october 2012

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Report on

the characteristics of the
adult arrestee population

Acknowledgements
The AARIN Project staff thanks Peter Ozanne and Amy Rex for their establishment of the AARIN project and for all
of their hard work and assistance on the project. We also thank the Maricopa County Manager and the Board of
Supervisors for their continued support for AARIN. Additionally, we would like to thank the officers and command
staff of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, without whose cooperation, we would not be able to conduct the
project.
This project was funded by Maricopa County. Opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not
represent the position of either Maricopa County or Arizona State University.

AARIN Project Staff
Charles M. Katz, Principal Investigator
Watts Family Director
Center for Violence Prevention &Community Safety
Arizona State University
David E. Choate, Co-Principal Investigator
Associate Director of Operations
Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety
Arizona State University

Michael D. White, Co-Principal Investigator
Associate Professor
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Arizona State University

Marisol Cortez
AARIN Project Manager
Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety
Arizona State University

Lidia Nuño, Research Analyst
AARIN Project Manager
Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety
Arizona State University

Jody Arganbright
Business Operations Manager
Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety
Arizona State University

In an effort to reduce our impact on the environment, we have chosen to distribute this report as a digital file.

© 2012 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Center for Violence
Prevention and Community Safety. This document may be copied and transmitted freely. No deletions, additions,
or alterations of contents are permitted without the expressed written consent of the Center for Violence
Prevention and Community Safety.

Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety
500 N. 3rd Street, NHI-1, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100
(602) 496-1470 Web site: http://cvpcs.asu.edu

Arizona Arrestee Reporting
Information Network
2012
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Report

By
David E. Choate
September 2012

Suggested citation:
Choate, David E. (2012). Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network: 2012 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Report. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University.

AARIN Program Overview
The Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) is a monitoring system that provides ongoing descriptive information about drug use, crime, victimization, and other characteristics of interest
among individuals arrested in Maricopa County, Arizona. Funded by the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors beginning in 2007, AARIN is modeled after the former National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
national-level Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM). In three facilities throughout the
county, professionally trained interviewers conduct voluntary and confidential interviews with recently
booked adult arrestees and juvenile detainees. Questions focus on a range of topics including education,
employment and other demographics, patterns of drug use (lifetime and recent), substance abuse and
dependence risk, criminal activity, gang affiliation, victimization, mental health, interactions with police,
public health concerns, incarceration and probation, citizenship, and treatment experiences. Each
interviewee also provides a urine specimen that is tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs.
Arrestees who have been in custody longer than 48 hours are ineligible for participation in AARIN, due
to the 72-hour time limitation for valid testing of urine specimen.
The instruments used and the reporting mechanism underwent a substantial revision in 2011. While
maintaining all of the data elements from the previous core set of questions, the baseline interview
expanded by more than 60%. Additionally, with the change in the core questionnaire, the project shifted
its reporting strategy to focus reports to each of six key Maricopa County criminal justice agencies:
Maricopa County Manager’s Office, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Maricopa County Attorney’s
Office, the Office of the Public Defender, Adult Probation Department, and the Juvenile Probation
Department.
Overall, AARIN serves as a near-real time information source on the extent and nature of drug abuse
and related activity in Maricopa County, AZ. This information helps to inform policy and practice among
police, courts and correctional agencies to increase public safety and address the needs of individuals
who find themselves in the criminal justice system.
For information using the most recent set of data, please see the following reports:


Maricopa County Manager’s Office – Report detailing substance abuse and public health
concerns among the Maricopa County arrestee population.



Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office – Reports broad characteristics of the entire AARIN sample
and a detailed comparison of arrestees’ perception of police in general, and use of force by and
against police, by arresting agency.



Maricopa County Attorney’s Office – Detailed report covering street gangs using key core
questionnaire elements and a comprehensive interpretation of the Gang Addendum.



Office of the Public Defender – Report comparing arrestees who are at-risk for a mental health
problem, substance abuse/dependence problem, a co-occurring disorder (both substance
abuse/dependence and mental health), or not at risk.

Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety

1



Adult Probation Department – Comprehensive summary of the core questionnaire comparing
Maricopa County probationers to probationers from elsewhere and those arrestees who have
not served probation.



Juvenile Probation Department - Comprehensive summary of the core juvenile questionnaire
comparing Maricopa County juvenile probationers to those who have served probation
elsewhere and those detainees who have not served probation.

For other reports and more information about the project, visit the AARIN page of the Center for
Violence Prevention & Community Safety’s website: http://cvpcs.asu.edu/ .

Methodology: Sampling and Data Collection
In order to ensure representative results for the entire population of arrestees in Maricopa County, the
AARIN project employs a systematic sampling protocol that includes the collection of data with target
quotas each day. Data are collected during three cycles each calendar year – with interviews conducted
during a continuous two-week period at the Central Intake of Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail
each collection cycle. Dispersing data collection cycles across three different four-month blocks helps
control for possible seasonal variations in crime and arrest patterns, and conducting collections covering
all seven days of the week account for possible differences between weekdays and weekends, or other
day-to-day variations. The periodic data collection cycles combined with the sampling protocols ensures
a representative sample of all Maricopa County arrestees. The same procedures employed by AARIN
were tested under ADAM (Maricopa County was one of the sites used in the evaluation) comparing the
selected sample to comprehensive jail census data to assess the representativeness of the sample to the
population on key characteristics. The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
was the national data manager for ADAM at the time and concluded that the periodic data collection
cycles, sampling protocols and daily quotas would result in a scientifically representative sample of
study participants that could be generalized to the whole of arrestees for the particular jurisdiction (i.e.
Maricopa County arrestees).
Daily collection quotas call for 23 males and 7 females to be interviewed, including the completion of
the core instrument, any and all addenda, and to provide a urine specimen. Potential participants are
selected using a standardized procedure (described below) to ensure both a sufficiently randomized and
representative sample of arrestees. Some of the potential participants are either unavailable or
otherwise ineligible for participation. Most commonly this applies to those arrestees who have already
been released from custody or transferred to another facility, but also includes those whose behavior
constitutes a safety risk to the jail and/or interview staff. Upon initial contact, arrestees are read an
informed consent script (see inset), to which they voluntarily either decline or agree to participate;
typically more than 90% agree to participate.
Consent Script:
Hello, my name is __. I am working on a research project run by Arizona State University. The purpose of the
project is to understand issues and problems confronted by people and to help give advice on how to provide
services to individuals who have been arrested. I would like to ask you a series of questions that will take 1545 minutes to answer. There are no foreseeable risks for participating in this research, and there are no
benefits to you individually. Jail personnel will not have access to the information that you provide us. The
information you provide is confidential and anonymous, and it will not help or hurt your case. If, for any

Arizona State University – College of Public Programs

2

reason, you become distressed or anxious during the interview, you can request to speak with the facility’s
medical personnel or psychological counselors.
I will not write down your name or any other identifying information the questionnaire. You can refuse to
answer any question, and you may stop the interview at any time for any reason. At the end of the interview I
will ask you to provide a urine sample. If you listen to my questions, I will give you a candy bar. Do you have
any questions?

During the data collection period, interviews are conducted during an eight-hour period each day, with
arrestees who are randomly selected based on their booking time that yields a stratified random
sample. Consistent with the ADAM sampling strategy, a stock (i.e., arrested and booked during non-data
collection hours) and flow (i.e., during data collection hours) process is employed to ensure a
representative sample of arrestees across any given 24-hour period. The stock sample is selected by
starting with a list of all bookings processed from the 16-hours that range from when collection ended
the previous day through the start-time of the current collection day. Eligible bookings are counted and
divided by ten, which gives the selection interval. A random start-point is selected, and each nth (e.g.
the value equal to the selection interval) arrestee is selected as a potential participant. A “nearestneighbor” procedure is used to replace members of the stock list that are either found to be ineligible or
unavailable, or whom decline to participate, until the daily quota of 10 completed and provided
interviews is met. The flow sample is more straight-forward. Potential participants are randomly
selected as they are booked into the facility as needed. A minimum of 13 completed and provided
interviews are expected to meet daily quota.

Survey Instrument
The core AARIN survey instrument is modeled after the ADAM and Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)
instruments, and was developed with input from Maricopa County officials. Starting with the third
collection cycle of 2011, AARIN began using a new core instrument. The new instrument included the
same elements of the previous version, but expanded by more than 60% following extensive input from
Maricopa County officials representing six key agencies related to the criminal justice system and the
arrestee population – the County Manager’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, County Attorney, Public Defender,
Adult Probation, and Juvenile Probation.
The instrument is broken down into a variety of sections that include: demographics and background
information (sex, race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, educational level, methods of income), current and
past drug use (ever, past 12 months, 30 days and three days), drug dependency and treatment, medical
marijuana and marijuana acquisition, criminal history (ever, past 12 months), gang involvement,
firearms possession, victimization (past 12 months, 30 days), police interactions, mental health issues
(ever and past 12 months), correctional health services and public health concerns, and incarceration
and probation history (ever and past 12 months). Additionally, the AARIN platform includes addenda
instruments to the core set of questions. Addenda are used to collect more detailed information
regarding a particular topic and/or population. Recently, both a police contact and gang addenda were
used, collecting information from arrestees about police in general, use of force by and against the
police (Police Contact Addendum), reasons and methods for joining and leaving a gang, gang
organizational structure and criminal activities, and the respondents’ perceptions of cohesion and
connectedness to their gang (Gang Addendum).
Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety

3

Urinalysis Testing
Once an interview is completed, the arrestee then submits a urine sample. The urine specimens are
tested for alcohol and four illicit drugs: cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and opiates. The testing
is done using the enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT), which has shown a high degree of
accuracy with very few false-positive results (Reardon, 1993). As a reliability check, all specimens that
test positive with the EMIT methods are then tested again using Gas Chromatography with Mass
Spectrum Detection (GC/MS). The EMIT technique with GC/MS confirmation procedures are wellestablished and offer highly reliable results for the illicit drugs under study here – cocaine, marijuana,
methamphetamine, and opiates – for up to 72 hours after use. Unfortunately, these procedures offer
high reliability results for alcohol for only 12-24 hours after use. The adoption of more sensitive alcohol
screening procedures was cost-prohibitive, however.

Arizona State University – College of Public Programs

4

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Report
The analysis and report presented here is prepared specifically for the Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office
(MCSO) on behalf of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Maricopa County Manager as
part of their support of the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN). The researchers at
Arizona State University and its Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety are the authors of
this report and any errors, omissions and opinions are their own and do not necessarily reflect the other
parties.
The analysis plan and the format of this report are derived from numerous meetings held over more
than an eighteen month span with the AARIN project advisory board, Maricopa County leadership, and
representatives from MCSO. Following the guidance of the advisory board, the dissemination strategy
for the AARIN project shifted from a single, broadly scoped annual summary report supplemented by
smaller topic-specific reports into shorter, individual reports tailored to the specific needs and wants of
six key county criminal justice agencies. Meetings with MCSO representatives regarding their
individualized report indicated they would be most interested in a broad analysis akin to the old annual
reports. Given the MCSO’s need for the broadly scoped analysis as opposed to a topically-focused and
interpretive report, the report here primarily provides analyses across most of the core instrument
elements, presented in tabular form, with a list of key findings and highlights.

Key Findings
The analyses for this report are principally derived from the 1,342 arrestees who completed the
interview (with or without a testable urine sample). For some analyses (e.g. self-reported drug use and
urinalyses results), a subset of 1,253 respondents was used. The 89 cases removed from this subset
were those who had completed the questionnaire, but either did not provide a urine specimen or whose
specimen was unsuitable to yield valid results.
Initially, 1,808 arrestees were selected for potential participation. Of those, 253 were ineligible or
unavailable. Typically, these arrestees have either already been released from custody or transferred to
another facility. Occasionally, a potential participant is unavailable for recruitment if he/she is in
protective custody and poses a safety risk to facility and/or interview staff. Finally, some potential
participants are ineligible because they have been in police custody for greater than 48 hours, which is a
strict limitation due to the 72-hour window necessary for urine specimen testing. Of the 1,555 available
and eligible potential participants, 1,405 (90.4%) agreed to participate, and of those 89.2% (n=1,253)
completed the questionnaire and provided a valid urine specimen. See Exhibit 1.

5

Exhibit 1: Recruitment and Participation of Arrestees by Sex
Sex
Male
%
N
Arrestees screened/selected for
1,401
possible participation

Total

Female
%

N

%

407

N
1,808

Participation*
Agreed
Declined
Not Available

76.2
8.7
15.1

1,068
122
211

82.8
6.9
10.3

337
28
42

77.7
8.3
14.0

1,405
150
253

Available, Eligible and Agreed
Completed Interview w/out UA
Completed & Provided UA
Total

6.1
93.9
75.7

62
954
1,016

8.3
91.7
24.3

27
299
326

6.6
93.4
100.0

89
1,253
1,342

* t test or Chi-square significant at p < .05

Characteristics of the Sample (Exhibit 2)


The majority of respondents (75.7%; n=1,016) were male, with a mean age of 32.3 years.



91.6% were U.S. Citizens, followed by 6.9% illegal aliens and 1.5% legal aliens.



32.4% had less than a high school education.



7.0% reported homelessness in the past 30 days, and 31.4% reported experiencing chronic
homelessness at some time in their life.



43.0% shared a home with minor children.



55.4% reported no health insurance coverage.



6.5% reported they were a veteran.



50.0% were working at least part-time.



12.4% reported they had both legal and illegal income sources in the past 30 days and 6.6%
reported income solely from illegal means.



The current most serious offense was most often miscellaneous crimes (31.9%), followed by
drug-related offenses (27.6%), property crimes (21.3%) and finally violent offenses (19.2%).



48.2% had been arrested in the past 12 months prior to the current arrest, and 31.2% had been
incarcerated in the past 12 months.
6

Exhibit 2: Characteristics of the Arrestee Population (N=1,342)
Sex
Male
%

Female
%

Total
%

Sex
Male
Female

75.7
24.3

Age category
15-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36 & older

11.2
22.0
18.5
13.3
35.0
32.4
(10.58)

9.2
27.3
19.3
12.9
31.3
31.8
(10.42)

10.7
23.3
18.7
13.2
34.1
32.3
(10.54)

34.6
14.3
33.5
6.3

41.7
14.4
26.4
9.2

36.4
14.3
31.7
7.0

11.3

8.3

10.6

Citizenship Status*
Illegal Alien
Legal Alien
US Citizen

7.8
1.9
90.3

4.3
0.3
95.4

6.9
1.5
91.6

Highest educational attainment*
Did not graduate high school
High school diploma or GED
Post high school education

33.5
34.2
32.4

28.9
31.4
39.7

32.4
33.5
34.2

38.6
17.1
24.9
12.3
7.1

17.2
15.0
42.7
9.9
15.3

33.4
16.6
29.3
11.7
9.1

Mean Age (S.D.)
Race/Ethnicity*
White
Black/African-American
Hispanic/Latino
Native American/American Indian
Other (combines Asian/Pacific Islander, multiple
and "other" categories)

Main source of income (past 30 days)
Working full time
Working part time
Other legal sources
Illegal sources
No income

*

* t test or Chi-square significant at p < .05

7

Exhibit 2 (continued): Characteristics of the Arrestee Population (N=1,342)
Sex
Male
Female
%
%
Type of residence (past 30 days)
Apartment, Private House, Mobile Home
89.2
92.0
Public or Group Housing
1.5
1.2
Hospital or Care Facility
0.3
0.0
Incarcerated
0.7
0.3
Shelter
0.6
0.0
No fixed residence or on the street
7.3
6.1
Other
0.5
0.3

Total
%
89.9
1.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
7.0
0.4

Transient, homeless, or no fixed residence

7.3

6.1

7.0

Reported chronic homelessness

31.6

31.0

31.4

Children living in the home*
No
Yes
Not Applicable

48.4
40.9
10.7

43.3
49.7
7.1

47.1
43.0
9.8

Medical Insurance Coverage*

39.9

58.9

44.5

Veteran of U.S. military service*

8.0

1.8

6.5

Reported source of income (past 30 days)*
Legal income only
Illegal income only
Both legal and illegal income
No income reported

72.8
7.2
13.1
7.0

69.7
4.8
10.3
15.2

72.0
6.6
12.4
9.0

Most severe offense
Violent
Drug-related
Property
Miscellaneous

20.5
28.1
20.9
30.6

15.0
26.1
22.7
36.2

19.2
27.6
21.3
31.9

Arrested in the past 12 months*

49.8

43.2

48.2

Served time in jail or prison (past 12 months)*

33.1

25.5

31.2

* t test or Chi-square significant at p < .05

8

Drug Use by Sex (Exhibit 3)


Alcohol use in the past 3 days was common; among male arrestees, 47.2% reported using
alcohol in the past 3 days, while 42.1% of females reported the same.



Male arrestees were more likely to have used marijuana, methamphetamine, and powder
cocaine in their lifetime and in the past 12 months than female arrestees.



Nearly half (46.7%) of arrestees reported using marijuana in the past 30 days, followed by
methamphetamine (26.7%), powder cocaine (8.6%), heroin (8.2%), and crack cocaine (5.1%).



Male arrestees were more likely than female arrestees to test positive for marijuana (38.5%
compared to 24.7%) and cocaine (10.7% and 7.0%, respectively).



There were no significant differences between males and females on age of first use, although
for both males and females, marijuana use was reported at a younger age than alcohol – 13.8
and 14.1 years for males compared with 14.3 and 15.0 for females.

9

Exhibit 3. Self-reported Drug Use and Urinalyses Results by Sex (N=1,253)
Sex
Male
Female
%
%
Alcohol
Lifetime
98.2
97.7
Past 12 month
79.9
75.3
Past 30 days
69.6
66.9
Past 3 days
47.2
42.1
Positive UA
10.8
14.4
Age of first use (mean)
14.1
15.0

Total
%
98.1
78.8
69.0
46.0
11.7
14.3

Marijuana
Lifetime*
Past 12 month*
Past 30 days*
Past 3 days*
Positive UA*
Age of first use (mean)

88.8
57.4
49.5
37.3
38.5
13.8

83.6
46.8
37.8
22.4
24.7
14.3

87.5
54.9
46.7
33.8
35.2
13.9

Methamphetamine
Lifetime*
Past 12 month*
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA
Age of first use (mean)

46.3
29.8
25.9
18.3
31.0
21.3

54.5
35.1
29.1
20.4
35.5
20.6

48.3
31.0
26.7
18.8
32.1
21.1

Crack
Lifetime
Past 12 month
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA*
Age of first use (mean)

30.3
7.4
4.9
2.9
10.7
22.6

29.1
7.4
5.7
3.3
7.0
21.8

30.0
7.4
5.1
3.0
9.8
22.4

Powder Cocaine
Lifetime*
Past 12 month*
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA*
Age of first use (mean)

55.8
13.7
9.0
3.9
10.7
18.3

49.5
9.4
7.4
2.3
7.0
19.0

54.3
12.7
8.6
3.5
9.8
18.5

Heroin or other opiates
Lifetime
Past 12 month
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA
Age of first use (mean)

23.9
11.1
8.2
6.0
11.1
22.8

20.7
11.0
8.4
6.4
10.7
20.4

23.1
11.1
8.2
6.1
11.0
22.3

* t test or Chi-square significant at p < .05.
Note: Age of first use (mean) values are based on smaller sample N (Males N=931, Females=292, Total N=1,223)

10

Drug Use by Offense Type (Exhibits 4 and 5)


Among male arrestees, those whose most serious offense was a drug offense were more likely
to have used marijuana in the past 30 days (56.6%) and 3 days (46.0%), and to have tested
positive for use (46.4).



Among male arrestees, drug and property offenders were more likely to have used
methamphetamine in the past 30 days (30.2% and 33.0%, respectively).



Among male arrestees, property offenders were the most likely to report 30-day crack cocaine
use (8.6%).



There were no significant differences by offense type for powder cocaine.



10.2% of male property offenders reported having used heroin in the past 30 days.



Female drug (41.8%) and property (42.9%) offenders were more likely to test positive for
methamphetamine than other female offenders.



Female arrestees whose most serious offense was a drug-related crime reported the highest
rate of heroin use in the past 12 months (20.3%), followed by property offenders (14.3%).



11.4% of female property offenders reported having used heroin in the past 30 days, and 10.0%
in the past 3 days.



17.7% of female drug offenders tested positive for heroin or other opiates, followed by 15.7% of
female property offenders.

11

Exhibit 4. Drug Abuse among Male Arrestees by Category of Most Serious Offense on Current
Arrest (N=952)
Drug
Property
Violent
Other
Total
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
%
%
%
%
%
Alcohol
98.9
98.5
98.3
98.2
Lifetime
97.0
79.6
81.7
78.4
79.9
Past 12 months
80.9
70.6
69.5
68.4
69.6
Past 30 days
70.4
45.7
48.7
44.3
47.2
Past 3 days
51.8
11.6
12.1
11.2
8.9
10.8
Positive UA
Marijuana
Lifetime
Past 12 months
Past 30 days*
Past 3 days*
Positive UA*

86.9
58.3
47.2
34.7
35.7

89.8
62.6
56.6
46.0
46.4

89.3
57.9
49.7
37.6
37.1

88.7
51.9
44.3
30.9
34.0

88.8
57.5
49.5
37.3
38.4

Methamphetamine
Lifetime*
Past 12 months*
Past 30 days*
Past 3 days*
Positive UA*

38.7
22.6
19.1
13.6
24.6

47.2
33.6
30.2
23.4
34.7

55.8
37.1
33.0
22.3
38.1

44.3
26.1
21.6
14.4
27.1

46.3
29.7
25.8
18.4
31.0

Crack
Lifetime
Past 12 months*
Past 30 days*
Past 3 days
Positive UA

27.1
4.5
3.5
1.5
10.1

26.8
6.8
4.9
3.4
11.3

37.6
12.2
8.6
4.1
11.2

30.6
6.9
3.4
2.7
10.3

30.3
7.5
4.9
2.9
10.7

Powder Cocaine
Lifetime
Past 12 months
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA

52.8
13.1
8.5
3.0
10.1

56.6
14.3
9.8
4.2
11.3

62.4
15.7
10.7
5.1
11.2

52.6
12.4
7.6
3.4
10.3

55.8
13.8
9.0
3.9
10.7

Opiates
Lifetime
Past 12 months
Past 30 days*
Past 3 days
Positive UA

19.6
6.5
4.0
2.5
7.5

26.0
13.2
10.9
8.3
13.6

26.4
12.7
10.2
6.6
11.7

23.4
11.3
7.2
5.8
11.0

23.9
11.1
8.2
6.0
11.1

* Chi-square significant at p < .05.

12

Exhibit 5. Drug Abuse among Female Arrestees by Category of Most Serious Offense on Current
Arrest (N=299)
Drug
Property
Violent
Other
Total
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
Offenders
%
%
%
%
%
Alcohol
98.7
98.6
97.7
Lifetime
93.2
98.1
81.0
74.3
75.3
Past 12 months
75.0
71.7
69.6
64.3
66.9
Past 30 days
70.5
65.1
45.6
37.1
42.1
Past 3 days
56.8
36.8
20.5
16.5
10.0
13.2
14.4
Positive UA
Marijuana
Lifetime
Past 12 months
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA

84.1
50.0
34.1
20.5
27.3

83.5
57.0
44.3
25.3
26.6

88.6
44.3
37.1
18.6
24.3

80.2
39.6
34.9
23.6
22.6

83.6
46.8
37.8
22.4
24.7

Methamphetamine
Lifetime
Past 12 months
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA*

47.7
20.5
15.9
9.1
18.2

55.7
41.8
32.9
24.1
41.8

58.6
38.6
31.4
25.7
42.9

53.8
34.0
30.2
18.9
33.0

54.5
35.1
29.1
20.4
35.5

Crack
Lifetime
Past 12 months
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA

18.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
4.5

31.6
8.9
5.1
1.3
6.3

37.1
10.0
8.6
7.1
10.0

26.4
6.6
5.7
2.8
6.6

29.1
7.4
5.7
3.3
7.0

Powder Cocaine
Lifetime
Past 12 months
Past 30 days
Past 3 days
Positive UA

45.5
11.4
9.1
2.3
4.5

54.4
11.4
10.1
3.8
6.3

55.7
10.0
5.7
1.4
10.0

43.4
6.6
5.7
1.9
6.6

49.5
9.4
7.4
2.3
7.0

Opiates
Lifetime
Past 12 months*
Past 30 days*
Past 3 days*
Positive UA*

13.6
4.5
4.5
2.3
4.5

30.4
20.3
15.2
12.7
17.7

21.4
14.3
11.4
10.0
15.7

16.0
4.7
2.8
0.9
4.7

20.7
11.0
8.4
6.4
10.7

* Chi-square significant at p < .05.

13

Positive Urinalyses by Sex and Race (Exhibit 6)


Among males, 50.0% of Native American or American Indian arrestees tested positive for
alcohol, which was significantly more common than all others.



There were no significant differences across race/ethnicity categories for marijuana among male
arrestees.



Among females, Asian, Pacific Islander or Other arrestees were significantly more likely to test
positive for marijuana (46.9%), with Native American or American Indian arrestees the least
likely (28.9%).



Both male and female White arrestees were the most likely to test positive for
methamphetamine (41.6% and 43.1%, respectively), followed by those who identified
themselves as Asian, Pacific Islander or Other (34.3% and 35.4%, respectively).



Both male and female Black/African-American arrestees were far more likely to test positive for
cocaine than other arrestees (20.6% and 26.8% respectively).



Hispanic/Latina females were the least likely to test positive for cocaine, at just 1.2%.



Both male and female White arrestees were the most likely to test positive for heroin and other
opiates, at 20.5% and 19.2%, respectively.

14

Exhibit 6. Positive Urinalysis Results by Sex and Race/Ethnicity of Arrestees (N=1,253)
Sex

Total

Male
%

Female
%

White Arrestees
Alcohol
Marijuana
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Opiates

6.4*
36.7
41.6*
5.8*
20.5*

6.4*
28.0*
47.2*
5.6*
19.2*

6.4*
34.3*
43.1*
5.8*
20.1*

Black Arrestees
Alcohol
Marijuana
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Opiates

9.9*
41.8
15.6*
20.6*
6.4*

7.3*
24.4*
12.2*
26.8*
4.9*

9.3*
37.9*
14.8*
22.0*
6.0*

Hispanic/Latino Arrestees
Alcohol
Marijuana
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Opiates

9.7*
36.7
29.8*
13.2*
6.3*

15.0*
16.2*
33.8*
1.2*
3.8*

10.8*
32.6*
30.6*
10.8*
5.8*

Native American Arrestees
Alcohol
Marijuana
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Opiates

50.0*
33.9
11.3*
8.1*
6.5*

53.6*
17.9*
17.9*
3.6*
0.0*

51.1*
28.9*
13.3*
6.7*
4.4*

Other Race/Ethnicity
Alcohol
Marijuana
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Opiates

5.7*
47.6
34.3*
6.7*
5.7*

20.0*
44.0*
40.0*
4.0*
12.0*

8.5*
46.9*
35.4*
6.2*
6.9*

%

* Chi-square significant at p < .05.

15

Victimization among Arrestees (Exhibit 7)


17.0% of arrestees had been threatened with a gun in the past 12 months, and 6.9% were
threatened in the past 30 days.



Of those threatened with a gun in the past 12 months, 16.7% of the incidents were domestic
violence related and 28.5% were gang related.



9.6% of arrestees had been shot or shot at in the past 12 months, and 3.0% in the past 30 days.



Of those who were shot or shot at in the past 12 months, 43.4% were gang-related and 47.3%
knew the shooter.



17.7% of arrestees had been threatened with a weapon other than a gun in the past 12 months,
and 8.5% in the past 30 days, 77.2% of whom knew the offender.



8.9% of arrestees had been injured with a weapon other than a gun in the past 12 months, and
4.2% in the past 30 days.



Of those injured with a weapon other than a gun in the past 12 months, 42.9% were domestic
violence related and in the past 30 days, 53.6% were domestic violence related.



Nearly a quarter (22.4%) of arrestees were attacked or assaulted in the past 12 months and
11.5% in the past 30 days.



Of those assaulted without a weapon in the past 12 months, 44.9% were domestic violence
related, 11.3% were gang-related, and 72.8% knew their attacker.

16

Exhibit 7: Victimization Rates Among Arrestees (N=1,342)
%
Occurred

N

Was incident
DV related?

Was incident
gang related?

Did you know
the offender?

Threatened with a gun
Past 12 months
Past 30 days

17.0
6.9

228
92

16.7
12.0

28.5
26.1

55.7
62.0

Shot or Shot at
Past 12 months
Past 30 days

9.6
3.0

129
40

11.6
12.5

43.4
40.0

47.3
40.0

Threatened with a weapon other than a gun
Past 12 months
Past 30 days

17.7
8.5

237
114

33.3
38.6

18.6
20.2

66.7
77.2

Injured with a weapon other than a gun
Past 12 months
Past 30 days

8.9
4.2

119
56

42.9
53.6

21.0
21.4

70.6
78.6

Attacked or assaulted without a weapon
Past 12 months
Past 30 days

22.4
11.5

301
155

44.9
49.7

11.3
13.5

72.8
72.3

17

Firearm Possession and Use among Arrestees (Exhibit 8)


23.1% of arrestees have carried a gun in the past 12 months.



5.7% have carried a gun during the commission of a crime; and



2.5% reported actually using a gun to commit a crime.

Exhibit 8: Firearm possession and criminal use (N=1,342)

%
53.8

Past 12
months
%
23.1

Possessed a gun during the commission of a crime
(whether or not the gun was "used" as part of the crime)

12.7

5.7

Used a gun to commit a crime

6.9

2.5

Ever
Possessed or carried a gun

Arrestees’ Perceptions of Police and Police Contacts (Exhibit 9)


70.4% reported that police treated them with respect during their most recent arrest.



69.1% said that police treated them fairly.



73.0% said police behaved professionally during their most recent arrest.



17.4% reported having been threatened with use of force during their most recent arrest, and
15.5% reported that police actually used physical force during the arrest.



8.8% of arrestees indicated that they were injured during their most recent arrest.



11.9% of arrestees reported arguing with police.



3.9% of arrestees reported resisting being searched or handcuffed during their most recent
arrest.

18

Exhibit 9: Police Contact (N=1,342)
Yes
%
Did the police officer…
treat you with respect?
treat you fairly?
act professionally?
threaten to use force against you for any reason?
use force against you for any reason?

70.4
69.1
73.0
17.4
15.5

Were you physically injured as a result of this incident?

8.8

Did you argue or disobey with the officer for any reason?

11.9

Did you physically resist being searched or handcuffed?

3.9

Mental Health Characteristics among Arrestees (Exhibit 10)


31.1% of arrestees have been told by a doctor or other behavioral health professional that they
have a mental or behavioral health problem.



28.4% of arrestees have been treated for a mental health problem.



27.9% have been prescribed medication to treat a mental health problem.



11.4% of arrestees have been hospitalized for a mental or behavioral health problem in the past,
and 5.7% have been civilly committed.



30.5% of arrestees have stated that they feel they could use treatment, medication or other
help from a mental health professional, but only 22.3% have ever sought help.

19

Exhibit 10: Mental Health History (N=1,342)

%

Past 12
months
%

Told to have a mental health illness or emotional
problem

31.1

17.3

Treated for a mental health problem

28.4

15.2

Been prescribed medication for a mental health or
emotional, or psychiatric problem

27.9

15.1

Hospitalized for a mental health problem

11.4

4.0

Civilly committed for a mental health problem

5.7

2.0

Diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

9.6

5.1

Felt that could use treatment, medication or other help
for mental health

30.5

26.6

Sought help for a mental problem

22.3

15.9

Ever

Incarceration History of Arrestees (Exhibit 11)


24.4% of arrestees have previously served time in Maricopa County jails.



7.3% have previously been incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Exhibit 11: Incarceration in Jail or Prison, Lifetime and Past 12 Months (N=1,342)

%

Past 12
months
%

Incarcerated (served time) in a county jail?

58.5

27.3

Incarcerated (served time) in any Maricopa County Jail

48.7

24.4

Incarcerated in prison

34.8

8.9

Incarcerated in any Arizona Department of Corrections facility

27.5

7.3

Ever

20

Correctional Health Services Issues among Arrestees (Exhibit 12)


23.5% of arrestees reported having been previously diagnosed with a chronic medical condition,
requiring routine care, and 21.8% required regular medication needs.



13.3% of arrestees anticipated addressing a healthcare need while in jail that they would not
have addressed outside of jail.



38.5% of arrestees reported a medical need during booking.



The vast majority of arrestees (94.3%) felt they could answer health screening questions
administered during booking honestly, and 94.2% said they did so.



Among those that did not answer truthfully, the most common reason given was that they did
not feel comfortable sharing their personal health problems (35.1%) and they did not believe
they would receive help anyway (25.7%).

Exhibit 12: Correctional Health Services (N=1,342)
Yes
%
Have you been diagnosed with any chronic medical illness which requires regular
care?

23.5

Do you have any chronic illnesses for which you take medication on a regular basis?

21.8

Do you anticipate addressing any healthcare needs while in jail that you could not
have addressed out of jail?

13.3

Did you report any medical needs during this booking?

38.5

Did you feel like you could answer the health screening questions truthfully?

94.3

Did you answer the health screening questions truthfully?

94.2

If you did not answer truthfully, what were some of the reasons why:
I did not believe I would get help anyway.
I expect to get released quickly.
I was hoping to get released sooner if I did not report any problems.
I did not really understand what was happening at the time.
I did not care; being honest would make no difference anyway.
I did not understand that health care services were available.
I did not feel comfortable sharing my personal health problems.

25.7
12.2
6.8
6.8
13.5
4.1
35.1

21

Criminal Involvement among Arrestees (Exhibit 13)


13.2% of arrestees had assaulted someone without using a weapon in the past 12 months, at an
average of 23.6 times.



14.4% of arrestees had stolen something worth less than $1,000 in the past 12 months, at an
average of 29.8 times.



4.6% of arrestees had stolen something worth more than $1,000 in the past 12 months, at an
average of 12.6 times.



14.3% of arrestees admitted to committing domestic violence in the past 12 months, at a mean
rate of 5.2 times.



Driving Under the Influence (DUI) was the most common offense in which respondents engaged:
nearly half of all arrestees admitted to having committed an alcohol-related DUI (56.4%) or
drug-related DUI (47.5%).



In the past 12 months, 23.6% of arrestees reported having committed a drug-related DUI an
average of 104.3 times, and reported being arrested for the crime an average of 0.5 times.

22

Exhibit 13: Lifetime and 12-month Criminal Involvement, Frequency, and Arrest History (N=1,342)

Have you ever…?

Done crime in
past 12 months?

Times done in
past 12 months?

Ever arrested for
this crime…

Times arrested in
past 12 months?

N

%

N

%

Mean

SD

N

%

Mean

SD

Driven under the influence of alcohol [DUI]?

755

56.4

289

21.6

24.6

74.07

360

26.9

0.5

0.92

Driven under the influence of drugs (not including
alcohol)?

636

47.5

316

23.6

104.3

165.55

86

6.4

0.5

0.66

Stolen property worth LESS than $1000?

502

37.5

193

14.4

29.8

102.29

239

17.9

0.8

1.10

Attacked, assaulted or beaten-up someone without
using a weapon?

466

34.8

177

13.2

23.6

252.85

117

8.7

0.5

0.67

Threaten to attack someone without using a
weapon?

427

31.9

241

18.0

16.0

63.89

89

6.6

0.8

1.25

Committed domestic violence (including assault,
disorderly conduct, criminal damage, etc.)?

391

29.2

192

14.3

5.2

30.05

315

23.5

0.8

0.94

Sold or made drugs?

389

29.1

178

13.3

330.8

797.34

86

6.4

0.4

0.69

Destroyed property worth LESS than $250?

320

23.9

93

6.9

8.9

41.46

118

8.8

0.6

0.88

Broke into a house, store, or building to commit
theft?

274

20.5

56

4.2

5.6

9.76

109

8.1

0.5

1.06

Destroyed property worth MORE than $250?

233

17.4

54

4.0

9.9

50.17

83

6.2

0.4

0.79

23

Exhibit 13 (continued): Lifetime and 12-month Criminal Involvement, Frequency, and Arrest History (N=1,342)

Have you ever…?

Done crime in
past 12 months?

Times done in
past 12 months?

Ever arrested for
this crime…

Times arrested in
past 12 months?

N

%

N

%

Mean

SD

N

%

Mean

SD

Possessed a firearm while prohibited (felony
conviction, probation, underage, etc.)?

227

17.0

106

7.9

108.3

156.28

54

4.0

0.6

0.69

Written/drawn graffiti on neighborhood houses,
walls, schools, stores etc?

212

15.8

39

2.9

53.0

103.24

33

2.5

0.5

0.97

Stolen a car or motor vehicle?

211

15.8

29

2.2

7.0

19.34

139

10.4

0.3

0.55

Threaten to attack someone using a weapon?

204

15.2

104

7.8

4.3

19.86

54

4.0

0.6

1.19

Stolen property worth MORE than $1000?

170

12.7

62

4.6

12.6

35.32

74

5.5

0.6

0.76

Attacked, assaulted or beaten-up someone using a
weapon?

135

10.1

43

3.2

5.1

15.67

40

3.0

0.4

0.59

Robbed someone by force or by threat of force
without using a weapon?

117

8.7

29

2.2

2.5

3.62

28

2.1

0.3

0.56

Robbed someone by force or by threat of force
using a weapon?

84

6.3

23

1.7

3.2

2.14

27

2.0

0.6

1.39

Used someone’s ID or identity to commit theft,
forgery, or fraud?

71

5.3

30

2.2

35.0

73.34

47

3.5

0.6

0.75

Participated in a drive-by shooting?

55

4.1

4

0.3

2.8

3.50

4

0.3

0.0

0.00

24

About the Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety
Arizona State University, in order to deepen its commitment to the communities of Arizona and to society
as a whole, has set a new standard for research universities, as modeled by the New American University.
Accordingly, ASU is measured not by whom we exclude, but by whom we include.
The University is pursuing research that considers the public good and is assuming a greater responsibility to
our communities for economic, social, and cultural vitality. Social embeddedness – university-wide, interactive,
and mutually-supportive partnerships with Arizona communities – is at the core of our development as a New
American University.
Toward the goal of social embeddedness, in response to the growing need of our communities to improve
the public’s safety and well-being, in July 2005 ASU established the Center for Violence Prevention and
Community Safety. The Center’s mission is to generate, share, and apply quality research and knowledge to
create “best practice” standards.
Specifically, the Center evaluates policies and programs; analyzes and evaluates patterns and causes of
violence; develops strategies and programs; develops a clearinghouse of research reports and “best practice”
models; educates, trains, and provides technical assistance; and facilitates the development and construction
of databases.
For more information about the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, please contact us using
the information provided below.

MAILING ADDRESS

Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety
College of Public Programs
Arizona State University
Mail Code 3120
500 N. 3rd Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2135

PHONE

602.496.1470

WEB SITE

http://cvpcs.asu.edu