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

-------------------------------------------------------------

National Prisoner Statistics Program
-------------------------------------

Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005
October 2008,  NCJ 222182

------------------------------------------------------------

This file is text only without graphics and many of the
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/csfcf05.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------

This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be
available. To view a list of all in the series go to
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#csfcf

-------------------------------------------------------------

By James J. Stephan
BJS Statistician

--------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted a national
census--Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities
(CSFCF)--of adult correctional facilities operating under
state or federal authority as of December 2005. The census
also included private and local facilities operating under
contract to house inmates for federal or state correctional
authorities. 

Facilities that housed primarily state or federal prisoners
and that were operational on the day of the census and
physically, functionally, and administratively separate from
other facilities were included in the 2005 CSFCF. The types
of facilities included were prisons and prison farms; prison
hospitals; centers for medical treatment and psychiatric
confinement; boot camps; centers for reception; diagnosis;
classification; alcohol and drug treatment; community
correctional facilities; facilities for parole violators and
other persons returned to custody; institutions for youthful
offenders; and institutions for geriatric inmates.

The 2005 CSFCF excluded city, county, and regional jails and
private facilities that did not house primarily state or
federal inmates. It also excluded facilities for the
military, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS),
and correctional hospital wards not operated by correctional
authorities.

Selected findings from the Census of State and Federal
Correctional Facilities, 2005

* From June 30, 2000, to December 30, 2005, the number of
state and federal correctional facilities increased by 9%,
from 1,668 to 1,821. The number of prisoners held in custody
increased by 10%, from 1,305,253 to 1,430,208.

* Private correctional facilities (up 151) accounted for
nearly all of the increase in the number of adult
correctional facilities between June 30, 2000, and December
30, 2005. Most of the growth in private correctional
facilities during this period was in facilities under
contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

* From 2000 to 2005, the number of private facilities
increased from 16% (264) to 23% (415) of all institutions.
About two-thirds of all private facilities were under
contract to state authorities and a third were under contract
to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

* Inmates housed in private facilities increased from 91,184
in 2000 to 105,451 in 2005. In both years, inmates housed in
private facilities made up about 7% of the nation's average
daily prisoner population.

* Between 2000 and 2005, facilities housing fewer than 500
inmates as an average daily population increased by 86.
Facilities housing 500 to 999 inmates was relatively
unchanged between 2000 (305) and 2005 (304). Facilities
housing 1,000 to 2,499 inmates increased by 57 and the number
of facilities housing 2,500 inmates or more rose by 11.

* The number of minimum (up 155) and maximum (up 40) security
facilities increased between 2000 and 2005. The number of
medium-security facilities declined (down 42) during this
period.

* The number of facilities under court order or consent
decree to limit the size of their inmate population declined
from 145 in 2000 to 44 in 2005. Facilities under court order
or consent decree for specific conditions also declined, from
320 to 218.

*The overall inmate population in adult correctional
facilities operating under state or federal authority
increased by 10% between the 2000 and 2005 CSFCF. The number
of correctional staff rose by 3% during this period. 

*More than 4 in 5 adult correctional facilities offered
inmate work programs and about half of all prisoners had work
assignments in 2005. 

*About 9 in 10 public correctional facilities and about 6 in
10 private correctional facilities offered academic and
vocational training programs in 2005. 

*In 2005, counseling programs--such as life skills and
community adjustment, drug and alcohol dependence and
awareness, and HIV/AIDS counseling--were offered in nearly
all public facilities and in about 3 in 4 private facilities.

Facility characteristics

The number of adult correctional facilities in the United
States rose by 153 (or 9%) between June 30, 2000, and
December 30, 2005. Private facilities increased by 151 (from
264 to 415) and accounted for nearly all the growth during
this period. The number of public facilities was nearly
unchanged between 2000 (1,404) and 2005 (1,406).

Growth in private facilities included the addition of six
confinement facilities and 145 community-based correctional
facilities between 2000 and 2005 (table 1). The number of
confinement institutions in the public sector increased by 78
from 1,107 to 1,185 between 2000 and 2005. Community-based
facilities declined by 76. (See Methodology for definitions
of confinement and community-based facilities.)

Federally operated facilities increased by 21%, from 84 in
2000 to 102 in 2005. State operated facilities grew by 9%,
from 1,584 to 1,719 during this period.

Thirty states operated a larger number of adult correctional
facilities in 2005 than in 2000; 14 states and the District
of Columbia operated fewer facilities. Seven states had the
same number of public and private correctional facilities in
2000 and 2005.

Facility size and rated capacity

The number of small facilities with an average daily
population (ADP) of fewer than 500 inmates rose by 10%
between 2000 and 2005. Large facilities with an ADP of 1,000
to 2,499 inmates grew by 13% during this period and
facilities with an ADP of 2,500 or more inmates increased by
17%. In comparison, the number of medium-size facilities with
an ADP of 500 to 999 inmates remained essentially unchanged,
up 2 in the public sector and down 3 in the private sector
between 2000 and 2005. 

The number of prisoners housed in state and federal
correctional facilities rose faster than facility capacity
expanded. The overall occupancy rate of adult correctional
facilities nationwide increased from 2% above capacity in
2000 to 11% above capacity in 2005. The occupancy rate is
defined as the number of inmates divided by rated capacity
multiplied by 100.

State public facilities accounted for most of the overall
increase in the occupancy rate from 2000 to 2005. In 2005,
public facilities were operating at 12% above rated capacity,
compared to 3% above rated capacity in 2000. Private
facilities were operating at 5% under rated capacity in 2005,
down from 11% under rated capacity in 2000. 

Federal facilities were operating at 37% above their rated
capacity in 2005, up from 34% above capacity in 2000. State
facilities were operating at 8% above rated capacity, up from
operating at 100% of rated capacity in 2000.

Facility security level

More than half of the nation's correctional facilities in
2005 were rated as minimum security, more than a quarter as
medium security, and more than a fifth were rated as maximum
security. (See Methodology for definitions.) 

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of maximum-security
facilities increased by 12%. Nearly all of the increase in
facilities rated as maximum security occurred in the public
sector. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (up 6), Tennessee (up
5), and Virginia (up 5) accounted for most of the growth in
the number of maximum-security facilities. The number of
medium-security facilities declined by 8% during this period.

The number of minimum-security facilities increased by 19%
between 2000 and 2005. Private facilities operating under
contract to house state or federal inmates accounted for all
of the growth in minimum-security facilities (up by 169
facilities or 87%) between the 2000 and 2005 censuses. More
than half of the growth in the number of minimum-security
facilities occurred in three states: Connecticut (up 32),
Texas (up 28), and Ohio (up 27).

Court orders and consent decrees 

Fewer facilities in both the public and private sectors were
under court directives in 2005 than in 2000. About 1 in 8
adult correctional facilities were operating under a court
order or consent decree in 2005, compared to 1 in 5 in 2000. 

Approximately 1% of public facilities were under a court
order to limit the size of their inmate population in 2005
due to crowding, compared to 8% in 2000. Six percent of
private contract facilities were under court order to limit
the size of their inmate population in 2005, compared to 10%
in 2000. Twenty-seven of the 44 institutions that were under
court order to limit the size of their inmate population in
2005 were restricted to housing fewer than 250 inmates. In
2005, no federal facilities were under a court order to limit
the size of their inmate population.

Fourteen percent of all public facilities were under court
order for specific conditions of confinement in 2005,
compared to 22% in 2000. For privately-operated facilities,
7% were under court order in 2005 for specific conditions of
confinement, up from 6% in 2000. One federal facility was
under a court order for specific conditions in 2005. 

The Midwest (94%) had the largest percentage of facilities
that were not under court order for any reason; the South
(82%) had the smallest percentage. Seventeen states and the
District of Columbia, or about 35% of all jurisdictions,
reported that all facilities in their jurisdictions were free
of judicial sanctions at yearend 2005. 

Private facilities 

The number of private facilities operating under contract to
state or federal correctional authorities increased by 57%,
from 264 in 2000 to 415 in 2005 (table 2). The number of
private facilities under federal contract rose by 106, nearly
two and a half times as fast as private facilities under
state contract (up 45) during this period. 

From midyear 2000 to yearend 2005, the number of inmates held
in private facilities rose by 16%, from 91,184 to 105,451.
The percentage of federal inmates held in private facilities
increased by 54% to 22,801 inmates. State inmates held in
private facilities rose by 8% to 82,650 inmates during this
period.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia had more private
institutions in operation in 2005 than in 2000. Connecticut
(up 30) and Ohio (up 25) had the largest increases in the
number of private institutions during this period. Thirteen
states had fewer private institutions in 2005 than in 2000.
California (down 27) and Texas (down 16) reported the largest
declines in the number of private institutions under contract
to house inmates in their jurisdictions.

Approximately 2 in 3 inmates held in private facilities were
held in six states--Texas (15,131), Oklahoma (7,802),
Colorado (6,195), Florida (5,739), Mississippi (5,683) and
Tennessee (5,087)--or in private facilities under contract
with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (22,801).

Most private facilities were small. About 2 in 3 private
facilities had an average daily population of less than 100
inmates. About 1 in 6 held between 100 and 499 inmates and
about 1 in 6 held 500 or more inmates.

Private facilities operating under contract to federal
authorities were some of the smallest and largest private
facilities. More than 4 in 5 private facilities operating
under contract to federal authorities had an average daily
population of less than 100 inmates. The two largest private
facilities with an average daily population of 2,500 or more
inmates were also federal contract institutions. 

Inmates

Ninety-two percent of inmates held in custody for state or
federal authorities on December 30, 2005, were men and 7%
were women. The gender of 1% of inmates in custody was not
reported (table 3).

Male inmates outnumbered female inmates by more than 9 to 1
in every region and in most states. This pattern varied only
among community-based facilities, which were defined as
institutions that permitted half or more of all inmates to
leave the facility, unaccompanied, on a regular basis. Women
accounted for slightly more than 10% of the nation's prisoner
population housed in community-based facilities. In New
Hampshire, Hawaii, and Idaho, women accounted for more than a
quarter of inmates housed in community-based facilities.

Facility security level

Slightly more than a third of state and federal inmates were
housed in maximum-security prisons, two-fifths in medium
security, and a fifth in minimum-security facilities at
yearend 2005.

Between 2000 and 2005, inmates held in minimum-security
facilities increased by 22% and inmates held in maximum-
security facilities increased by 16%. Inmates held in
medium-security facilities declined by less than 1% during
the period.

Nearly all inmates classified for a maximum-security facility
were held in public institutions, with private contract
facilities housing less than 2% of the total in both 2000 and
2005. Nearly 2 in 5 state inmates were held in
maximum-security prisons, compared to 1 in 7 federal inmates.

Although 8% fewer medium-security facilities were in
operation in 2005 than in 2000, in both years more than
two-fifths of all inmates were housed in medium-security
facilities. The distribution of inmates in medium-security
housing was relatively consistent--43% in public versus 37%
in private facilities and 41% in federal versus 43% in state
facilities--across sectors.
Less than a fifth of all inmates held by public authorities
were housed in minimum- or low-security facilities, compared
to more than half of all inmates housed in private
facilities.

Staff

An estimated 445,000 employees were working in state and
federal correctional facilities at yearend 2005 (table 4).
Male employees outnumbered female employees by a ratio of 2
to 1. Among correctional officers and custody staff working
in direct contact with inmates, men outnumbered women by a
ratio of 3 to 1.

The largest difference in staff by gender was among
correctional officers in federal facilities. In federal
facilities, 87% of correctional officers were men and 13%
were women. The smallest difference--52% men and 48% women--
was among the total workforce in private facilities. In state
operated facilities, about 74% of correctional officers were
men and 26% were women.

About 66% of all employees were correctional officers, line
staff, or supervisors who worked in direct contact with
inmates and were involved in their daily custody or
monitoring. Correctional officers accounted for more than 80%
of all employees in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Delaware--states which operated combined jail/prison systems.
Correctional officers accounted for less than 50% of
employees in direct contact with inmates in the District of
Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

About 2% of all staff were wardens, superintendents, or other
chiefs or lead administrators. Administrators accounted for
more than 6% of correctional staff in Montana, Wyoming, and
the District of Columbia. Administrators made up about 1% of
correctional staff in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan,
Florida, Maryland, Virginia, and Hawaii.

Clerical and maintenance employees, including 
typists, secretaries, record clerks, janitors, cooks, and
groundskeepers accounted for about 12% of the correctional
workforce. Federal prisons (21%) had the highest percentage
of clerical and maintenance employees; facilities in Florida
(3%) had the lowest percentage.

Academic and technical education employees made up about 3%
of all staff. The percentage of academic and technical
education employees ranged from 8% in West Virginia to less
than 1% in Alabama, Arkansas, Washington state, and the
District of Columbia.

Professional and technical staff, including doctors,
dentists, nurses, counselors, chaplains, psychiatrists,
psychologists, social workers, and classification officers,
accounted for approximately 10% of employees. The percentage
of professional and technical staff ranged from 24% in South
Dakota to 3% in Arkansas.

The remaining 7% of employees were either classified in other
occupational categories or their occupations were not
reported.

Inmate-to-staff ratios

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of inmates incarcerated in
state and federal facilities rose 10%, nearly 3 times faster
than the number of employees (up 3%) working in state and
federal facilities. The largest increase in inmate-to-staff
ratios occurred among federal facilities, from 3.4 to 1 in
2000 to 4.9 in 2005 (table 5). The largest increases in
inmate-to-staff ratios among facilities under state authority
occurred in Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina (appendix
table 14). Among the few jurisdictions that reported a
decrease in their inmate-to-staff ratio during this period,
North Dakota reported the largest decrease, from 3.1 in 2000
to 2.3 in 2005.

Nationwide, the ratio of inmates-to-correctional officers
increased from 4.8 to 1 in 2000 to 5.1 in 2005. In both
federal prisons (10.3) and in facilities in Alabama (9.3),
the ratio of inmates-to-correctional officers was about twice
the national average.

The ratio of inmates-to-staff in community-based facilities
was 3.5 to 1 in 2005, down from 3.8 five years earlier.
Facilities in Alabama (8.1) had the highest ratio of
inmates-to-staff; South Dakota (1.6) had the lowest.

Facility programs

Most correctional facilities had inmate work activities and
offered inmates educational and counseling programs.
Education, counseling, and work programs were available in a
higher percentage of public institutions. Work release
activities were more common in private facilities.

Institutional work programs and work release 

More than half (54%) of all inmates held in facilities (88%)
that operated work programs had work assignments at yearend
2005 (table 6). Work assignments were available to inmates in
97% of public facilities and 56% of private facilities. They
were also available in 98% of federal facilities and 87% of
state institutions.

Facility support--such as office administration, food service
and building maintenance--was the most common work activity
in 74% of facilities. Public works (44%) assignments,
including road and park maintenance, was the second most
common work activity, followed by prison industries (31%).

Among correctional facilities, 298 or 16% of facilities
employed inmates in farming or related activities.
Correctional facilities that employed inmates in farming or
related activities included 51 institutions in Texas, 29 in
Florida, and 29 in Virginia.

Work assignments were not offered to inmates in 2% of public
facilities and in 21% of private facilities.

More than a quarter (28%) of correctional facilities had a
work release program, which allowed inmates to work in the
community unsupervised by facility staff during the day and
to return to the facility in the evening. Approximately
25,000 inmates, or 2% of the total custody population,
participated in the program.

Educational programs 

Formal educational programs were available to inmates in more
than 9 in 10 public institutions and about 6 in 10 private
facilities.

The most common educational program offered among all
facilities was a secondary education or GED program (77%),
followed by literacy training and lower basic adult education
(67%), upper basic adult education (66%), and vocational
training (52%). More than a third (37%) of all facilities
offered special education programs for inmates with learning
disabilities.

More than a third (35%) of all facilities offered college
courses, including 98% of all institutions operated by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, 86% of facilities in Rhode Island,
and 80% in Hawaii. No college courses were reported to be
offered at facilities in Pennsylvania or South Carolina.

English as a second language was taught in about 35% of all
facilities, including 93% of institutions in Virginia and 90%
in Hawaii. 

Study-release, a program that allows inmates to study in the
community, was one of the least common educational programs.
It was offered in 135 institutions or by 7% of all
institutions nationwide, including 13 facilities in New
Jersey and 11 in North Carolina. 

Nine percent of all facilities overall reported offering no
formal educational programs to inmates, including 29% of
institutions in Pennsylvania and 25% of institutions in
Delaware.

Counseling programs 

Counseling and special programs were available to inmates in
nearly all (97%) public institutions and in about
three-quarters (74%) of private facilities.
Life skills and community adjustment counseling--including
personal finance and conflict resolution--were the most
common counseling programs offered in more than three
quarters (78%) of all facilities, followed by drug and
alcohol dependence and awareness counseling (74%) and job
seeking, interviewing, and related employment counseling
(73%).

Psychological or psychiatric counseling was available in 58%
of facilities, HIV and AIDS programs in 55%, parenting and
child rearing training in 48%, and sex offender counseling in
36%. 

Drug and alcohol dependence and awareness counseling was
offered in all facilities in Hawaii and Wyoming, compared to
8% of institutions in Florida and 13% in Washington state.

No counseling or special programs were available in 29 public
and 11 private facilities.

Methodology

The 2005 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities
(CSFCF) was the seventh enumeration of state institutions and
the fourth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors.
Earlier censuses were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1984, 1990,
1995, and 2000.

The facility universe was developed from the census conducted
in 2000. Each state's department of corrections was contacted
to identify new facilities and facilities that had closed
since June 2000.

Telephone follow-ups were carried out during 2006. 
All but one respondent--Illinois Department of Corrections--
participated in the 2005 CSFCF.

Scope

Facilities were included in the enumeration if they were
staffed with federal, state, local, or private employees;
held inmates primarily for state or federal authorities; were
physically, functionally, and administratively separate from
other facilities; and were operational on December 30, 2005.

The census included the following types of adult correctional
facilities: prisons and prison farms; reception, diagnostic,
and classification centers; facilities primarily for parole
violators and other persons returned to custody; road camps;
forestry and conservation camps; facilities for youthful
offenders except in California; vocational training
facilities; drug and alcohol treatment facilities; and
state-operated local detention facilities in Alaska,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Jails and other local and regional detention facilities,
including those housing state prisoners, were specifically
excluded from the census, as were private facilities not
predominantly for state or federal inmates. Also excluded
were facilities for the military, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service,
and correctional hospital wards not operated by correctional
authorities.

Data reporting and estimation 

Because the census was a complete enumeration, the results
were not subject to sampling error. The census counted
prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some
inmates in custody in one jurisdiction may be held for a
different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a
count of inmates under a correctional authority's
jurisdiction, which includes all inmates over whom a
correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where
the inmate is housed. A jurisdictional count is more
inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and
federal prisoners housed in local jails.

The number of correctional employees in 2005 was not
available for 104 facilities or 5.7% of all institutions. To
estimate the total number of employees, the total number of
facilities nationwide was divided by the number of facilities
that reported employees and multiplied by the number of
employees reported. A similar formula was used to calculate
the total number of correctional officers.

Detailed information for each Illinois facility as of June
30, 2000, was reported during the 2000 census. For the 2005
census, data for Illinois were based on the number of
facilities and inmates reported on the Illinois Department of
Corrections Website as of June 30, 2005.

The 48 institutions and 44,150 inmates recorded in the 2000
census for Illinois were used as a base to calculate the 2005
data. Between 2000 and 2005, seven Illinois facilities
closed, two new facilities opened, and two facilities merged
for a total count of 44 institutions holding 41,777 inmates
in 2005. For the 2005 census, 2,892 inmates were added to the
count to bring the number of inmates housed in Illinois
(44,669 prisoners) into agreement with the number of inmates
reported on the Illinois Department of Corrections Website as
of June 30, 2005. Because information was not available to
make this final adjustment by individual facility, the 44,669
prisoners are not reflected in the data file.

Facility-level data on correctional employees in California
was not available in 2005. State-wide data on employees by
gender and by occupational category other than correctional
officers were estimated based on the percentages reported by
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
in the 2000 census.

Additional data, which was requested in the census but not
discussed in this report, will be available from the
University of Michigan's Criminal Justice Archive in the
public use data set--Census of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, 2005. The additional data includes year of
original facility construction; plans to add to, close, or
renovate the facility; facilities by gender of inmates
authorized to house; inmates by gender under and over age 18;
inmates by race and ethnicity; inmates by custody level;
inmates by sentence status; non-U.S. citizen inmates;
geriatric unit inmates; U.S. military veteran inmates;
inmates in protective custody, disciplinary action,
administrative segregation, death row, and other restricted
population units; inmates held for federal, state, local, and
tribal authorities; per diem fees charged to house inmates
for other correctional authorities; employees by race and
ethnicity; disciplinary/misconduct reports; major and other
disturbances during 2005; assaults on staff and resulting
staff deaths; assaults on other inmates; escapes from secure
custody; and walkaways from community facilities.

Definitions 

Community-based facilities--Correctional facilities were
classified as community-based if 50% or more of the residents
were regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by facility
staff, to work or study in the community. Community-based
facilities included entities such as halfway houses,
residential treatment centers, restitution centers, and
prerelease centers.

Confinement facilities--Correctional facilities in which less
than 50% of the inmates left the facility unaccompanied on a
regular basis. Confinement facilities included prisons,
prison farms, penitentiaries, correctional centers, work
camps, and reformatories.
Design capacity--Design capacity is the number of inmates
that the facility planners or architects intended for the
facility.

High-security facilities--High-security facilities were
described as supermax, maximum, close, or high-security
facilities and were characterized by a wall or double-fenced
perimeter and armed correctional officers stationed in a
tower or on patrol. Cell housing was isolated from the
perimeter in one of two ways: within a cell block so that a
prisoner who had escaped from a cell was confined within the
building or by double security using bars, steel doors, or
other hardware to isolate the prisoner from the perimeter.
All entry to or exit from the cell block was via trap gate or
sallyport.

Medium-security facilities--Medium-security facilities were
characterized by a single- or double-fenced perimeter with
armed correctional officers stationed in a tower or on
patrol. Housing units included cells, rooms, or dormitories.
Dormitories were living units designed or modified to
accommodate 12 or more persons. All entry to or exit from the
cell housing unit was via trap gate or sallyport.

Minimum- or low-security facilities--Medium- or low-security
facilities were characterized by a fenced or posted
perimeter. Cell housing units were rooms or dormitories.
Normal entry to and exit from the cell housing units were
conducted under visual surveillance.

Rated capacity--Rated capacity is the maximum number of beds
or inmates allocated by a rating official to institutions
within the jurisdiction.

-------------------------------------------------------------

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its
related statistical data and tables (includes 19 appendix
tables) are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/csfcf05.htm>. 

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is
director.

This Web Report was written by James J. Stephan.  William J.
Sabol, Ph.D., Tracey L. Snell, and  Elizabeth Collins-Wildman
provided statistical verification.

Data collection and processing for this report were carried
out by Garry L. Smith with the assistance of Patricia
Torreyson and Pamela H. Butler, under the supervision of
Charlene M. Sebold, Governments Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

Georgette Walsh edited the report, Tina Dorsey produced the
report, and Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final
printing, under the supervision of Doris J. James.
October 2008, NCJ 222182

-------------------------------------------------------------

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

-------------------------------------------------------------

10/02/2008/JER