Chorneau, Tom, “$500 million in OT at state prisons,” San
Francisco Chronicle, July 15, 2007
22 Thoennes, Dr. Nancy, Child Support Profile: Massachusetts
Incarcerated and Paroled Parent, Center for Policy Research,
(Denver, CO: May 2002).
23 Florida Department of Corrections, Restitution and Other
Monetary Obligations Collected from Offenders Under Supervision in
FY 2004-05, available online at
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/ccmyths.html.
24 National Association of State Budget Officers, "State
Expenditure Report FY 2006," December 2007.
http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/fy2006er.pdf
25 Ibid.
26 Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S.,
Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The
High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40. (Monographs of
the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14).
Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
27 Prek Now, Votes Count, Legislative Action on Prek Fiscal Year 2008
(Washington, D.C.: September 2007). www.preknow.org.
28 In the latest Gallup Poll, only 2 percent of Americans volunteered “crime” as the most important problem facing the
country. In March 1977, by contrast, 15 percent of Americans
polled by Gallup volunteered “crime” as the most important
problem facing the country. Cited in Sam Roberts, “All Crime
Is Local In '08 Politics,” The New York Times, Sept. 16, 2007.
29 For more detail on Texas and the legislators who helped
advance this legislation, see the following reports: Council of
State Governments Justice Center, Justice Reinvestment State
Brief: Texas, and Public Safety Performance Project, The Pew
Charitable Trusts, Changing Direction: A Bipartisan Team Paves a
New Path for Sentencing and Corrections in Texas.
30 Vera Institute of Justice, Managing State Prison Growth: Key
Trends in Sentencing Policy (New York, January 2008).
31 Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006
32 Ibid.
33 For more detail on Kansas and a national discussion of the
issues surrounding parole violators, see the following reports:
Council of State Governments Justice Center, Justice
Reinvestment State Brief: Kansas, and Public Safety Performance
Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts, When Offenders Break the
Rules: Smart Responses to Parole and Probation Violations.
34 Vera Institute of Justice, Reconsidering Incarceration: New
Directions for Reducing Crime, by Don Stemen (New York:
January 2007).

Public Safety Performance Project

23

Methodology Notes
This report estimates the number of prisoners
housed in state and federal correctional facilities as
of January 1, 2008. A separate estimate was made
for the number of persons in local jail facilities on
that date. In order to calculate the national
incarceration rate, we also estimated the adult
resident population.
The 2008 national incarceration rate in this report is
not comparable to the rates published for prior years
by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), or to those issued last year by the
Pew Public Safety Performance Project. The
difference occurs because this report uses the adult
resident population to calculate the incarceration rate
for adults, while the BJS incarceration rates and the
earlier Pew report are based on the total U.S.

The first phase was a two-page survey which the
Association of State Correctional Administrators
(ASCA) sent to each DOC and the FBOP
requesting its total jurisdictional count as well as
certain subpopulations (e.g., pretrial, sentenced,
males and females, etc.) comprising the total
jurisdictional count. At the same time, the JFA
Institute sought to obtain each department’s total
jurisdictional count through a combination of
emails and phone calls to each DOC and searches
of the DOC websites for inmate population
statistics. The objective was to ensure that through
two organizations and two methods we were able
to secure the most accurate count for each state
and the FBOP. We investigated and reconciled any
differences in the total jurisdictional counts, often
through follow-up emails or phone calls to the states.

population, including those under age 18.
This
Report

Bureau of
Justice Statistics

Inmates/

Inmates/

Adult Population=
Adult Incarceration Rate

Total Population=
Incarceration Rate

State and Federal Prison
Population Estimate
In making the state and federal prisoner
population estimate, we took a two-pronged
approach to obtain the count of inmates under the
jurisdiction of each state’s Department of
Corrections (DOC) and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (FBOP) on January 1, 2008.

For many DOCs, prisoners under their jurisdiction
are housed not only in their own prison facilities,
but also in facilities controlled by other agencies
(i.e., local jails, other states’ prisons, federal prisons,
and private prisons). To avoid double-counting, we
specified that the states’ responses should include
the inmates under a DOC’s jurisdiction regardless
of the inmates’ locations, and exclude any inmates
housed by a DOC who are not under that DOC’s
jurisdiction. As a hypothetical example, Mississippi
would exclude inmates they are housing in their
prisons for Texas while Texas would include its
prisoners housed in Mississippi.
Unless otherwise noted, for the January 1, 2008
inmate population count, we utilized the total
jurisdictional count that each state DOC provided

24 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

on the ASCA survey. For the 2006 inmate
population count, we utilized the December 31,
2006 jurisdictional prisoner count from Table 1 of
the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Prisoners in 2006”
report. Note that some states provided counts on
dates other than January 1, 2008.

Since there are more than 3,000 local jails in the
United States, it was not feasible to conduct a
complete national survey. Instead, we extrapolated
from the most recent national trends as reported
by BJS, which does conduct an annual survey
using a sophisticated sampling methodology.

Many states provided their total jurisdictional
counts before performing the data verification
process they would normally undertake before
publishing their official counts. As a result, the
inmate figures in this report may differ from total
jurisdictional counts subsequently published. We
expect any such differences to be minor.

Table 1 shows the BJS jail population counts from
its recent surveys. There has been considerable
fluctuation in the rate of growth over the past six
years. The average rate of growth has been 3.56
percent, but the growth rate slowed considerably

State-specific information about the source of the
counts and any additional explanations appear in
“Jurisdictional Notes” following this section.
The inmate count does not include a significant
number of inmates held in facilities other than
federal and state prisons and local jails. It excludes
those in custody in territorial prisons, facilities
administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, military facilities, jails in Indian
country, and juvenile facilities. At yearend 2006,
there were 126,230 inmates in custody in these
facilities, three-quarters of them juveniles,
according to the most recent count by the Justice
Department. However, the count does include
approximately 8,500 juveniles in jails or prisons.

Local Jail Population
Estimate
This estimate takes into account people who are
incarcerated in local (county and city) jails.
Typically these inmates are being held pending
trial or have been sentenced to less than a year.

in 2006.
To help inform our estimate, we surveyed some of
the nation’s largest jail systems during December
2007. Together these jails represent 12 percent of
the nation’s jail population. Here we see significant
fluctuation, with an overall increase of only 1
percent since midyear 2004.
Since the BJS surveys represent the populations as
of June 30, and given that jail populations have
severe seasonal fluctuations, the December 2007
jail counts are not directly comparable to the June
30 BJS counts. Still, those counts offer some
evidence that jail growth may indeed have slowed.
So using the average rate of growth since 2000
may well over-estimate the actual jail population.
For these reasons we decided to use the 2006
growth rate of 2.47 percent. An estimate of the
January 1, 2008 population must cover the 18month period beginning with the last BJS report,
from mid-year 2006. So we multiplied the 2.47
percent annual rate by a factor of 1.5 which
produces an 18-month growth rate of 3.7 percent.
This produced an estimated January 1, 2008 jail
population of 794,417.

Public Safety Performance Project

25

Table 1: Estimate of Local Jail Growth Rate
Year

Jail Population

% Change

2000

621,149

2001

631,240

1.62%

2002

665,475

5.42%

2003

691,301

3.88%

2004

713,990

3.28%

2005

747,529

4.70%

2006

766,010

2.47%

Average Change 2000-2006
Jan. 2008 estimate

794,417

3.56%
2.47% (annual)
3.70% (18-month)

Sources: 2000-2006 from Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prison and Jail Inmates at
Mid-Year” series, 2000-2006; Jan. 2008 estimate from JFA Institute

Table 2: U.S. Adult Resident Population Calculation
Population 18 Years
Year

and Over

2000

209,851,322

2001

212,591,294

1.31%

2002

215,220,145

1.24%

2003

217,710,885

1.16%

2004

220,343,552

1.21%

2005

222,972,821

1.19%

2006

225,662,922

1.21%

Average Change 2000-2006
Jan. 2008 estimate

229,786,080

% Change

For purposes of calculating the national adult
incarceration rate, state prisoners being held in
local jails were backed out of the jail figures to
avoid double-counting. Our survey of the state
prison population included identifying the number
of these locally-held state inmates. Based on these
figures, the unduplicated count of jail inmates on
January 1, 2008 was estimated at 723,131.
January 1, 2008 Local Jail Estimate
State Inmates in Local Jails (2008)
Unduplicated Local Jail Estimate

794,417
-71,286
= 723,131

If the local jail population had grown by 21,397
fewer inmates than we estimate, the national adult
incarceration rate would be exactly 1 in 100. That
would result in an annual growth rate of 0.61% for
the 18 months ending on January 1, 2008. In each
year since 2000, the jail growth rate has been at
least 2.5 times higher than that. If there was no
growth in the jail population between mid-year
2006 and January 1, 2008, the national adult
incarceration rate would be 1 in 100.3.

1.22%
1.22% (annual)
1.83% (18-month)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Population by Selected
Age Groups and Sex for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006; Jan.
2008 estimate from JFA Institute

National Adult Population
Estimate
There is not an official U.S. Census count of the
nation’s adult population (persons age 18 years
and older) for January 1, 2008. The Census
Bureau has issued a total national population
estimate for July 1, 2007, but at press time it had
not yet released estimates by age.
Such estimates are available from 2000 to 2006. To
make our estimate of the January 1, 2008 adult
population we applied the average annual change
since 2000 to the most recent Census estimate.
Specifically, we calculated the average annual

26 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

percentage change in the census estimates for the
population 18 years and over from July 1, 2000 to
July 1, 2006. To project forward 18 months from
the most recent census estimate, we multiplied the
average annual percentage change from 2000 to
2006 (1.22%) by 1.5 and applied that result to the
census estimate for July 1, 2006 for the population
18 years and over (Table 2). This yields a January
1, 2008 adult population estimate of 229,786,080.

Calculation of National
Incarceration Rate
The actual prisoner counts and estimates above yield
the following overall computation of the nation’s
adult incarceration rate as of January 1, 2008.
State incarceration rates were not calculated for this
report due to the lack of statewide jail population
counts or a reliable method to estimate them.

Cost Estimates
State corrections spending figures in this report are
from the most recent data available from the
National Association of State Budget Officers
(NASBO). NASBO explains that its corrections
spending totals include “the costs to build and
operate prison systems and may include spending
on juvenile justice programs and alternatives to
incarceration such as probation and parole.” There
is no current national data source that tracks
spending on prisons alone. Some states operate
parole and probation systems in addition to prison
systems, and these costs would be included in the
figures. In many other states, probation or juvenile
systems operate at the county level or within the
judiciary, so these costs would not be included in
the state totals. In addition, jails and other
correctional programs operated by local
jurisdictions are not included in the figures, which
reflect spending by state governments.

Jail Population (estimate, unduplicated)
723,131
Prison Population (state/federal count) +1,596,127
Total Inmate Population
2,319,258
Adult Population Estimate =
229,786,080
Inmates/Adults =
1 in 99.1
(or 1,009 inmates per 100,000 adult residents)
Finally, inmate populations were not adjusted for
illegal U.S. residents because such residents are not
excluded from the census counts upon which our
adult population estimate is based.

Public Safety Performance Project

27

Jurisdictional Notes
Unless noted below, for the January 1, 2008 inmate population count we used the total jurisdictional count
that each state DOC provided on the survey conducted for the Public Safety Performance Project by the
Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA). For the December 31, 2006 count we used the
December 31, 2006 jurisdictional prisoner count from Table 1 of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’
“Prisoners in 2006” report.
State

Notes

Alabama

Alabama’s 2008 count is the total jurisdictional population on 12/31/2007 shown in the Alabama
DOC’s December 2007 Monthly Report and reported by phone to the JFA Institute.

Alaska

Alaska’s 2008 count was reported by phone to the JFA Institute.

Arkansas

Arkansas’ count excludes about 1,500 inmates under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Community Correction.

California

California’s 2008 count is from 12/31/2007.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia is not included as a separate jurisdiction in this report. D.C. prisoners
were transferred to federal custody in 2001.

Federal Bureau of Prisons The BOP reported its total as 199,342, which included 189 juveniles and 164 long term boarders.
These populations were not counted in this survey, resulting in a comparable total of 198,989.
Florida

Florida’s 2008 count is from 12/31/07.

Georgia

Georgia’s 2008 count represents the population in or awaiting DOC prison beds on 12/28/2007,
and excludes offenders in or awaiting beds in residential probation facilities (5,287).

Illinois

Illinois’ 2008 count is from 2/8/08.

Indiana

One component of Indiana’s 2008 count (state inmates in local jails) is from 12/28/07; the
remaining counts are from 1/1/08.

Iowa

Iowa’s 2008 count includes inmates awaiting trial for civil commitment as sex offenders (9). It also
includes detainees held for federal pretrial (about 116), a portion of whom are also serving Iowa
prison sentences.

Michigan

Michigan’s figure for corrections share of general fund spending is not comparable with other
states. In 1994, Michigan separated its K-12 education system into a different fund. The resulting
general fund was significantly smaller, and thus expenditures for corrections and all other state
agencies account for a much greater portion of it. Calculations that would make Michigan’s
spending patterns comparable with other states were not available.

Minnesota

Minnesota submitted inmate population counts for July 1, 2007; more recent figures were not
available.

Mississippi

Mississippi’s 1/1/08 count includes offenders pending file review (111) and out on court order
(272).

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s 2008 count includes inmates assigned to Administrative Home Confinement
(electronic monitoring).

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s 2008 count is from 12/31/2007. Numbers include inmates sentenced in other states but
located in either a state or contract facility under the Oklahoma DOC jurisdiction (about 69).

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s 2006 count is based on the total population count on 12/31/06 from Rhode Island
Department of Corrections, not on the BJS 2006 count.

Texas

Texas’ 2008 count shows the 12/31/07 total population count that is equivalent to the 2006 BJS
count, as provided by the Legislative Budget Board to the Public Safety Performance Project. This
count includes inmates that Texas does not consider in its counting definition as being part of its
prison, state jail and treatment institutions. For example, BJS included in its December 2006 count
over 13,000 inmates in county jails sentenced as felons or parole violators awaiting a hearing.
TDCJ considers these inmates as being under the jurisdiction of local jail authorities.

28 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

Appendices
TABLE A-1 State, Regional and National Prison Counts
Prison Population 12/31/06
U.S. Total
Federal
State
Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
West
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

1,570,644
193,046
1,377,598
177,600
20,566
2,120
11,032
2,805
27,371
63,315
44,397
3,779
2,215
261,466
45,106
26,091
8,875
8,816
51,577
9,108
30,167
4,407
1,363
49,166
3,359
23,431
623,563
28,241
13,729
7,206
92,969
52,792
20,000
37,012
22,945
21,068
37,460
26,243
23,616
25,745
172,116
36,688
5,733
314,969
5,069
35,892
175,512
22,481
5,967
7,124
3,572
12,901
6,639
13,707
6,430
17,561
2,114

Prison Population 1/1/08

# Change

% Change

1,596,127
198,989
1,397,138
178,692
20,784
2,144
11,364
2,991
26,822
62,620
46,028
3,807
2,132
262,586
45,305
26,249
9,419
8,756
50,326
9,573
30,324
4,472
1,440
50,730
3,302
22,690
641,024
29,412
14,314
7,081
97,416
55,205
22,402
37,718
23,342
22,335
38,425
25,918
24,217
26,838
171,790
38,555
6,056
314,836
5,306
37,800
171,444
22,841
6,036
7,319
3,431
13,552
6,540
13,855
6,533
18,126
2,053

25,483
5,943
19,540
1,092
218
24
332
186
-549
-695
1,631
28
-83
1,120
199
158
544
-60
-1,251
465
157
65
77
1,564
-57
-741
17,461
1,171
585
-125
4,447
2,413
2,402
706
397
1,267
965
-325
601
1,093
-326
1,867
323
-133
237
1,908
-4,068
360
69
195
-141
651
-99
148
103
565
-61

1.6%
3.1%
1.4%
0.6%
1.1%
1.1%
3.0%
6.6%
-2.0%
-1.1%
3.7%
0.7%
-3.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.6%
6.1%
-0.7%
-2.4%
5.1%
0.5%
1.5%
5.6%
3.2%
-1.7%
-3.2%
2.8%
4.1%
4.3%
-1.7%
4.8%
4.6%
12.0%
1.9%
1.7%
6.0%
2.6%
-1.2%
2.5%
4.2%
-0.2%
5.1%
5.6%
0.0%
4.7%
5.3%
-2.3%
1.6%
1.2%
2.7%
-3.9%
5.0%
-1.5%
1.1%
1.6%
3.2%
-2.9%

Public Safety Performance Project

Sources: 2006
figures - 12/31/06
Bureau of Justice
Statistics
Jurisdictional
Count of Prisoners
2008 figures 1/1/2008 Public
Safety
Performance
Project
Jurisdictional
Count of Prisoners
Notes: Change is
from 12/31/06 to
1/1/08 unless
otherwise
explained in
"Jurisdictional
Notes"
Many states have
not completed
their data
verification
process. Final
published figures
may differ slightly.
The District of
Columbia is not
included. D.C.
prisoners were
transferred to
federal custody in
2001.

29

TABLE A-2 State Corrections Spending, FY 2007

State total
Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan*
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
West
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

General Fund
(in millions)

Percent of
General Fund

$44,062
$8,010
$661
$122
$1,139
$92
$1,468
$2,622
$1,638
$157
$111
$8,443
$1,125
$649
$313
$312
$2,063
$438
$586
$172
$55
$1,766
$74
$890
$14,182
$388
$314
$240
$2,719
$998
$454
$552
$1,084
$227
$1,083
$461
$444
$619
$3,292
$1,136
$171
$13,427
$227
$895
$8,795
$599
$205
$179
$142
$222
$241
$684
$324
$832
$82

6.8%
5.2%
4.4%
4.1%
5.1%
6.6%
4.9%
5.1%
6.2%
4.9%
9.3%
6.9%
5.2%
5.3%
5.9%
5.6%
22.6%
2.7%
7.4%
5.2%
5.3%
7.0%
7.0%
6.7%
6.8%
2.6%
7.7%
7.1%
9.3%
5.4%
5.2%
7.5%
7.6%
5.4%
5.7%
7.8%
6.7%
5.6%
8.6%
6.7%
4.6%
7.9%
5.3%
8.5%
8.6%
8.8%
3.8%
6.9%
8.3%
6.4%
4.2%
10.9%
6.9%
5.9%
4.0%

30 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

Source: National Association of State
Budget Officers, State Expenditure Report
FY 2006. FY 2007 NASBO figures are
estimates.
Notes: Michigan’s percentage is not
comparable with other states. See
Jurisdiction Notes for additional detail
about Michigan’s figure.
The District of Columbia is not included.
D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal
custody in 2001.

TABLE A-3 State Spending on Corrections and Higher

Education, FY 1987-2007
State General Fund
Higher Education
Spending,
FY 2007 (in millions)
State total
Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
West
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

$72,888
$10,253
$644
$247
$1,160
$126
$2,204
$3,587
$2,015
$189
$81
$15,377
$2,209
$1,610
$827
$785
$1,728
$2,558
$880
$604
$229
$2,551
$182
$1,214
$28,874
$1,712
$683
$239
$4,110
$1,979
$1,281
$1,193
$1,456
$760
$3,310
$897
$911
$1,527
$6,444
$1,903
$469
$18,623
$296
$1,158
$10,652
$764
$666
$322
$175
$513
$762
$648
$799
$1,507
$361

Ratio of Corrections Ratio of Corrections Change in Ratio,
to Higher Education to Higher Education
FY 1987-2007
General Fund
General Fund
Spending, FY 2007
Spending, FY 1987
0.60
0.78
1.03
0.49
0.98
0.73
0.67
0.73
0.81
0.83
1.37
0.55
0.51
0.40
0.38
0.40
1.19
0.17
0.67
0.28
0.24
0.69
0.41
0.73
0.49
0.23
0.46
1.00
0.66
0.50
0.35
0.46
0.74
0.30
0.33
0.51
0.49
0.41
0.51
0.60
0.36
0.72
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.78
0.31
0.56
0.81
0.43
0.32
1.06
0.41
0.55
0.23

For every
dollar Ohio
spent on
higher
education,
it spent 69
cents on
corrections.

0.32
0.46
0.35
0.31
0.30
0.29
0.49
0.61
0.20
0.32
0.37
0.25
0.30
0.24
0.16
0.23
0.38
0.09
0.25
0.16
0.08
0.28
0.16
0.20
0.32
0.25
0.14
0.45
0.34
0.28
0.21
0.41
0.71
0.20
0.19
0.27
0.35
0.36
0.17
0.79
0.11
0.30
0.48
0.39
0.32
0.18
0.23
0.19
0.29
0.44
0.29
0.34
0.23
0.23
0.13

0.28
0.32
0.68
0.18
0.68
0.44
0.18
0.12
0.61
0.51
1.00
0.30
0.21
0.16
0.22
0.17
0.81
0.08
0.42
0.13
0.16
0.41
0.25
0.54
0.17
-0.03
0.32
0.56
0.32
0.22
0.14
0.05
0.03
0.10
0.14
0.25
0.14
0.04
0.34
-0.19
0.26
0.42
0.29
0.38
0.51
0.60
0.08
0.37
0.52
0.00
0.03
0.71
0.17
0.32
0.10

Public Safety Performance Project

Source: Data and
reanalysis of data
from National
Association of
State Budget
Officers, State
Expenditure
Reports. FY 2007
NASBO figures are
estimates.
Notes: The District
of Columbia is not
included. D.C.
prisoners were
transferred to
federal custody in
2001.

31

TABLE A-4 National Corrections and Higher Education

Spending Trends, FY 1987-2007
Corrections as
Percent of All
State General
Fund Spending
Sources: Spending
data is from
National
Association of
State Budget
Officers, State
Expenditure
Reports or
reanalysis thereof.
FY 2007 NASBO
figures are
estimates.
Note: 1987-2006
prison populations
from Bureau of
Justice Statistics
2007 prison
population from
this report (as of
1/1/08 for most
states)

2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987

0.6

6.8%
6.8%
7.2%
7.0%
7.2%
6.9%
6.9%
7.1%
7.1%
5.9%
6.8%
4.3%
4.4%
3.9%
3.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.5%
5.3%
6.9%
5.0%

State General
State General
Fund Corrections
Fund Higher
Spending
Education Spending
(in millions)
(in millions)
$44,062
$40,661
$38,755
$35,744
$35,285
$34,364
$33,571
$32,195
$29,733
$27,021
$25,440
$24,847
$23,251
$20,062
$17,547
$16,504
$15,890
$14,453
$12,887
$11,744
$10,619

In 1987, for every
dollar spent on
higher education,
32 cents was spent
on corrections ...

0.4

Ratio of Corrections
to Higher Education
General Fund
Spending

National
Prison
Population

0.60
0.60
0.61
0.60
0.57
0.56
0.54
0.55
0.57
0.53
0.53
0.54
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.42
0.40
0.37
0.35
0.33
0.32

1,596,127
1,570,861
1,527,929
1,496,629
1,468,601
1,440,144
1,404,032
1,391,261
1,363,701
1,299,096
1,240,659
1,181,919
1,125,874
1,054,702
969,301
882,500
825,559
773,919
712,364
627,600
585,084

$72,888
$67,792
$63,202
$59,819
$61,638
$61,784
$62,079
$58,119
$52,470
$51,461
$48,352
$46,279
$44,588
$41,812
$40,137
$39,567
$39,267
$38,729
$36,919
$35,108
$33,026

... while in 2007, for
every dollar spent on
higher education, 60
cents was spent on
corrections.

0.2

General fund spending on corrections
vs. general fund spending on higher
education
0.0

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
SOURCE: National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditure Report"
series; Inflation adjusted general fund figures are based on a reanalysis of data in
this series.

32 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

TABLE A-5 State Employees in Corrections Workforce, 2006

(by Percent)

(by Region)
State total
Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Midwest
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
West
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

11.0%
10.2%
12.6%
6.1%
7.1%
7.1%
6.5%
13.6%
10.9%
8.2%
8.3%
10.3%
10.3%
8.3%
6.0%
8.5%
12.8%
5.2%
13.9%
8.6%
3.8%
11.8%
6.3%
14.0%
12.1%
5.7%
8.5%
11.0%
15.1%
15.9%
5.2%
8.7%
13.1%
6.4%
15.0%
8.4%
9.9%
8.8%
16.9%
11.7%
8.7%
10.3%
6.9%
14.5%
12.8%
9.7%
4.2%
8.4%
6.3%
13.5%
7.8%
8.8%
6.5%
7.7%
7.4%

State total
Texas
Georgia
Florida
North Carolina
Arizona
Wisconsin
Missouri
New York
Nevada
Maryland
California
Michigan
Connecticut
Ohio
Virginia
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Illinois
South Carolina
Colorado
Tennessee
Oregon
Louisiana
West Virginia
Nebraska
Kansas
Arkansas
Idaho
Oklahoma
Vermont
Indiana
Rhode Island
New Mexico
Washington
Wyoming
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Alaska
New Jersey
Utah
Mississippi
Montana
South Dakota
Maine
Iowa
Alabama
Minnesota
Kentucky
Hawaii
North Dakota

11.0%
16.9%
15.9%
15.1%
15.0%
14.5%
14.0%
13.9%
13.6%
13.5%
13.1%
12.8%
12.8%
12.6%
11.8%
11.7%
11.0%
10.9%
10.3%
9.9%
9.7%
8.8%
8.8%
8.7%
8.7%
8.6%
8.5%
8.5%
8.4%
8.4%
8.3%
8.3%
8.2%
7.8%
7.7%
7.4%
7.1%
7.1%
6.9%
6.5%
6.5%
6.4%
6.3%
6.3%
6.1%
6.0%
5.7%
5.2%
5.2%
4.2%
3.8%

Source: Reanalysis of U.S.
Census Bureau, State
Government Employment and
Payroll data

Public Safety Performance Project

33

TABLE A-6

1 in X: Incarceration Rates by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age & State
All
Black Hispanic All White

All White
All ages
18+
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-54
55+

Source: All data
are from BJS,
“Prison and Jail
Inmates at
Midyear 2006,” or
reanalysis thereof.

133
102
101
53
53
54
63
76
153
837

245
194
191
103
104
92
104
124
266
1249

41
29
36
17
17
17
19
24
45
264

96
64
85
41
43
47
55
66
101
383

72
54
57
30
30
30
36
43
83
391

Men
Women
Black Hispanic All White Black

136
106
107
60
59
53
61
71
148
588

21
15
19
9
9
9
10
13
23
115

54
36
47
24
26
27
32
38
55
184

746
580
833
345
333
270
265
352
893
8333

1064
859
1235
453
443
343
355
500
1333
11111

Hispanic

279
203
382
157
140
108
100
125
307
3571

658
436
571
289
328
300
297
358
709
3846

For example, this cell
indicates that 1 in every 115
black males 55 years or
older was behind bars on
June 30, 2006.

STATE INCARCERATION RATES, 2005, BY QUINTILE
Wash.
465

N.H.
319
Mont.
526

N.D.
359

Minn.
300

Ore.
531
Idaho
784

S.D.
622

Mich.
663

Utah
466
Calif.
682

Colo.
728

Pa.
607

Iowa
412

Neb.
421

Ill.
507
Kan.
582

Ariz.
808
N.M.
782

Ky.
720

Alaska
705

W. Va.
443

Va.
759

N.J.
532
Del.
820

N.C.
620

Ark.
673

S.C.
830
Ala.
890

Ga.
1,021

La.
1,138
(highest)
Fla.
835

Hawaii
447
SOURCE: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
“Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005”

34 One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008

R.I.
Conn. 313
544

Md.
636

Tenn.
732

Miss.
955
Texas
976

Ohio
559

Ind.
637

Mo.
715

Okla.
919

Mass.
356

N.Y.
482

Wisc.
653

Wy.
690
Nev.
756

Maine
273
(lowest)

Vt.
317

Inmates per
100,000
residents
Lowest fifth
Second lowest
Middle fifth
Second highest
Highest fifth

TABLE A-7

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
The U.S. inmate population compared to the 26 largest European inmate populations (years vary).
Total inmates

Inmates per 100,000 residents
750 (2,245,189)

US
426 (41,538)

Belarus

401 (18,138)

Georgia
Ukraine

345 (160,046)

Estonia

333 (4,463)

247 (8,876)

Poland

236 (89,805)

202 (16,969)
186 (19,145)

Hungary

156 (15,720)

Slovakia

155 (8,380)

Romania

150 (32,292)

England & Wales

148 (80,229)

Bulgaria

148 (11,436)

Spain

147 (66,129)

Scotland

142 (7,261)

Albania

136 (4,300)

Netherlands

128 (21,013)

Portugal

120 (12,803)

Serbia

117 (8,600)

Turkey

112 (82,742)

Austria

108 8,991)

Armenia

104 (3,342)

Germany

93 (76,629)

Croatia

93 (4,127)

Greece

91 (10,113)

Belgium

91 (9,597)

France

85 (52,009)

Sweden

79 (7,175)

Switzerland

79 (5,888)

Norway

75 (3,533)

Finland

68 (3,595)

Italy
Denmark

26 countries
1,842,115

235 (7,983)

Lithuania
Azerbaijan

Numbers in parentheses are
total number of inmates.

292 (6,676)

Latvia
Rep. of Moldova

Czech Republic

United States
2,245,189

628 (889,598)

Russian Fed.

67 (39,348)
67 (3,626)
Total resident populations
United States 299.4 million
26 countries 802.4 million

SOURCE: International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College, London, “World Prison Brief.” Data downloaded January 2008.
NOTE: Rates are for total number of residents, not just adults. Figures in this chart may not align with others due to differences in counting methods.

Public Safety Performance Project

35

The Pew Charitable Trusts
1025 F Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004-1409
www.pewtrusts.org