MARICOPA COUNTY
ADULT PROBATION
Annual Report
2008
Developing Strategic Moves Towards
Evidence-Based Practices

Dear Judge Mundell:
The past year has been an exciting one, filled with
hard work, steady progress, and promising indicators.
I am extremely proud of our managers and staff, who
have enthusiastically stepped up to accept and create,
both personal and organizational change in support of
the department’s goals. With assistance from the Crime and Justice Institute, we
have been immersed in organizational change as part of our evidence-based practices initiative. Our optimal contribution to public safety will be realized by working with probationers, community partners, and each other in ways that are known
to reduce crime.
At every level, Adult Probation is progressing steadily with the implementation of
evidence-based practices. At the same time, we are developing the organization’s
future leaders, as many of our supervisors have recently retired or are nearing retirement. New structures for communication and decision-making have been established to develop capacity with our mid-managers, fortify the organization’s
commitment to evidence-based practices, and improve multi-directional information flow. The Quality Assurance supervisors have provided training, resources,
and outstanding support to staff with assessment skills, effective communication
strategies, and meaningful case planning. Contingency management in the Drug
Court has been a wonderful demonstration of the gains to be made with evidencebased practices.
Positive results from the employee satisfaction survey and improvement in the fiscal year 2008 results on our crime reduction measures indicate that we are moving
in the right direction. It is a pleasure to report these encouraging results. As a department, our dedication to continuous improvement in the services to our clients, the
Court and the community is steadfast.
During these difficult economic times, we
are critically aware of the responsibility to
manage with maximum efficiency. The
support of the Court, as well as county
management, is appreciated as we maintain
our focus on delivering services that are
vital to public safety.
Sincerely,

Barbara Broderick
Barbara A. Broderick
Chief Probation Officer

2

SECTION I
Letter to Presiding Criminal Court Judge Barbara Rodriguez-Mundell………
Vision Statement………………………….…………………………………………
Values Statement..………………………………………………..…………………
Mission Statement...……………………………………………………….………..
Evidence-Based Practices...…………………………………………….…………..
Drug Court Contingency Management…………………………………………..
Managing For Results..….……………………………………………….…………
General Information....………………………………………………….………….

Page
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

SECTION II
Pretrial Services ...………………………………...………………………………….
Presentence Investigation…………………………………………………………...
Standard Probation…………………………………………………………………..
Sex Offender Division……………………………………………………………….
Domestic Violence……………………………………………………………………
Seriously Mentally Ill………………………………………………………………..
Transferred Youth……………………………………………………………………
Intensive Probation………………………………………………………………….
Interstate Compact & Indirect Services……………………………………………
Fugitive Apprehension………………………………………………………………
Compliance Monitoring……………………………………………………………..
Custody Management Unit & Work Furlough Program………………………..
Treatment & Education………………………………………………………………

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

SECTION III
Employee Satisfaction Survey….…………………………………………………… 25
Maricopa County Adult Probation Fiscal Year 2008 Awards...…………………. 26
Maricopa County Adult Probation Organizational Chart……………………….. 27

3

A

n agency of professionals committed to continuous

improvement in the quality of community life by offering hope to
neighborhoods, victims and offenders.

“Vision without action is a
dream. Action without vision
is simply passing the time.
Action with Vision is making
a positive difference.”

- Joel Barker

4

W

e believe:

In treating all people with dignity and respect.

People can change and that probation services are a
viable means to affect positive change.
In promoting and maintaining a positive, safe, and
healthy community environment.
In the value of our positive relationships with our
stakeholders.
Staff is the greatest resource in accomplishing our
mission.

5

T

o enhance the safety and well being of our
neighborhoods. We accomplish this through:
Working in partnership with the community to provide
research based prevention and intervention services;
•

Assessing offenders’ risk/needs in order to help guide
Court decisions and to apply the appropriate level of
supervision;

•

Managing offender risk by enforcing Court orders, affording opportunities for pro-social change and expecting law-abiding behavior and personal accountability;

•

Facilitating victim involvement and restorative justice services;

•

Recognizing and rewarding staff performance and
achievement;

•

Providing training to enhance our professional skill
and build leadership.
Success is to be measured not
so much by the position that
one has reached in life as by
the obstacles which he has
overcome.
- Booker T. Washington

L to R: Surveillance Officer of the
Barbara Goree, Employee of the
Bob Kaliszczjk, Supervisor of the
Melissa Filas; Employee of the
Jason Overmyer

Year;
Year;
Year;
Year,

6

I

n keeping with Evidence-Based Practices (EBP), the Department requested and received funding for three Quality Assurance Supervisor positions; the positions were
approved for up to three years. During the past reporting period, the supervisors began working in the Planning and Research Unit, with the main goal of assisting the Department with its Evidence-Based Initiative. The initial priority of the Quality Assurance Supervisors has been to develop and provide refresher training courses to field officers on assessment accuracy (inter-rater reliability), effective case management planning, and the enhancement of offender motivation via effective communication. The Quality Assurance Supervisors have also created an EBP web site and are working with staff Development on
Curriculum Development.
During the past reporting period, the Crime and Justice Institute announced that
the Department was one of two agencies chosen nationally to participate in the Implementing Effective Correctional Management of Offenders in the Community project. The Department, along with the Los Angeles, California, Orange County Probation Department,
has begun working on a two-year project with the National Institute of Corrections and the
Crime and Justice Institute. The goal of the project is to assist these two agencies that have
implemented an evidence-based initiative and to further advance the integrated model endorsed by the National Institute of Corrections, which combines the use of evidence-based
principles, collaboration, and organizational development. During this past rating period,
the Department had the opportunity to assess the organizational climate. As a result, the
Department is utilizing the technical support from the grant to engage mid-managers in the
decision-making process and improve the communication flow. It is believed this will help
increase capacity of mid-managers and ownership of achieving organizational goals at all
levels of the Department. A mid-manger committee co-chaired by two mid-managers (three
Directors serve in a consultant role) will assume responsibility for increasing buy-in of Evidenced-Based Practices and developing the knowledge and skill level of all supervisors.
Existing committees will increase mid-manager and line staff involvement and responsibility. The current committees are working on Graduated Responses, Curriculum Development, Performance Appraisals, and Communication.
In July 2007, the Department developed and began implementation of a new appraisal system. The appraisal system centers around the monthly caseload reviews conducted by supervisors and the staffs’ input provided on their monthly reports, which identifies any extra curricular activity that merits mentioning. The appraisal system was recently
automated to allow for more objective scoring, provide for weighting of the most critical
evaluation areas, and ensure consistency department-wide. During this past reporting period, the new performance appraisal system began expansion to include supervisors and
support staff.

EVIDENCE-BASED
PRINCIPLES

Offender
Application

Organization’s
Policy and
Structure

Persons in the
Organization
(Leaders’ and
Staffs’ Actions)

7

I

n October of 2006, the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department (MCAPD) implemented a
contingency management component to its Drug Court Program for those participating in Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOP). Prior to implementation, it was anticipated that the addition of rewards administered through a contingency management approach would have a positive
impact on the attendance and drug tests of the participants in IOP.
In order to determine if the contingency management component was having an effect on
attendance and drug tests, client records for a three-month period prior to implementation (June 1,
2006 through August 31, 2006) were reviewed. Data was collected on all IOP participants during
that time period. There were 133 active participants in the IOP program during that time. Attendance data was provided on all individuals. Of the 133 active participants, 109 were identified as
being assigned to report to TASC. Data on drug tests conducted was provided for 108 of those individuals.
As the contingency management component was implemented into IOP, Drug Court staff
maintained attendance and UA records. A second set of data was reviewed for a three-month period after implementation (January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007). The original data provided
identified 262 individuals. However, fifteen were excluded because they exited the program prior to
January 1, 2007. Another eighteen individuals were excluded because they were considered inactive
for the entire three-month period. A final individual was excluded because that person was considered inappropriate for Drug Court. In the end, there were 228 individuals who actively participated
in IOP between January 1, 2007 and March 31, 2007. Complete attendance data was available for 220
individuals. Urinalysis data was also provided. The data did not indicate specifically who was assigned to report to TASC. Drug testing data was provided for ninety-eight individuals.
Tables 1 and 2 below provide a comparison of attendance and drug testing data from the
IOP of the MCAPD Drug Court for a three-month period prior to the implementation of contingency
management and for a three-month period after the implementation of contingency management.

Table 1: Comparison of IOP Attendance Prior to and After the Implementation of Contingency Management

Prior to Contingency Management
(June – August 2006), n=133

After Contingency Management
Implemented (January – March
2007), n = 220

% Sessions Attended – Mean

64.4

84.2

% Sessions Attended – Median
Standard Deviation

69.0
28.3

100.0
25.6

Table 1 indicates that prior to the implementation of contingency management, IOP participants attended, on average, 64% of the required sessions. After the implementation of contingency
management, IOP participants attended, on average, 84% of the required sessions. More noticeable
is that, when looking at the median, once contingency management had been implemented, half of
the participants attended all of the required sessions while prior to the implementation of contingency management, the median was only 69%.
Table 2: Comparison of Drug Testing of IOP Participants Prior to and After the Implementation of Contingency Management

Prior to Contingency Management
(June – August 2006), n = 108

After Contingency Management
Implemented (January – March
2007), n = 98
12.3

% of Clients with Positive Drug Test

45.0

% Negative Tests
% Positive Tests*

59.5
13.5

73.8
9.8

% Missed Tests

27.0

16.4

*Diluted tests were considered positive and were included in this category.

Table 2 reveals that, prior to the implementation of contingency management, a greater percentage of participants in IOP had a positive drug test (45% vs. 12%). After the implementation of
contingency management, fewer individuals tested positive for drugs. In addition, the overall percentage of negative tests increased while the percentage of positive and missed tests decreased.
While these results are preliminary, they do suggest that the contingency management approach is having a positive impact on the attendance and drug testing of participants in the IOP
component of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Drug Court Program.
8

I

n Maricopa County, achieving positive results has been the mandate of county government for the past seven years with an initiative called Managing for Results (MFR).
This is a comprehensive and integrated management system that focuses on achieving
results for the customer and makes it possible for departments to demonstrate accountability to the taxpayers of Maricopa County.
To accomplish its mission, the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department has
established five MFR strategic goals. The first is Goal A: Crime Reduction. The department has developed targets over the next several years to measure achievement in this goal.
Key indicators include reducing the rate probationers commit new felony offenses, reducing
the rate probationers are committed to the Department of Corrections, and improving the
rate probationers and pretrial defendants successfully complete supervision. The other four
strategic goals support Goal A (see pages 14 through 19).
The second is Goal B: Retention and Compensation. A qualified and diverse
workforce is an essential ingredient for an agency to be successful. The department holds
focus groups and forums to develop strategies in order to achieve this goal. It also routinely
measures staff satisfaction on a variety of subjects that range from pay and benefits to management practices. In the last survey conducted by county government, the department
achieved its highest rating ever (see page 26).
The third is Goal C: Process Improvement. Making improvements to the way we
conduct business and provide services is the focus of this goal. It includes how well the department collects victim restitution and delivers reports to the court. Since 2004, “Process
Improvement” has also included evidence-based practices (EBP). EBP are those practices
and processes that are scientifically proven to have the greatest impact on reducing recidivism. EBP has become the department’s primary strategy to achieve “Goal A: Crime Reduction.” Over the past few years, the department’s EBP initiative has concentrated on accurate assessments of the probationer’s risk to reoffend and addressing the needs the probationer has to change from criminal to law-abiding behavior. Because MCAPD has been successful in integrating results driven management (MFR) and evidence-based practices, it
was selected this fiscal year to participate in an National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
funded grant to further advance efforts to achieve “Goal C: Process Improvement”.
The fourth is Goal D: Customer Satisfaction. The department routinely seeks feedback from a variety of customers and stakeholders in order to evaluate the quality of its services and collaborative efforts. The information is then used to devise strategies for making
improvements. Victims are surveyed annually while judges, community partners, criminal
justice agencies, probationers and pretrial defendants are surveyed biennially. This year’s
Community Partner Survey results indicated that 81% of
those surveyed were satisfied with their organization’s interaction with Maricopa County Adult Probation.
The fifth is Goal E: Infrastructure. The department
cannot conduct business unless it has the necessary facilities, equipment, and safety practices available. It also
needs the training to make the best use of staff talents and
develop their abilities. For an agency that has embarked on
an evidence-based initiative, training is a key organizational development component. EBP research has shown
that the skills staff possess can have the greatest impact on
helping offenders change behavior and can have the most
significant impact on achieving “Goal A: Crime Reduction.”

9

•

•

•

•

•

Maricopa County has a population of over 3,200,000 people
(2002). It is the fourth most
populous county in the nation
and is home to more people
than twenty-one states and
the District of Columbia.
Maricopa County has a land
area of 9,226 square miles, of
which 1,441 square miles are
incorporated (15.6 percent)
and 7,785 square miles are
unincorporated (84.4 percent).
It is the fifth largest of Arizona's fifteen counties, and
the fourteenth largest county
in the United States. Maricopa
County is larger than seven
states and the District of Columbia.
The county measures 132
miles from east to west and
103 miles from north to south.
Twenty-four cities and towns
are located within Maricopa
County's outer boundaries.

Phoenix

MARICOPA COUNTY
ADULT PROBATION
•

Maricopa County Adult Probation was
established in 1972

•

$84,368,605 Annual Budget

•

1,244 Employees

•

17 Regional and Area Offices

•

Average of 2,144 offenders under
pretrial supervision per month

•

2,741 direct arrests by Fugitive
Apprehension Unit in FY2008

•

23,966 Standard Probationers

•

1,093 Intensive Probationers
10

Maricopa County Active Adult Probationers
Race/Ethnicity
1% 1%

13%

Asian
Black
Hispanic
Native American

51%

30%

White
Other

4%

Average Monthly Active Probation Population:

30,984

Average Monthly Total Probation Population:

57,471

Eighty-two percentage on Probation for Felony Offenses

Total FY2008 Budget
$84,368,605

16%
6%

General County Fund
Grants

78%

Revenues

Maricopa County Adult Probationer's Offense Levels
Males
60%

Females

53%

50%

43%

40%
30%
19%
20%
10%

17% 16%

13%

14%
10%

3% 3%

4% 5%

0%
Class 1
Class 6 Felony Class 5 Felony Class 4 Felony Class 3 Felony Class 2 Felony
M isdemeanor

11

T

he Pretrial Services Division has five primary
responsibilities with Adult Probation. They conduct background checks on arrested defendants,
which involves interviewing and information verification for persons booked into the Maricopa County Jail
System. They provide standard, intensive, and electronic monitoring services for defendants released to
Pretrial Services and secure that defendant’s appearance in court. They track defendants who fail to appear. They refer defendants to needed social services,
including drug treatment, and they complete Bond
Modification investigations and reports for the Court.
Pretrial Services Jail Unit conducted 56,438 interviews of arrested defendants in the Maricopa
County Jail System in FY 2008.
There were an average of 1388 referrals a month
from the Maricopa County Initial Appearance Court to
Pretrial release supervision.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008:
2,317

(MFR Data)

Average Cost Per
Defendant
Supervised
$4.24
Annual Program Cost
FY2008
$3,582,820
Electronic Monitoring
Officer Caseload
1:26
General/Intensive
Officer Caseload

The Pretrial Supervision Unit supervised an
average of 2,317 defendants per month with a break1:84
down of averages of 772 under general supervision,
1,290 under intensive supervision, and 255 under electronic monitoring supervision. The unit completed an average of 641 Initial Intakes
and 1,833 office visits per month during this fiscal year.
The Bond Report unit completed an average of eighty-two reports per
month on in-custody defendants to assist the Court in determining the appropriateness of release modifications.
As a result of Pretrial Service’s efforts, the estimated calculated jail days
saved during this period has been 842,531 days and $59,465,838 in jail costs.
Major Events
• Expanded jail interviewing and investigative duties to assure better-informed
•
•
•

•

•

release decisions.
Continued to collaborate with the City of Phoenix on a Domestic Violence
project to assess for risk behavior and make informed release decisions.
Expanded and enhanced the case management program in the court-wide
iCIS automated system to provide for a more integrated system.
Transitioned to the JWI masks in the Jail Management System for better and
more efficient access to the State DPS database containing criminal history
information.
Obtained a data link to determine if newly arrested defendants had ever been
evaluated for SMI services, if they were actively participating in the RHBA
system, and if it was possible to expedite to treatment prior to loss of services.
Modified policies and procedures, as well as internal forms, to conform to
best practices.
12

T

he Presentence Division prepares reports
Number of
on defendants who enter a guilty plea or
Presentence
are found guilty by a jury. These requests
Investigation
originate from the traditional Superior Court or
Reports Completed in
from specialized sites including the Regional
FY2008
Court Center (RCC) and the Early Disposition
21,223
Court (EDC). The primary purpose of the report
(Monthly Statistical Data)
is to provide the Court with objective, pertinent
Average Cost Per
information to assist in sentencing the defendant.
Presentence
Cases processed through the EDC and RCC are
Investigation Report
typically set for sentencing seven to ten days after
$398.85
a determination of guilt. Standard reports are
usually set for sentencing twenty-eight days after
Annual Program Cost
FY2008
a finding of guilt. Officers and screeners administer assessments that determine offender risk
$8,464,815
and areas of needed intervention, compile criminal history information, and interview defendants, victims and other parties. This information assists judges with sentencing decisions and is utilized by field officers in developing supervision
strategies for those sentenced to terms of probation.
The Division successfully incorporated a new method of compiling
criminal histories in FY 2008. The Criminal History Worksheet Project was
the recipient of a NACo award. This portion of a presentence report is
critical to sentencing. Another vital tool of assessing defendant risk and
need is the Offender Screening Tool (OST). The OST is a key component of
the department’s Evidence-Based Practices initiative. All defendants sentenced to probation are administered this tool, which forms the basis of the
case management plan utilized in supervising defendants and addressing
their criminogenic needs. Other administered assessments gauge alcohol
and substance use and abuse and reading ability.
In FY 2008, the Division completed 17, 411 reports. Presentence continues to strive for excellence in the delivery of timely reports to the
Court. There are currently 64 officers and 47
screeners operating at a success rate of 99.2%
for on-time reporting, which contributes to reduced costs and the swift delivery of justice.

13

S

tandard Field Operations coordinate the case management of standard probationers throughout the county in
six field divisions. The centralized community supervision services are Community Restitution, Fugitive Apprehension, Court Liaison, Communication Center, Collections, Work
Furlough, and Custody Management. Specialized caseloads
include Seriously Mentally Ill and Transferred Youth supervised at a caseload average of forty. Additionally, Sex Offender and Domestic Violence caseloads are supervised using a
team approach.
Standard Probation supervision consists of assessing
criminogenic factors, aligning case plans with results, and assisting in behavioral change.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008:
23,966

(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer
$3.31
Annual Program
Cost FY2008
$28,946,266
Average Caseload

Drug monitoring results indicate 87% of probationers
were drug free during FY 2008.

1:59

Restitution Paid by Standard Probationers: $ 9,467,475
Community Work Hours Completed by Standard Probationers: 327,536
Probationers Who Successfully
Complete Standard Probation
60.0%
40.0%

61.3%

58.9%

20.0%
0.0%
FY 2007
N = 5853

FY 2008
N = 6095

Probationers Sentenced for a New Felony

10.0%

8.9%

8.0%
6.0%

8.5%

4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
FY 2007
N = 2099

FY 2008
N = 2039

Probationers Committed to Department of Corrections
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

36.0%
38.3%

FY 2007
N = 3809

FY 2008
N = 3578

14

T

he purpose of the Sex Offender Program is to proAverage Daily
vide enhanced management of the sex offender
Population
population utilizing evidence-based practices to
FY2008
manage and decrease risk, prevent further victims, and
1631
protect the community. Treatment and probation supervi(Monthly Statistical Data)
sion collaborate to promote positive behavioral change by
Average Daily Cost
regularly assessing sex offenders to determine and target
Per
treatment interventions and supervision strategies and
Probationer
measure progress. Research has shown that close collabora$6.20
tion allows for enhancement of the offender’s protective
factors and development of a prosocial support sysAverage Annual
tem while simultaneously placing accountability on the
Program Cost
probationer.
Because most sex offenders are on lifetime proba$3,693,419
(w/o Treatment)
tion, their success rate is calculated by the number of the
active population not committed to the Department of CorOfficer’s Average
rections.
Caseload
The Department began monitoring certain offenders
2:61
utilizing a Global Positioning System (GPS) after the legislature passed SB 1371. The new law indicates that persons
sentenced on or after November 1, 2006, for a Dangerous Crime Against Children
(DCAC) pursuant to ARS 13-604.01 “shall be monitored by GPS for the duration of
the term of probation.” At the end of FY 2008, there were 77 cases utilizing GPS.
Drug monitoring results indicate 96% of sex offender probationers were drug
free during FY 2008.
New Felony Convictions
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%

4.3%

3.7%

2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
FY 2007
N = 68

FY 2008
N = 60

Probationers Committed to
Department of Corrections
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%

9.1%
7.7%

FY 2007

FY 2008

N = 129

N = 156

15

D

omestic Violence supervision is a collaborative and
enhanced supervision approach to stop the abuse
(physical, emotional, and sexual) and replace it
with effective thinking and appropriate behaviors, which
will lead to healthy relationships. Emphasis is placed on
assessing offender risk factors, referral to Domestic Violence counseling, and victim safety. Managing offender accountability is accomplished through enhanced team approach monitoring and victim intervention with the assistance of the Court, victim advocates, treatment providers,
and law enforcement partnerships. The collaborative approach includes domestic violence orientation, review hearings in the Domestic Violence Court, and supervision of
offenders sentenced by the limited jurisdiction courts including the City Courts.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008
605

(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer
$5.48
Average Annual
Program Cost
$1,211,106
Officer’s Average
Caseload
2:55

Drug monitoring results indicate 89% of domestic violence probationers
were drug free during FY 2008.
Successful Completion of Probation
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

39.0%

35.8%

FY 2007
N = 102

FY 2008
N = 104

New Felony Convictions
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%

8.6%

4.5%

4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
FY 2007
N = 56

FY 2008
N = 27

Probationers Committed to
Department of Corrections
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

54.0%

FY 2007
N = 154

51.3%

FY 2008
N = 137

16

T

he purpose of the specialized Mental Health Unit is to
monitor seriously mentally ill probationers while providing enhanced opportunities for change through
close supervision, timely case management, education, training, advocacy, and effective collaboration with community
agencies. Motivational interviewing and other evidencebased practices are key strategies utilized by officers in the
specialized unit. In addition, officers in the specialized Mental Health Unit utilize the Comprehensive Mental Health
Court as a therapeutic forum for advanced problem solving
for probationers in non-compliance. A team approach consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, case managers, court liaisons, Correctional Health staff, and Adult Probation is used.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008:

532

(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer
$6.76
Annual Program
Cost FY2008
$1,313,229
Officers Average
Caseload
1:38

Drug monitoring results indicate 86% of seriously
mentally ill probationers were drug free during FY 2008.
Successful Completion of Probation

75.7%

80.0%
60.0%

78.1%

40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 2007

FY 2008

N = 207

N = 231

New Felony Convictions
8.0%

6.4%

6.0%
4.0%

4.5%

2.0%
0.0%
FY 2007

FY 2008
N = 34

N = 24

Probationers Committed to
Department of Corrections
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%

19.6%

20.0%

10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
FY 2007

FY 2008

N = 58

N = 61

17

T

he purpose of the specialized Transferred Youth
caseload is to provide the probationer with an officer
who possesses expertise in merging the juvenile into the
adult system and can coordinate the specialized services
needed by this unique population. Because of the smaller
caseload, the probation officer can develop a close working relationship with family, schools, and the probationer’s peers.
Currently, the Adult Probation Department has assigned standard and intensive probation officers to the Transferred Youth
Caseload. In addition to involvement in educational programs
and treatment services, many of the probationers also participate in the Juvenile Transferred Offender Program Court.
These probationers attend monthly sessions before a Superior
Court Judge during which their progress on probation is reviewed. Probationers can obtain rewards for positive accomplishments, or they can receive consequences such as community restitution hours or a short jail term for negative behavior.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008
170

(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily
Cost Per Probationer
$5.60
Average Annual
Program Cost
$347,625
Officer’s Average
Caseload
1:43

Drug monitoring results indicate 95% of transferred youth probationers
were drug free during FY 2008.
Successful Completion of Probation
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%

51.6%

30.0%

25.8%

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
FY 2007
N = 49

FY 2008
N = 17

New Felony Convictions
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

20.6%

21.5%

FY 2007
N = 37

FY 2008
N = 35

Probationers Committed to
Department of Corrections
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%

72.7%
48.4%
FY 2007
N = 46

FY 2008
N = 48

18

I

ntensive Probation Supervision (IPS) is conducted
throughout the six community supervision field divisions in addition to ancillary operations in the Fugitive
Apprehension and Court Liaison programs. Intensive Probation teams incorporate a number of assessments in aligning risk scores and criminogenic needs with case plans.
The screening tool has been expanded to include assessment results and specifically targets family and peer relationships, attitude, and criminal behavior at both the presentence and community supervision stages.
The focus on these targeted areas has assisted in evidence-based case management and accountability of this
inherently higher-risk population.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008
1093
(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer
$25.54
Average Annual
Program Cost
$10,187,117
Officer’s Average
Caseload

Drug monitoring results indicate 83% of IPS
probationers were drug free during FY 2008.

2:17

Restitution Paid by IPS Probationers: $ 212,620

Community Restitution Hours Completed by IPS Probationers: 244,997
IPS Probationers Who Exit IPS and Are Not
Revoked to Department of Corrections or Jail
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

46%
42%

FY 2007
N = 745

FY 2008
N = 648

New Felony Convictions
15%
10%

10%

13%

5%
0%
FY 2007
N = 158

FY 2008
N = 111

Probationers Committed to
Department of Corrections
60%
40%
20%

58%

54%

0%
FY 2007
N = 1023

FY 2008
N = 750

19

P

robationers who commit offenses in other states and
reside in Maricopa County are supervised by probation officers assigned to the Interstate Compact InComing Unit. Officers conduct investigations on incoming
transfer requests. They are required to perform the same
services for Interstate Compact In-Coming probationers as
they would for Maricopa County Superior Court.
During FY 2008, the Interstate Compact In-Coming Division completed a total of 715 investigative reports, with an
on-time rate of 96%. The number of investigation requests
for Maricopa County to complete continues to represent the
vast majority of cases assigned to the state.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008
754

(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer
$3.31
Average Annual
Program Cost
$910,945

Amount Paid to the
Victim Compensation and
Assistance Fund
$241,916

Average Daily
Number of Probationers Monitored
Through
Indirect Services
FY2008
15,811

(MFR Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer to be
Monitored by Indirect
Services
$0.16
Average Annual
Program Cost
$899,659
Officer’s Average
Caseload
1:55

T

he Maricopa County Adult Probation Indirect Services Unit is the largest administrative unit in the
State of Arizona. It is comprised of four teams: (1)
the ADC caseload, numbering approximately 8,000 cases,
which acts as a gatekeeper for those re-entering the community from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)
and who are required to complete a probation grant upon
their release; (2) the Immigration & Customs Enforcement
caseload (ICE), numbering approximately 8,000 cases,
which is comprised of those who are either deported or in
the process of deportation; (3) the Interstate Compact Outgoing caseload, numbering approximately 1,200 cases,
which is comprised of those who commit crimes within
Maricopa County but who either are legal residents of
other states or who wish to apply to have their probation
grants supervised by other states; and (4) the InterCounty
Outgoing Transfer caseload, numbering approximately
1,200 cases, which is comprised of those who commit
crimes within Maricopa County but who either are legal
residents of another Arizona county or who wish to apply
to have their probation grants supervised by another Arizona county.
20

T

he unit now has seventeen officers who are asTotal Number of
signed to locate the most serious probation abNew
Warrant Cases
sconders. Officers prioritize the assigned cases and
Received in
dedicate most of their time and effort to class 2, 3, and 4
FY2008
felonies, persons and property crimes, and all sex offend7,228
ers. This year additional probation officers were deputized as U.S. Marshals (United Stated Marshall Service—
Total Number of
USMS) who can serve on their task force.
The Warrants Cleared in
USMS sponsored two major round ups this year: the
FY2008
third annual national "Falcon" round up that targeted fel8,428
ons with a violent history and "Operation Justice" that
(MFR Data)
also targeted violent felons. Operation Justice was
Administratively
held during National Victim Awareness Week and focused on obtaining justice for victims of violent Absolved Warrants
FY2008
crimes. The unit also assisted in an FBI sponsored round
up, "Sidewinder," which focused on violent gang mem294
bers. The roundup was enacted in response to gang related killings in central Phoenix. Phoenix Police also asked
the unit to participate in a Robbery Suppression round up “Earth Quake” targeting
the west Phoenix area in response to numerous home invasions and armed robberies. The unit also participated in an East Valley gang suppression round up,
"City Limits," that was created to target the 10% of the subjects who do 90% of the
crimes.

I

n May of this year we started working with the newly formed D.P.S.
Violent Crimes Apprehension Team
(V-CAT). This resulted in a major increase in arrests in the smaller outlying
jurisdictions. We have two officers who
work the Weed and Seed Project, which
pays for officers to make enhanced contacts and arrests on probationers in the
Capitol area of Phoenix.

In addition to these activities, the unit also routinely meets
with specialized police units to arrest probationers and collaborates
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Additionally, one
officer has been dedicated to working full time on cold case sex offenders. This has resulted in locating
subjects both out of state and out of
the country.

As a result of the efforts of the
Fugitive Apprehension Unit,
2,741 probationers were arrested and held accountable
for their behavior.
Of the 7,228 active warrants
issued in FY 2008, the FAU
cleared a total of 6,229 warrants within the same fiscal
year. Thus giving this unit a
closure rate of 86%.

21

C

ompliance Monitoring provides case management
for probationers who are on unsupervised probation or are low-risk and have obeyed their Conditions of probation.
As of June 30, 2008, there were three Supervisors,
twenty-two Probation Officers, twenty-two Case Administrators, one Judicial Clerk Associate, and one Office Assistant managing a total of 7,074 cases.
As we continue to move into the 21st century, Compliance Monitoring is proactive in increasing efficiencies
and effectiveness within the division. New and improved
business practices are being explored that may include the
incorporation of technology and automation. Such practices are designed to better serve our clients, victims and
community without compromising community safety and
the department’s mission and vision.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008
6,149

(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer
$1.15
Average Annual
Program Cost
$2,579,228
Officer’s Average
Caseload
2:280

Successful Completion of Probation
100.0%
80.0%

97.9%

98.7%

60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
FY 2007

FY 2008

New Felony Convictions
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%

2.2%

2.4%

FY 2007

FY 2008

Probationers Committed to
Department of Corrections
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%

2.1%

1.3%

0.5%
0.0%
FY 2007

FY 2008

22

CUSTODY MANAGEMENT UNIT

D

uring FY 2008, the Custody Management Unit
(CMU) supervised an average of 701 in-custody
probationers (standard and IPS) per month. The
unit is comprised of eight probation officers (including
four specialized caseloads; domestic violence, mental
health, Spanish speaking, and sex offender), two IPS surveillance officers (excluding aforementioned specialized
caseloads), and one caseload administrator who supervises short-term jail cases (less than thirty days).
In addition to monitoring participants in the ALPHA program, CMU officers facilitate community treatment placements through the Reach Out program and
liaison between the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and
Adult Probation.

Average Daily
Population
FY2008

1,112

(Monthly Statistical Data)

Average Daily Cost
Per Probationer

$5.05
Average Annual
Program Cost

$2,050,733

WORK FURLOUGH

T

he Work Furlough Program is staffed with five probation officers and five
surveillance officers. The focus of the program continues to be on the supervision of probationers who are allowed to work in the community
while serving a jail sentence.
Work Furlough probation officers have supervised an average of 146 probationers per month. Surveillance officers made over 2,240 client and employer
contacts. During this period, 435 unemployed probationers obtained employment through the five-day Job Search portion of Work Furlough, 317 probationers
successfully completed the Work Furlough program, eleven child support cases
were supervised by Work Furlough for Domestic Relations courts, and $3,111.67
was collected in child support.

Total Work Furlough
Fees Collected
FY2008
$885,067

23

D

rug Court is a non-adversarial program that utilizes a team approach to break the cycle of substance abuse and addiction. Through intensive
treatment, drug testing, and frequent Court intervention,
probationers are given the tools to lead a clean, sober, and
crime-free lifestyle. The Judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation officer, and treatment provider work together toward a goal of making the probationer successful
in his or her recovery. Timely sanctions and motivational
incentives assist in changing behavior and while utilizing
evidence-based practices.

Average Daily
Population
215
(Monthly Statistical Data)

Annual Treatment
Cost
FY2008
Probationer Self-Pay

T

67%

(MFR Data)

Average Student
Population
FY2008

469
(Monthly Statistical Data)

Annual Treatment
Cost
FY2008
$446,862

D

riving Under the Influence (DUI) Court targets the
goal of changing decisions regarding alcohol use,
in addition to drinking and driving behaviors. In
effect, this reduces the probationer’s risk to the community.
Similar to the Drug Court model, probationers have
monthly Court interaction, are monitored for alcohol use,
and are expected to comply with probation directives and a
treatment plan. Probationers attend a Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers (MADD) impact panel and report to the
Court on their experience. DUI Court includes both English
and Spanish-speaking Courts.

he Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF) is a
state program established to divert first and second
time non-violent drug offenders from prison and
provide substance abuse education or treatment services.
DTEF funds are also used for substance abuse assessments,
cognitive skills classes, and substance abuse counseling
both in-house and in the community.

Successful Completion of
Education Goals

Average Daily
Population

Average Daily
Population
630

(MFR Data)

Annual Treatment
Cost
FY2008
State Total

$486,849
The Education Program has
several locations including
Grand Total
Central Phoenix, Glendale,
$1,346,213
Mesa, and at the downtown
homeless shelter. In FY 2008,
259 students, both probationers and other community
members, received their GED certificates through the
program.

444
Average Daily Cost Per
Student
$4.93
Annual Program Cost
$799,456
24

E

very two years, Adult Probation employees participate in an Employee Satisfaction Survey conducted by Maricopa County Research and Reporting.
Ninety-six percent of Adult Probation staff participated in the fiscal year
2008 Employee Satisfaction Survey, providing a very creditable report on the overall satisfaction of the workforce at Adult Probation.
The results of the fiscal year 2008 Employee Satisfaction Survey were notably positive. First, employees’ overall satisfaction score was higher than in previous surveys, showing steady progress over the surveys taken in fiscal years 2004 and 2006.
Second, the overall satisfaction score of Adult Probation employees was higher
than the overall employee satisfaction scores of Court employees and, for the first
time, county employees as a whole. Third, department-wide scores on every single one of the eighty-three scaled items on the survey revealed a satisfied rating by
Adult Probation employees (5.0 or higher).
Consistently, employees rate some of the same items, survey after survey, as being
areas that provide the highest level of satisfaction. The level of satisfaction on
these items increased over the last survey, indicating that areas of strength grew
even stronger.
Employee satisfaction is significant to employee retention rates, performance, and
customer service. Communication with employees about the performance results
provides opportunities for department-wide involvement in continuous improvement of departmental operations and services to the public.
Survey items that received the highest employee satisfaction ratings:
Job Benefits

Job Security

People You Work With

Kind of Work You Do

Feeling of Accomplishment You Get From Work

Job Makes Good Use of Skills and Abilities

Equipment and Supplies

25

Maricopa County Adult Probation

The Automated Criminal History received a 2008 NACo Achievement Award
from the National Association of Counties.
(Pictured left to right) Don Stapley, NACo
President and Supervisor, District 2, Barbara
Broderick, Adult Probation Chief, Mark Hendershot, Adult Probation, Andy Kunasek, Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors Chairman, Max
Wilson, Supervisor, District 4 and David Smith,
County Manager.

Contingency Management in Drug Court was recognized by the National Association of Counties with a 2008 NACo Achievement Award.
(Pictured left to right) Don Stapley, NACo
President and Supervisor, District 2, Barbara Broderick, Adult Probation Chief,
Vicki Biro, Adult Probation, Karen Barnes,
Adult Probation, Andy Kunasek, Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors Chairman,
Max Wilson, Supervisor, District 4 and
David Smith, County Manager.

Tabletop Exercises were selected for a 2008 NACo Achievement Award from the
National Association of Counties.
(Pictured left to right) Barbara Broderick,
Adult Probation Chief, Don Stapley, NACo
President and Supervisor, District 2, Zach
Dal Pra, Adult Probation, Gary Streeter,
Adult Probation, Andy Kunasek, Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors Chairman,
Max Wilson, Supervisor, District 4 and
David Smith, County Manager.

Lindell W. Rhodes received the Arizona Department
of Education’s “Adult Education Administrator of
the Year” award.

26

Maricopa County Adult Probation Organizational Chart

Chief Probation Officer
Barbara Broderick

Administrative Services
Deputy Chief
Michael Goss

Community Supervision
Deputy Chief
Mary Walensa

Assessment & Development
Deputy Chief

Budget and Finance
Linda Ettari

Western Field
Pamela Morrow

Presentence Investigations
Mary Anne Legarski

Planning & Research
Mark Hendershot

Eastern Field and
Community Restitution

Saul Schoon

Pretrial Services, Custody
Management, Work Furlough
Penny Stinson

Staff Development
Colleen Dorame

Northern Field, SMI, and Collections

Community Programs
Vicki Biro

Compliance Monitoring
and Records

Sex Offenders
Therese Wagner

Margaret Callaway

Professional Conduct
Robert Wilmarth

Thomas O’Connell

Zach Dal Pra

Central Field and
Domestic Violence

Suzanne Bauer

Fugitive Apprehension Unit,
Court Liaison,
Southern Field
Manny Gomez

27

Maricopa County Adult Probation
620 W. Jackson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 506-7249
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/AdultProbation

28