The Adult Probation Department of the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County Probation: A Path To Justice Annual Report 2001-2002 i Letter to Judge Leonardo ii Probation: A Path to Justice iii Judicial Benches iv Mission & Goals v Organizational Chart 1 Assessment Center Division 5 Field Supervision Division 21 Operational Services Division 25 Planning & Development Division 31 Administrative Services 33 A Tribute to Employees 36 Statistical Summary Acknowledgements Don R. Stiles Chief Probation Officer Adult Probation Department of the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County 110 West Congress - 8th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-740-3814 Fax 520-798-3352 Diane L. McGinnis Executive Director The Honorable John Leonardo Presiding Judge - Division X Arizona Superior Court in Pima County 110 West Congress Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Judge Leonardo: On behalf of the Adult Probation Department, I am pleased to present the department’s 2002 Annual Report, “Probation: A Path to Justice.” This report reflects a budget year adversely affected by the events of September 11 and the down-turned economy. Employees from the Assessment Center Field Supervision, Planning and Development, and Operational Services are commended for implementing budgetary changes, taking on additional cases to their already heavy workloads, and for adjusting to the effects of a very difficult financial year. Accomplishments on this path to justice include: ¨ 3,531 investigations completed and 7,525 probationers supervised. ¨ 2,628 comprehensive screening/assessments by the DUI Screening Center. ¨ The Absconder/Warrants Team apprehended an impressive 643 absconders. ¨ 896 students received educational services through the department’s LEARN program. ¨ $3,240,407 in court-ordered restitution, fees, and fines was collected. ¨ The community received $1,467,673 in free labor, with probationers providing 284,985 community service hours. ¨ Communication Center staff responded to approximately 380,891 radio calls this year, with 1,627 after- hour arrest notifications tracked and 579 holds placed on probation arrestees. ¨ Support staff mailed 3,675 victim letters-an increase of 21% over the previous year. I thank the employees of this department for continuing to provide effective and efficient probation services to this community despite major decreases in funding levels. In addition, the department appreciates the continued support of the Bench and that of Court Administrator K. Kent Batty. Respectfully submitted, Diane L. McGinnis Executive Director i A crime is committed. A victim suffers physical, emotional, and financial injury. The community is diminished and seeks justice and restoration. An offender is arrested and taken to jail, where he or she waits for others to make decisions that could change the course of his or her life. Attorneys argue the case before a jury who finds sufficient evidence to convict him or her of the crime. A judge determines if society will best be served by sending the offender to prison, or whether a period of probation is warranted: a conditional, supervised release that permits the offender to prove that he or she can live as a productive member of the community. The offender is placed on probation; the journey on a path to justice begins. This complex situation defines the challenging environment where officers carry out the work of probation. Before the judge makes the appropriate sentence, an adult probation officer assists by performing an in-depth presentence assessment of the offender. Using information gathered during extensive interviews with the offender, the victim, and collateral sources in the community, the officer prepares a presentence report that summarizes the offense, victim impact, and offender history. This report assists the court with the sentencing decision. In about 60% of the cases sentenced in Pima County, the offender will be placed on supervised probation for an average of three years. Protection of the community is always the primary consideration when determining a supervision program. To ensure long-term protection requires motivating the offender to change those factors that contributed to criminal behavior. Based on empirical research conducted by social scientists, certain dynamic factors are common to offenders and are targets for change. They include: ♦ Changing antisocial attitudes, changing or managing antisocial feelings ♦ Reducing antisocial peer associations while promoting positive role models ♦ Promoting better family relationships and communication ♦ Increasing self-control, self-management, and problem-solving skills ♦ Ensuring ability to recognize and respond to volatile/relapse situations, ♦ Reducing chemical dependencies and substance abuse One of the major goals of supervision is to keep the probationer gainfully employed. Significant time and energy is expended working with the probationer, the family, and others. To be most effective, officers must be committed to the belief that people can change, and that the community is best served and protected when offenders learn new and better ways to live as productive members of society. This belief is central to the philosophy and practice of probation as a path to justice in Pima County. Grand Jury Arrest Initial Court Appearance Release Decision Arraignment Preliminary Hearing Plea Agreement Trial Case closed ii •Presentence Investigation •Sentencing •Probation Supervision Prison Successful Termination Presiding Judge John Leonardo Associate Presiding Judge Kenneth Lee Juvenile Presiding Judge Hector Campoy Judges Edgar Acuña Ted Borek Michael Cruikshank Patricia Escher Charles Harrington John Kelly Richard Nichols Charles Sabalos Michael Alfred Christopher Browning John Davis Richard Fields Cindy Jorgenson Leslie Miller John Quigley Paul Tang Nanette Warner Deborah Bernini Carmine Cornelio Jane Eikleberry Howard Hantman Jan Kearney Clark Munger Lina Rodriguez Stephen Villarreal Pro Tempore Judges Howard Fell Frank Dawley Paul Banales Commissioners Karen Adam Suzanne Cuneo Richard Henry Douglas Mitchell Elizabeth Peasley-Fimbres Joan Wagener Kyle Bryson Frederic Dardis Ted Knuck Karen Nygaard Stephen Rubin Deborah Ward Terry Chandler Sharon Douglas Margaret Maxwell David Ostapuk K.C. Stanford Assignments on June 30, 2002 Presiding Robert Gibson Associate Presiding Jim Green Judges Susan Bacal Jose Luis Castillo Paul Simon iii Carmen Dolny The mission of the Adult Probation Department is to work cooperatively with citizens and organizations toward servicing, protecting, and restoring the victims and the community while assisting probationers to become law-abiding, productive citizens. To seek victims’ input and facilitate their involvement in the restoration process. To develop collaborative relationships and partnerships with the community and its agencies. To provide the Court with the highest quality information available to assist judicial decisions. To assess probationer risks and needs, and implement outcome-based supervision plans designed to develop competency and bring about lasting behavioral change. To monitor and assist probationer compliance with Court orders and laws, reward progress, and respond appropriately to violations. To research, develop and implement effective, efficient probation strategies, and measure performance outcomes. To create and maintain a learning organization conducive to individual growth, creativity, and fulfillment. iv Don Stiles Chief Probation Officer Human Resources Linda Seidel Executive Assistant Diane McGinnis Executive Director Ed Espinoza, Director Assessment Center Division Ron Dominguez, Director Finance Laura Wellner-Pate, Project Coordinator Research and Evaluation Barbara Johnson, Victim Restoration Assessment Center: Presentence Investigations Treatment Contracts & Screenings Field Supervision: East Division Ruben Castro, Director South Division Carl Sheets, Director West Division Standard Intensive Probation Sex Offender DIRECT Absconders/Warrants Unit Special Learning Needs Seriously Mentally Ill Electronic Monitoring Aggravated DUI Domestic Violence Justice Courts Inter/Intra & Interstate Compact Drug Court Community Service Theresa Springer, Director Operational Services Division Operational Services Division: Clerical Support/Records Radio Communication Center/Dispositions/Record Checks Vacant Planning & Development Training & Staff Development /Special Projects/LEARN Juvenile Services/Automation/New Program Development Volunteers and Interns in Probation/Publications/Grants v Staff in the Assessment Center worked toward providing the court with quality sentencing information while seeking victims’ involvement in the restoration process. Officers completed 3,531 presentence reports during the reporting period. The Assessment Center has responsibilities in the following areas: Jail Project The “jail team,” comprised of seven probation officers and an intake support specialist, produced presentence reports on an accelerated timeline, reducing defendants’ time in custody. Historically, defendants spend 31 days in custody between the change of plea and sentencing; daily costs are $55 per defendant. Since the implementation of the Jail Project, an average of 73 defendants participated in the project monthly, which resulted in a reduction of 26 jail days. The savings to tax payers was approximately $21,000 a month. Presentence Report Content To keep current with the latest research trends and best practices in the field of probation, the social history section of the presentence report was revised to include information on defendant’s existing criminogenic factors as identified by two renowned Canadian researchers. The section includes nine factors: family structure, rearing practices and interpersonal relations, peers and outside activities, residence, education, employment history, adult living status, alcohol/drug history, and health. In addition, the division’s officers have access to the ATLAS (Arizona Tracking and Locating Automated System) database, which enable s officers to routinely include child support information in the collateral section of the report. Responding to Strategic Agenda Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones announced the strategic agenda for Arizona’s Courts 2002–2005, which included these objectives: ¨ Protecting Children, Families, and Communities; ¨ Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice; ¨ Connecting With the Community; ¨ Being Accountable; ¨ Serving the Public By Improving the Legal Profession. The Assessment Center Division made significant contributions toward three objectives: Protecting Children, Families, and Communities – The addition of the ATLAS database provided the ability to include Child Support information in the presentence report to assist probationers in fulfilling their family obligations. Resources available to the Assessment Center allowed staff to consider every child’s need for safe, nurturing, and permanent homes. Twenty treatment agencies were awarded contracts to provide services to probationers and their families. Designated officers specializing in report writing of convicted sex offenders and juveniles attended training to improve their skills and develop current trends. Consultations with psychologists and psychiatrists continued to be an important part of the presentence report process. IQ testing and literacy screening determined whether a probationer would be referred to a specialized caseload and/or to the LEARN lab for continuing education. 1 Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice - The Jail Project, created in 2001, continued to produce promising results and accelerated sentencing for at least 73 defendants each month for an annual savings of approximately $252,000. On-time distribution of presentence reports improved to 97% from 94% the previous year. Sentencing continuances were reduced from 9.3 per month the previous year to 7.75 per month. The chief justice emphasized the issue of victims’ rights, noting, “Courts must ensure victims have the opportunity to exercise rights granted to them.” The new emphasis on increasing the number of victims’ responses has had a lasting, positive impact on providing access to justice during the sentencing process. Being Accountable - Each presentence report was evaluated for content according to established criteria. The report’s adherence to the Victim’s Rights Act was scrutinized as part of the overall performance. Staff was expected to meet set standards in the areas of report quality, timeliness, and victim contacts. The results were positive and included a significant reduction in errors and late reports. In addition, staff had greater understanding of victims rights. While the 3,531 presentence reports produced represented a decrease from last year’s total of 3,550, the achievements of these three objectives confirmed that fiscal year 2002 was productive. The end of the fiscal year saw the Assessment Center staff begin work on next year’s projects: conversion to APETS (Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System), production of an accelerated report for Drug Court and Prop. 200 cases, improvements to the operations manual, and victim restitution assessments. Assessment Center Treatment According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, one case of addiction left untreated can cost $43,200 per year. To deal with the state’s drug problem and the associated costs, voters established the Drug Treatment Education Fund (DTEF) initiative in 1996, which is supported by a percentage of luxury tax revenue from liquor sales. Statistics show that more than 33% percent of criminal justice costs are related to substance abuse and the collateral damage caused to families, children, and the community. Continuing an established trend, approximately 47% of criminal cases sentenced in Superior Court are drug or drug-related cases. In response, the Treatment and Assessment team assisted drug offenders through comprehensive assessment and referrals to appropriate treatment. Adult Probation philosophy promotes the belief that treatment works in collaboration with community supervision, accurate assessment, and appropriate placement and intervention. Offenders are provided access to professionally trained and certified therapists. Probationers who successfully finish treatment are more likely to complete probation, pay fines, fees, and restitution, work and pay taxes, parent children, remain crime free, and become productive members of the community. 2 During the 2002 fiscal year, the team conducted 2,628 assessments using the Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS). Of those offenders screened, 83.3% were referred to substance abuse treatment. When probationers are court ordered to treatment, many pay their own way. For those probationers with financial hardships, a co-payment accommodation is provided. This arrangement allows probationers to invest in treatment while enabling the department to stretch treatment dollars. In this reporting period, a record number of 1,607 probationers received subsidized treatment for substance abuse, domestic violence, sex offender and general mental health services. With an overall treatment budget of $571,000, the average subsidy per probationer was $355 (a reduction of 32% from the previous fiscal year.) Approximately 97% of the probationers made a co-payment of 50% or more. The Community Punishment Program (CPP) and Pima County funded treatment for 538 sex offenders who received polygraph and specialized treatment services, with 99% making a significant co-payment toward their treatment. The DUI Screening Center has performed more than 9,000 comprehensive screening assessments for Justice and Superior Courts since its inception July 1, 1990. To ensure court compliance, 697 DUI offenders were screened and tracked in this reporting period. The center has experienced an increase in referrals as a result of recent court decisions, which closed legal loopholes and lowered blood alcohol levels to .08%. A path to justice. . . When Cindy came to Arizona in 1989, she arrived with the clothes on her back and a severe heroin addiction. Within a year she was homeless, “strung out,” and caught up in the criminal justice system with pending fraud charges. She was sentenced to Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) and remanded to jail while awaiting placement in residential treatment. She absconded after ten months in residential treatment even though she was near completion of the program. Cindy was arrested and returned to jail two months later; eventually, she was reinstated on IPS with a six-month jail term. She returned to treatment with a renewed desire to succeed and learn from her mistakes; it was this second chance that made the difference. “I came to the realization that my probation officer, the counselors, and my peers actually cared for me, and that gave me the confidence to make the changes that were necessary,” she stated. After months of residential treatment, she enrolled at Pima Community College. She became a volunteer at the treatment center, which eventually led to a part-time staff position. After earning certification, Cindy was promoted to substance abuse counselor. She completed a bachelor’s degree, then commenced work on a master’s degree in social work through Arizona State University. Today, Cindy is a certified substance abuse counselor, an acupuncturist, a 12-step sponsor, and a genuine role model; she works at a local clinic where she manages an active caseload of 85 clients. “I often tell the clients how fortunate I was to go through probation. It gave me the structure and discipline I never had and so desperately needed. This may sound strange,” Cindy concluded, “but I thank God every day for probation helping me get clean and sober.” 3 Division Director Probation Program Coordinator Rob Druckenbrod Unit Supervisors Ralph Avella Errol Dimenstein Ken McCulloch Linda Montoya Lead Probation Officer Kerry McLaughlin Senior Probation Officers Armando Acuna Karen Bustamante Louise Chernetz Elizabeth Dalgleish James Good Keith Gorley Kim Hatfield Robert Kridler Sandra Mace Shirley Moreno Jim Robinett Jaime Siqueiros Jean Thews Cesar Castillo Carol Fecher Teresa Harvey Jane Lowery Suzanne Reeves Kristie Sparks Probation Officers Patricia Abou Srour Jennifer Herberholt Deborah Pela Sue Von Borstel Judith Heffner Dawn Nixon Katherine Riley Rejeana Bowersox Judy James Sharon Rhoy Debra Winchester Administrative Level II Judy Thompson Administration Level I Patricia Biscardi Diana Bustamante Stu Jenks Kerry Pettit Assignments on June 30, 2002 4 Michelle Fleetwood Pam Sweigart With the mission of serving, protecting, and restoring victims and the community, employees in the Field Services Division assisted probationers in becoming law-abiding, productive citizens through compliance with court orders. Supervising 7,525 probationers during the reporting period, officers managed various caseloads, programs, and supporting services. The following is an overview of five different caseloads. These descriptions encompass the nature of probation work and the efforts of employees. Officers apply a balanced supervision approach by holding probationers accountable while supporting development of their competencies. Stories of success describe the accomplishments of probationers and their supervising officers. For a brief overview of all caseloads and programs, see page 16. Absconder Warrants Unit Overview - In 1986, this unit was formed with the assistance of a state grant. In 16 years, the team has arrested more than 5,000 absconding probationers who failed to comply with the courts’ directives. Currently, the team consists of a senior probation officer, a senior surveillance officer, and a litigation support specialist. Officers work closely with local and national law enforcement agencies. Skip tracing techniques and simple old fashioned investigative work yielded excellent results: 643 fugitives were apprehended during this reporting period. Team members established positive working relationships with local utility companies including Tucson Electric Power, Southwest Gas, and City of Tucson Water and Sewer. A credit data information system, Experian, is used in all cases and has yielded excellent results with funding for the system provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts. 2002 Highlights –The United States Marshal Regional Office requested the unit’s participation in Operation Southern Catch. Representing the only probation unit on the force, officers assisted in targeting fugitives with histories of narcotic violations, weapon violations, and drug-related crimes of violence. The Southern Arizona Operation consisted of a multi-agency task force including sheriff and police departments in four counties, the US Marshal’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The 3-month operation began in May 2002, and more than 65 fugitives were arrested. The Absconder Warrants Unit was instrumental in the task force’s apprehension of fugitives, including one wanted for first-degree murder. Additionally, an officer in the unit was interviewed for a local television station’s weekly “Crime Stopper” segment. The show profiled two fugitives convicted of child molestation; one was arrested the next day. Benefits to Community – With priority given to fugitives who pose a risk to the community, the team actively seeks to arrest probationers who fail to comply with the court’s directives. Thousands of dollars in court-ordered assessments, numerous weapons, and contraband have been recovered. Their efforts help to ensure that probationers are held accountable, and it is common for absconders to turn themselves in when they learn the warrants team is looking for them. 5 Demographic Profiles ~ Absconder Warrants Unit 2002 Fiscal Year Statistics Total Apprehended Absconders 643 Probation Fees Collected $214,549.35 Restitution Collected $672.598.82 Fines Collected $620,168.27 Attorney Fees Collected $140,969.34 Victim Compensation Fund $108,657.09 Gender Ethnicity 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Male 81.1% Female 18.9% Caucasian - 356 Hispanic - 309 African American - 76 Indian - 25 Asian - 2 Age Group 15-20 21-26 27-35 36-45 46-55 56-69 112 203 250 142 56 9 Offense Class M3 M2 M1 F6/M1 F5 F4 F3 F2 F1 0 1 128 386 45 106 83 23 0 6 A path to justice. . . Operation Spotlight, a community-based team approach to probation and policing, has its genesis in a “Weed and Seed” grant awarded to South Tucson and the County Attorney in June 1999. The program operates under two premises: the majority of crimes are committed by a small group of known offenders, and multiple agencies often supervise offenders sharing common households. Operation Spotlight combines two primary missions of the department by providing increased supervision to reduce recidivism, and by increasing probation visibility in the community. This unique, multi-agency partnership was designed to make neighborhoods safer. It represents collaborative efforts among Adult and Juvenile Probation Departments, the Pima County Attorney’s Office, Adult and Juvenile Parole, and the South Tucson and Tucson Police Departments. The Spotlight area includes five specific neighborhoods known for the proliferation of crimes against persons and property. The department’s officers supervise approximately 200 adult probationers in these neighborhoods. Officers from the partnership meet weekly in a storefront office in one of the neighborhoods to share supervision information regarding offenders in the Spotlight area. With officers working to accomplish mutual goals, the increased communication among agencies has fostered this team-approach to offender supervision. In 2002, several businesses joined the program and offered education, training, and jobs to offenders residing in the Spotlight area. Two successful examples of probationers who used these services include a heroin addict well-known by law enforcement agencies and a homeless drug user. Despite hardships, both were able to complete job training and became gainfully employed. One of the probationers enrolled in GED classes. Because of the partnership between the businesses and Operation Spotlight officers, these opportunities were available, and two probationers became law-abiding, productive citizens. Domestic Violence Overview – In April 1999, this unit began supervising offenders sentenced under the enhanced Domestic Violence (DV) statute, ARS 13-3601.01. The program’s goals are to stop violence and enhance the safety of victims, their children, other family members, and the public. Officers hold perpetrators accountable and work toward their rehabilitation through specialized treatment. While Pima County’s limited jurisdiction courts can elect to place repeat domestic violence offenders on supervised probation with the department, only Tucson City Court has done so. In addition to problems with violence and relationships, DV offenders are chronically unemployed, residentially unstable, and severely addicted to drugs. While many DV offenders have committed misdemeanor offenses, significant numbers hold felony convictions, having served prison sentences. It is common for probationers convicted of domestic violence to transition from compliance to committing new offenses, absconding, and eventually being apprehended. 7 2002 Highlights - The fiscal year saw several changes in the program: the addition of a fourth officer, the implementation of new DV conditions, improvement in the paper flow and court hearing notifications from Tucson City Court, effective partnering with treatment programs, and bimonthly orientation classes to prepare probationers for treatment and supervision. Officers participated in an initial training and planning session to develop protocol for domestic violence offenders. They each completed 54 hours of specialized domestic violence training. Statistical Overview ♦ 272 active City Court DV cases at the end of fiscal year ♦ A total of 551 cases supervised during the year ♦ $31,391 in probation fees collected ♦ 77 domestic violence offenders from Justice Courts supervised City Court DV Demographic Profile Electronic Monitoring Ethnicity 300 Gender 250 200 150 100 Male 94.9% 50 Female 5.1% 0 Hispanic - 276 Caucasian - 160 African American - 76 Native American - 32 Asian & Unknown - 7 Age Group 19-24 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-64 Unkn 127 118 104 101 68 24 7 2 8 A path to justice . . . Samuel, a 40-year-old Native American man, was placed on probation in October 2001 for DV/Assault and DV/Disorderly Conduct. Not only struggling with violence and alcohol problems, Samuel suffered from macular degeneration and accompanying depression over loss of vision and his inability to work. After attending two mandatory DV orientations and several counseling sessions, he realized the role violence played in his childhood and the subsequent impact it had on his own violent behavior. Samuel revealed, “I never realized the damage domestic violence and holding it in caused in my life. Alcohol made it worse. Counseling has helped me through it. I am fortunate to have the help.” He is enrolled in Business Enterprise Program through Vocational Rehabilitation and will be taking classes in hospitality or restaurant management at Pima Community College this fall. Samuel has been sober since February 2002 and was recently married. Overview - In March 1990, the department established Electronic Monitoring (EM) as a component of the Community Punishment Program (CPP). Supervision services included 24hour monitoring, installation and removal of EM equipment, and response services departmentwide. Originally designated for high-risk probationers placed on Intensive Probation, EM was expanded to include standard field cases. The program’s primary mission was the reduction of the jail population. In recent years, EM became an important component of intermediate sanctions. All supervising probation officers had a useful tool for jail reduction and more structure in supervision plans. The EM response team consisted of one senior probation officer and two senior surveillance officers. A member of the response team remained on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with members alternating days for call-out. The around the clock response by officers made this program exemplary. 2002 Highlights - During the 2002 fiscal year, 177 probationers were placed on electronic monitoring. This generated 7,154 days of EM placement. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department estimates the cost of daily incarceration per inmate at $55 per day. This number of days in custody would have cost the taxpayers $393,470 if not for electronic monitoring. 9 Benefits to Community - The monetary savings in jail reduction was substantial. The EM program not only saved money, it also freed up bedspace for more serious offenders. Electronic Monitoring gave the sentencing court an alternative to incarceration. In addition to increasing probationers’ accountability, EM allowed them to continue their employment, education, and counseling sessions. The department’s EM program continued to honor its working agreement with the Pima County Juvenile Probation Department by responding to juvenile probationers on electronic monitoring at their residences. EM Demographic Profiles Gender Male 88.7% Female 11.3% Ethnicity 100 80 60 40 20 0 Hispanic - 100 Caucasian - 62 African American - 11 Native American - 4 Supervision Type IPS Specialized Standard Justice Court Int/Other 72 33 66 6 0 10 Juvenile Transfers Overview – Adult Probation staff began development of the youthful offender program with the passage of a Get Tough on Juvenile Crime law. The program balances community protection with juvenile services through assessment, accountability, psychological monitoring, treatment, relapse prevention, and education. The objective is to provide additional sentencing options for youthful probationers who are a high risk to reoffend. Intense supervision is required to ensure community safety, which includes electronic monitoring, curfews and schedules, drug screening, office and field visits, home visits, and parental contact. 2002 Highlights - The work of probation guides and shapes offender pro-social behavior and utilizes a continuum of sanctions and services in partnership with the community. To promote program success, collaborative relationships were formed with: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Community Partnership of Southern Arizona Pima County Juvenile Court Center Pima County Adult Detention Center Administrative Office of the Arizona Supreme Court Treatment agencies, school programs, and community service agencies Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Maricopa Adult Probation Department Pima County Attorney and Public Defenders’ Offices Department of Economic Security Staff Training - The key to program success is competent, committed staff. Youthful offenders on adult probation are cognitively, emotionally, and socially different from adults. The understanding of developmental differences impact case management decisions. During the reporting period, more than 32 hours of juvenile case management training was provided. The team supervising juveniles met bi-monthly for training and legislative updates. Team leaders worked closely with treatment providers and schools; the increased communication resulted in agencies cooperating to provide services to youthful offenders and their families. 11 Statistical Overview - During the reporting period, 35 youthful offenders under 18 were placed on probation. The following statistics apply to those under the supervision of officers at Adult Probation: ♦ 9 received jail time as a condition of probation ♦ 0 began probation with a high school degree ♦ 28 attended charter schools, public schools, and /or GED classes ♦ 8 received GEDs, 3 earned high school diplomas ♦ 4 attended community college ♦ 6 were revoked, 3 for technical violations, and 3 for technical violations plus a new crime ♦ 30 received or completed treatment services ♦ 5 were employed, 12 were unemployed It is important to note that costly treatment services were utilized by this population. These included: residential treatment, individual and group counseling, behavior specific treatment, psychosexual, psychological, and psychiatric testing, independent living, cognitive skills, and polygraph services. Court orders and recommendations for 16 juveniles to be placed in locked residential treatment facilities expended more than 70% of the total treatment budget. The average monthly invoice for residential treatment was $3,750 per juvenile. The average monthly invoice for juvenile sex offenders was $8,051. Demographics Gender Ethnicity 20 15 Male 85.7% 10 Female 14.3% 5 0 Hispanic - 19 Caucasian - 8 African American - 7 Native American - 1 Caseloads Sentenced To IPS Standard Probation Specialized Sex Offender 26 4 4 12 Residential Treatment Program Overview - Residential Treatment (RT) provides a secure, treatment-based supervision program for probationers with longstanding drug problems who would not remain abstinent in the community. Supervision includes surveillance, intervention, and enforcement to enhance public safety and promote long-term behavioral change. Specialized residential treatment began with the introduction of Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) in 1988. Shortly thereafter, a standard residential caseload was established, which evolved into a component of the Community Punishment Program (CPP). With the introduction of IPS Level 5 in 2001, supervision levels mirrored each other with monthly minimum contacts, which compare to standard probation’s minimum supervision level. Standard Residential Caseload Supervision Level Minimum Visual Contacts Collateral Contacts Community Service Hours Required Drug Testing Required Minimum 1/Month As Required As Ordered Drug or DrugRelated Crime Monthly IPS Residential Caseload Supervision Level Minimum Visual Contacts Collateral Contacts Community Service Hours Required Drug Testing Required Five 1/Month As Required 20/Month Drug or DrugRelated Crime Monthly 2002 Highlights - Due to work force reductions and mission considerations, the end of the fiscal year saw the formal discontinuance of the IPS residential caseload, with existing cases transferred to standard teams. At the end of the reporting period, the remaining residential treatment caseload consisted of 72% of the combined population of the two caseloads. Probationers bound for IPS, but initially required to complete the RT program, will be supervised on standard probation. Currently, the RT program is experiencing a reduction of services available from treatment agencies and less funding from Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) because of new statutory interpretations. These reductions are causing strict enforcement of eligibility guidelines for the RT caseload. However, there has been no reduction in the number of probationers needing residential treatment. 13 A path to justice . . . Tippy is a 36-year-old Tucson native who suffered an abusive childhood, punctuated by molestation. She became a directionless adult who compensated with years of polysubstance abuse and cocaine addiction. In 1998 and 1999, she was placed on probation for multiple drug offenses and unsuccessfully wove her way through various programs until she came to residential treatment in October 1999. Tippy was “tough, streetwise and bound for failure” when she entered a long-term program for women with children. She had a child while in treatment and began to embrace the program. After one year, she successfully graduated and became a model probationer on a standard caseload. She began community college classes and obtained employment with an outpatient substance abuse treatment agency. She successfully terminated probation in July 2002. Today, she continues her education and is a night housemother with the same residential agency from which she graduated; she was recently profiled in a Tucson newspaper. Tippy’s ultimate goal is to counsel abused children. Doug was a 39-year-old college graduate with a master’s degree in music when he was placed on probation in October 2000 for multiple drug offenses. His successful life as a music teacher had deteriorated with crack cocaine addiction. Doug immediately entered residential treatment and six months later graduated successfully. Rather than return to his former profession, he chose to give back to the community that helped him so much and remained at the agency as a full-time employee. He earned early termination from probation and today is the Director of Human Resources of his treatment agency. Statistical Overview ♦ Residential treatment cases accounted for 1% of the total probationer population. ♦ RT population began the fiscal year with 136. The year-end total was 98. ♦ 41% of probationers on the caseload were in custody awaiting bed space at any given time during the reporting period. ♦ 57% successfully graduated and transferred to standard caseloads, compared to 38% last year. ♦ 16% were revoked to prison, compared to 20% for the overall probationer population. ♦ 10% absconded, and their cases were transferred to the Absconder Warrants Unit. ♦ 60% of this year’s probationers on RT (graduates and transfers to outpatient treatment) had a successful experience in treatment. 14 Residential Treatment Demographic Profiles Comparison of Residential Treatment Probationers to Other Probationers Item Residential TX Probationer Single 67% Caucasian 56% Female 33% All Probationers vs 55% 45% 20% Instant Offenses of Probationers in Residential Treatment Crimes Against Property 36% Drug Offenses 33% Against Person 18% DUI 13% Benefits to the Community Every probationer on a residential treatment caseloads has a deep-seated drug problem, which contributes to their illegal activity. Two-thirds of these offenses involved direct, adverse consequences to the community. More than half of the crimes produced specific, identifiable victims. In successfully treating probationers, the program restores them socially. Furthermore, it enables their progression to street probation, where fulfillment of additional court orders, employment, restitution payments, and victim recstoration are more apt to occur. This results in a real impact on community protection. Because residential treatment is generally the last chance before prison, each success represents a diversion from incarceration. This results in a significant financial saving to the community. It also frees up bed space for more violent offenders. 15 Probation Caseload Information This reporting period officers in three satellite offices supervised 7,525 probationers throughout Pima County communities, the state through the Intercounty caseloads, and the country through Interstate Compact Supervision. The following details a concise description of the department’s supervision caseloads and the supporting services provided by officers and staff. Absconders Warrants Unit – To further the department’s philosophy of holding probationers accountable to their victims, the community, and the courts, officers working this caseload focused on the apprehension of probationers who absconded. Acting in conjunction with local and national law enforcement agencies, the team returned 643 fugitive offenders to accountability. Aggravated DUI – Two 2-person teams supervised offenders convicted of driving under the influence. After serving a mandatory prison sentence, the probationers returned to the community under the watchful supervision of probation. They were required to attend treatment and attain sobriety and stability. The teams supervised 397 probationers with 80% successfully completing the program, compared to a 30% rate in the previous reporting period. Community Punishment Program (CPP) – As a state-funding source that provides programming resources, the primary purpose of CPP is the diversion to probation of select offenders from incarceration. With CPP funding, three LEARN labs serviced 775 probationers; Electronic Monitoring served 177 offenders, and counseling and polygraph testing services were provided to 296 sex offenders on specialized caseloads. Domestic Violence - Created to prevent family violence and to increase safety for victims, their families, and the community, officers working this caseload supervised 551 probationers during the reporting period. Essential to case management is the premise of probationers’ responsibility to the victims and the court. The officers’ efforts focused on probationers’ rehabilitation through completion of specialized treatment. Drug Court - The one-year program is intensive and requires cooperation and commitment from the offenders and their court team. A team consisting of a judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, probation case managers and treatment providers worked with offenders to create drug-free lifestyles. During the fiscal year, 72 offenders graduated with 222 having participated in the program. Drug Involvement Reversal Through Education, Control, and Treatment (DIRECT) – Adhering to a balance of education, control and treatment, DIRECT officers take aim at drug abuse intervention. In an effort to save funds while providing a real alternative to incarceration, officers from the department designed and implemented the 18-month program. Six 2-person teams supervised 158 probationers during the reporting period. Electronic Monitoring (EM) – As a CPP-funded program, EM services provided officers with a viable management tool and an alternative sanction for noncompliant probationers. While providing an immediate consequence to negative behaviors, EM allowed probationers to continue their employment, education, and counseling mandates. This fiscal year, 177 probationers were on electronic monitoring devices. Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) – Statutorily mandated, this prison-diversionary program is structured with an emphasis on control-oriented supervision. The program stipulations include education, treatment, and community services as mandatory for all offenders. Throughout the reporting period, two-person teams supervised 774 probationers. 16 Interstate Compact Supervision-This mandated program complies with the policies of the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole Supervision. For probationers accepted by Pima County from the 49 other states, supervision is the same as for standard Pima County probationers. For outgoing probationers, the Interstate Compact policies and procedures are followed to establish supervision in the accepting jurisdictions. Incoming ISC probationers totaled 235 with 264 probationers leaving the state. Intercounty Supervision-The supervision for outgoing Pima probationers is established in the 14 counties within Arizona. A probation officer monitors these cases to ensure compliance. The officer notifies the court when violations occur. The number of outgoing cases was 266 for the reporting period. Pima County officers, through standard supervision and some specialized caseloads, supervised incoming intercounty cases, which totaled 474 during the year. Justice Court Supervision - Three officers provided probation services to the limited jurisdiction of Pima County Justice Courts. Those officers supervised 698 offenders. Juvenile Transfers - This program’s objective is to provide additional sentencing options for youthful probationers who present a high risk of future placement in correctional facilities. Supervision of youthful offenders includes electronic monitoring, curfews, schedules, drug screening, home visits, parental contact, office and field visits, mental health services, cognitive skills,educational services, family services, and employment services. This year officers supervised 35 juvenile transfers. Residential Treatment - Supervision of offenders with chronic drug problems, who do not abide by the court’s order for abstinence, requires a multifaceted approach: residential treatment coupled with intensive surveillance, intervention and enforcement of probation conditions upon release from a facility. The average monthly number of probationers on residential treatment was 106 during the reporting period . Seriously Mentally Ill – Probationers dealing with serious mental illness pose specific challenges to supervising officers. Two 2-person teams offered specialized services, including collaboration with treatment partners in the community, to 124 probationers during fiscal year 2002. Sex Offenders - Officers supervise sex offenders under strictly imposed conditions and court orders. Mandatory treatment and stringent contact requirements required teams carrying standard field and IPS cases to maintain vigilant, intensive supervision of 296 probationers. Special Learning Needs - Addressing the particular needs of offenders with IQ scores of 78 and below, officers assisted them in obtaining community services and educational or vocational training. To help probationers stabilize their lives, a two-person team provided supervision services to 51 offenders. Standard Field Supervision - Officers worked an average caseload of 60 probationers. They ensured offenders followed treatment, as wellas, educational, and community service requirements ordered by the court. Officers supervised 5,060 probationers during the reporting period. 17 East Division Director Administrative Assistant Rosie Vasquez Unit Supervisors Michael Bartling Kevin Mulligan Jeff Knox Cris Spiegel Senior Probation Officers Elaine Bates Rex Bowersox Dan Brown Ken Clayton Rocky Dotzler Ted Forgach Wendy Goller Rick Hornback Kelly Pesano Gene Sweeney Richard Walitshek Harrison Blackwell Julie Brannon-Brown Joanne Brown Malcolm Colquitte Karen Fulton Lisa Garland David Hawke Linda Landry David Pickle Leo Vidal Senior Surveillance Officers Dan Brooks Scott Greene Tony Perez Joe Puglia Jim Smith Eric Fast Tony Lopez Pamm Pope Kevin Shearer Jamie Stuck Surveillance Officers Brett Joiner Donna Van Vlack Assignments on June 30, 2002 18 South Division Director Administrative Assistant Yvonne Federico Unit Supervisors Barbara Lynn Druke Mary Jo Gasparro Bill Edris Phil Shelley Ron Gary Pattye Tolliver Senior Probation Officers Bob Amerson Helena Bailey Michael Cook Brandee Hammond Steve Kachur Ed Lowery Ignacio Moreno Jaime Reyes Arlene Verdugo Cecil Argue Sue Cartier Cathie Cravens Sandi Horen Charlie Kreitner Kathy Martinez Judy Raetzman Ruben Rosales Connie Wills Steve Armenta Bill Castaneda Hugo Gonzalez Lois Jones Lisa Lewis Peggy McCarthy Darrell Reeves Paula Schlecht Gino Duran Bruce Fox Jay Gospodarek Gilbert Serna Martha Esquivel Ramon Garate Mark Maish Adriana Silva Probation Officers Christine Davis Adria Fernandez Ed Gilligan Carolyn Marietta Senior Surveillance Officers Russ Adamski Karen Berry Phil Grajeda Tom Paulos Surveillance Officers Mark Echavarry Mariana Madrid Ellis Barnes Felipe Espino Corey Higgins Leroy Proctor Cece Roger Bill Bartlett John Fulton Tom Jackson Rueben Robles Sandra Fuller Trina Miller Jerry Hudy Probation Support Specialist Gail Young Administration Level I Alina Rodriguez Litigation Support II Kimi Golembieski 19 Assignments on June 30, 2002 West Division Director Administrative Assistant Melissa Robles Unit Supervisors Cathy Cermak Dan Montaño Senior Probation Officers Teri Abrams Dave Bertelsen Art Cook Lorenzo Escobedo Pam Hamlett Larry Huff Chris Lester Gary Nakamoto Tony Sanell David Storch Mike Walters Probation Officers Robert Artuz Melissa Edwards David Jurado Patricia Romero Don Johnson Craig Lundberg Rob Nixon Jane Swivel Gene Riddle Kathy Bennett Bob Bonilla Harold Dominguez Carl Formby Dave Harper Kim Jacobs Laura Lindberg Candelaria Ortiz George Smigelski John Sutton Georgette Berry Colleen Collins Richard Duncan Ray Forsythe Carmen Harper-Young Keith Kanzler Gloria Montaño Ricardo Ortiz Troy Spence Sylvia Tellez Jeremy Byrd Wendy Irish Richard Montgomery Jennifer Santa Cruz Radonna Kadous-Darnell Jimmy Jones Lisa Nowacki-Hubble Jamie Tribolet Senior Surveillance Officers Ed Bernal Melanie Heavilon Kevin Nonaka Peter Somerlik Rene Castro John Joiner Rich Romero Art Waterman Jim Gomez Chris Mallams Steve Schmidt Jill Layton Sonia Tolson Laura Martinez Dianna Rodriguez Surveillance Officers Dale Bennett Administration Level I Karen Barrins 20 For the Operational Services Division, the fiscal year was marked by a 10% increase in reception workloads, a 38% increase in data entry and word processing of court documents, and a high volume of calls to the Radio Communication Center. Staffers met these challenges during a year that required greater effort from the six units, particularly after a midyear hiring freeze was imposed. To the credit of supervisors who shifted duties, including their own to cover frontline functions, they rotated staff to cover the workloads of seven vacant positions in five of the six units. In addition to daily tasks, staff expanded their services and completed these special projects: ♦ Relocation of the terminated case files, formerly housed on the 3rd floor of the Superior Court Building, was accomplished. This project involved cooperative efforts by Facility Management Staff of Pima County and Superior Court. Records staff reorganized more than 450 boxes of files at a new location. ♦ Tracking of downtown parking validations for officers traveling from satellite offices for court appearances was implemented mid-year to reduce monthly costs. The downtown office supervisor maintained the validation log. Monthly parking charges were reduced more than 20%. ♦ Development and revision of forms began with converting WordPerfect forms into WORD 2000 format. The west office supervisor creates and distributes all forms, and updates the directories, while litigation support staff assist by testing new documents and offering improvements. Office Visits Support staff facilitated 158,842 probationer visits at the four offices, representing a 10% increase (14,999 additional visits) over the previous fiscal year. The south and west offices handled the highest number of visits with 59,774 and 46,096, respectively. A 10% increase in probationer visits was experienced at the south office. Support staff assisted officers by verifying probationers’ office visits, their monthly court-ordered restitution and probation fee payments, and by noting compliance or non-compliance of court-ordered assessments. The following table illustrates the breakdown of visits by site. Office # Of Visits Percentage Downtown 18,493 11 East 34,479 22 South 59,774 38 West 46,096 29 21 Service to Victims Staff mailed 3,675 letters to victims, requesting information regarding losses from criminal offenses. This represented an increase of 641 letters (21%) over the previous year’s total of 3,034. A letter received from one victim thanked the clerk for “the behind-the-scenes efforts of a good team of professionals.” Appreciation was extended for the timely notification of court dates and times. The victims’ registry database, a module of the department’s case tracking database, stores victim data and is a resource for probation officers. The victim clerk networks with staff in the County Attorney’s Victim Notification Unit and the Clerk’s Office to ensure entry of complete victim and restitution information. Interdepartmental collaboration on projects improved the accuracy of victim and restitution data, resulting in updated records. The victim clerk and the Restitution Unit in the Clerk’s Office researched cases to verify restitution amounts. Presentence reports and minute entries were retrieved to crosscheck data. Automation Advances With assistance from Superior Court’s Information Technology Services Division and training by two west division staff members, officers began using digital cameras to photograph probationers. Support staff helped keep supplies stocked, camera settings in place, and in taking probationer photos, which were downloaded into the case tracking database and field sheets. Installation of webbased access to records and imaging provided the department with a newer, user-friendly tool to search and retrieve minute entries and other court documents. In all offices, staff reported benefits using the web to access records with reduced time in accessing source documents. Subsequently, verifying sentence data and conditions of probation is now faster and more convenient. Superior Court’s finance unit coordinated a webbased supply order process: Office supervisors order supplies on the Internet. Finance staff review and approve the orders; then forward them to vendor. This has increased efficiency in the timely delivery of supplies and the elimination of paperwork. The disposition clerk uses MapInfo software to assign field cases. It displays geographic regions for field supervision assignment. Using MapInfo eliminates referencing hard copy maps, and expedites accurate referrals to appropriate supervision offices. Expanding use of e-mail between the department and the Clerk’s Office increased efficiency in tracking Change of Plea and Sentence minute entries. Intake and records staffers send inquiries concerning expected documents, and the Clerk’s Office staff provides case updates or continuance dates. 22 Cost Savings and Interagency Cooperation Office Supervisor Ray Lekawa calibrated, maintained, and repaired the department’s breath alcohol testing devices and trained staff on their proper use. Mr. Lekawa developed a spirit of teamwork by training two staff to become certified calibration technicians. The staffers’ services resulted in $16,116 savings to Pima County taxpayers. Additional savings of $5,180 were realized by Lekawa’s on-site programming of telephone numbers. These savings were realized because staff took on projects beyond their regularly assigned duties. Calibration services and training were provided to Pretrial Services, City Probation, Juvenile Court and Juvenile Intensive Probation, Adult Diversion, Arizona Department of Corrections, Pima County Jail, and Pascua Yaqui Probation. Interagency cooperation was extended to the Tohono O’odham Probation Department. Lekawa traveled to Sells and presented an overview of the department’s breathalyzer program to the presiding judge, probation department, and county attorney. In February, he returned to complete the implementation of the breathalyzer program. Drug Testing For a second fiscal year, the following services were contracted with Treatment Assessment Screening Center (TASC): ♦ Random notification call-in program to determine when probationers should report for drug testing ♦ Walk-in facility where monitors observe collection of urine specimens ♦ Courier pickup of samples from satellite offices ♦ Drug test results to probation officers within 24-hours During the reporting period 66,726 tests were completed for DIRECT, Standard, and Intensive Probation Supervision. From the samples taken 3,130 or approximately 4% tested positive for drug use. The volume of tests increased by 4,687 or 7.5% over the previous fiscal year. At mid-year, with the announcement of budgetary restrictions, the objective to reduce testing was established. Probation officers rely on test results to make case management decisions and to verify probationers are complying with court orders. The following table shows a breakdown of drug tests, along with the number and percentage of positive tests. Program Completed Tests Positive Tests Percent Positive Direct 8,337 381 4 Standard 35,100 2,110 6 IPS 23,289 639 2.3 23 Division Director Assignments on June 30, 2002 Unit Supervisors Rosemary Broduer-Mendez Yolanda Harris Ray Lekawa Jo Fontenot Betsy Jennings Jamie Perry Litigation Support II Josie Camacho Rosa Donaldson Deanna Franson Sheila Hampton Marsha Hutchison Amanda Kelley Melissa Lopez Edna Ortiz Sheila Ramon Leticia Soto Susan Tyler Anna Vidal Shelly Welsh Sue Williams Susan Corrales Maria Escobedo Virginia French Molly Hernandez Jami Kaminski Jan Lomen Xochitl Montoya Debra Pike Julie Sirrine Dona Spencer Jessie Vasquez T.G. Wallace John Wilcoxon Rena Winters Litigation Support I Karla Cota Michael Fleming Priscilla Granillo Traci Lewis Ana Escalante Norma Gallego Theresa Ioane Francisca Sepulveda Lead Dispatchers Casey Camacho Michael Harayda Dispatchers Ellen Clare Conrad Diana Jacome Vince Speitel Cirra Woods Nancy Custer Michelle Modless Richard Wagner 24 While the director position remained vacant for the entire reporting period, routine duties were shifted to the three field directors. A variety of services were provided to employees, probationers, and the community under the efforts of division staff. The areas of service encompassed Education Services/LEARN, training and education, Volunteers and Interns in Probation, publications, and special projects. Brief descriptions of these efforts are highlighted in the following sections. Overview - The Education Services LEARN Program was established in 1988 and housed at Adult Probation’s west office. It was part of a pilot project launched by the Administrative Office of the Courts at the Arizona Supreme Court. Adult Probation in Pima County was the first probation department in the nation to implement a literacy and education program in such a setting. Furthermore, it was the first probation department in Arizona to stipulate completion of literacy or GED programs as a condition of probation. In fourteen years, nearly 1,825 students have earned their GEDs; approximately 465 students have improved their literacy skills; and more than 650 adults have improved their English skills. New Student Referral - Along with the LEARN student data collected by the Department of Education, staff tracked the number of new students referred by various entities. A total of 898 students were referred to LEARN during the reporting period. The largest number came from the court, including referrals by officers. This year, 72.6% or 652 of new students were court-referred. Other outside agencies referring students to LEARN included DES, Pima College Adult Education, Literacy Volunteers, and the WalMart Literacy Initiative. Students referred by outside agencies accounted for 27.3% of all referrals. Staff tracked the number of students who enrolled in the adult education classes. This year, 65.4% (or 587 students) of referrals actually enrolled. Statistical Overview ♦ 898 adults and juveniles received educational services during the fiscal year. ♦ 775 individuals (86.5%) were serving probation sentences while in the program. ♦ 123 LEARN students passed their GED exam. ♦ 67 participants graduated from the Cognitive Skills program; 31 (46.2%) graduates completed the 18-week program with perfect attendance. ♦ 35 clients participated in the 2-week DES workshops. ♦ 196 probationers participated in HIV/AIDS awareness classes. ♦ 113 parents/probationers attended 6-week parenting classes provided by Parents Anonymous of Tucson. ♦ 13 individuals took the “Invest in Your Future” workshops. ♦ 1074.5 hours of service were donated by volunteers, interns and probationers completing their community service mandate. 25 Altrusa International, Inc., of Tucson - For more than 13 years, the Altrusa Club has supported Adult Probation’s LEARN Program. Because of their generosity, nearly 175 graduates have received higher education scholarships. Department of Economic Security/JOBS Career Preparation Workshops - LEARN continued its education programming with formal employment and job skills training through a contract with the DES JOBS program. Staff conducted five 2-week workshops, serving 35 clients and conducted case management follow-up with graduates. Network for Adults with Learning Difficulties - Staff from LEARN and Pima Community College Adult Education collaborated with local and state agencies to identify and access funding for students with learning difficulties. Membership expanded to include personnel from Vocational Rehabilitation, Pima Community College, and Pima County One-Stop. Parents Anonymous - Parents Anonymous continued to provide parenting services for probationers. Six-week classes were offered to probationers and their partners, with 113 adults enrolled in classes – twice the number enrolled last fiscal year. Other topics included cognitive skills, time and stress management, and day care issues. One-Stop/ Workforce Investment Board – In an agreement with Pima County Community Services to provide Adult Basic Education and Adult Secondary Education (GED) classes to unemployed or dislocated workers, LEARN staff participated in the planning of “Virtual One-Stop.” Students and probationers access the Virtual One-Stop through LEARN computers to enroll in programs or to complete job searches. Pima Community College (PCC) - One weekend each month PCC Assessment Center staff conduct the GED exam at one of the three LEARN labs. Students complete the exam in two, daylong sessions. PCC awards scholarships to LEARN’s GED graduates, matching Altrusa’s scholarships. Students receiving scholarships must attend a PCC orientation workshop where they enroll, complete financial aid applications, watch a video about the college, and obtain information about the curriculum. Responsible Parent Program - The program was implemented with the help of the Pima County Attorney’s Office and court commissioners assigned to child support enforcement in response to the number of non-custodial parents needing job training and/or education to successfully find employment. LEARN provided the educational component of the program. 26 Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation At the request of the department’s Drug Involvement Reversal Through Education, Control and Treatment (DIRECT) program, LEARN sponsored a series of HIV/AIDS workshops at the satellite offices. Trained volunteers from the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation conducted workshops to 197 probationers. Volunteers, Interns, and Community Service - Volunteers, interns and probationers who are required to perform community service made valuable contributions to LEARN. The group logged 1,074.5 hours of assistance by performing one-on-one tutoring, administrative and clerical support, and by painting the Westside lab walls. Cognitive Skills Program To correct impulsive, egocentric, illogical, and rigid thinking, probationers are taught to consider the consequences of their behavior and to conceptualize alternative ways of responding to interpersonal problems. Since 1998, the program utilized Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R & R) as its core curriculum. Classes were held twice a week, for 18-weeks, with each session lasting 1.5 hours. During the reporting period, 94 students enrolled, 67 graduated, and 31 had perfect attendance. Cognitive Skills promotes the department’s mission to assist probationers in becoming law-abiding, productive citizens. Research shows the program can reduce recidivism by as much as 80%. As a probationer stated at the Cognitive Skills graduation: “Cognitive Skills gave me a whole new perspective on the thought process for myself and others. It helped me in thinking clearly and rationally. In short, it is necessary for everyone to have cognitive skills in everyday life to help make better decisions. Cognitive Skills is a class that I recommend for everybody on probation.” The end of the fiscal year brought a shift to Motivational Interviewing and Motivational Enhancement Therapy. Another major change will be the switch in curriculum from R & R to “Thinking For a Change,” which was developed by the National Institute of Corrections. The program is 8-weeks long. Initially the target population will be first time drug offenders sentenced under Proposition 200 and other more serious drug offenders. Ultimately, staff hopes to provide classes to everyone placed on probation. 27 Under an administrative order from the Council on Judicial Education and Training (COJET), all court employees throughout the state must complete 16 hours of annual training. This fiscal year, department employees completed more than 12,500 hours of training. The following training line-up was delivered and supported by the department’s training officer, training coordinator, and administrative assistant. General Training – Included in the 16 hours required by COJET, staff must complete sessions on ethics and sexual harassment awareness. Training staff provided these courses along with sessions on cultural diversity and domestic violence. For the eighth consecutive year, the training units from Adult Probation, the Superior Court, and the Pima County Juvenile Court Center offered courses during fall and spring week-long training conferences at the Kino Veterans Community Center. Officer Orientation and Initial Training - For a second consecutive year, new probation and surveillance officers experienced the NOIT (New Orientation and Initial Training) program, which included attendance at the probation certification academy for probation officers, Tactics for Officer Safety and Survival, and 2-weeks of in-house training. Upon completion of the program, officers were assigned to caseloads and mentors to assist with remaining on-the-job training. Officer Safety - Fiscal year 2002 was a momentous year for officer safety issues throughout the statewide probation community. In April 2001, the former Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court appointed an ad hoc committee to study probation officer safety and training. The committee met at least monthly to make recommendations on officer safety and training, including the Use of Force, Safety Training, and Firearms Standards. The Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) approved the recommendations, and Chief Justice Jones signed three new Administrative Orders to govern officer safety training throughout the state. Currently, subcommittees are drafting training curriculum. To date the only course outline approved by the Committee on Probation Education (COPE) is Safety Training. However, the remaining curriculums are not far behind. Officers statewide have been waiting for standardized officer safety training, and it is here. TOSS staff and the Firearms teams continued to provide safety training to officers, by covering the components of the continuum of control: Crisis Management Skills (verbal communications), Tactics for Officer Safety and Survival (hands on tactics, baton and OC spray), and the optional firearms course for those officers electing to carry weapons. 28 Officer Training - In order to assist officers in the performance of their duties, staff provided instruction specific to the department’s functional operations, i.e., presentence reports, assessments and substance abuse evaluations, case management and supervision, and other specialized programming. A path to justice . . . Continuing to carry the training torch, officers and staff delivered instruction in the community, the state, and the nation. Many employees were instructors for the Arizona Probation Officer Academy, the Arizona Institute for Intensive Probation, and the Judicial Staff Conferences. In addition, several staff provided training at the American Probation and Parole Association’s national conference during the fiscal year. With the training of officers and staff, the community is afforded the protection of a well-trained workforce. Trained officers and staff assisted offenders in making lifestyle changes, while completing their probation terms, restoring the victims, and remaining law-abiding in the community. Volunteer and Interns in Probation (VIP) - Providing more than 2,000 hours of service during the reporting period, citizens and students in Pima County invested their time and efforts in different divisions of the department. The organization and the community profited from the volunteers’ service and students earned academic credits. Publications and Special Projects - Divisional staff worked on the department’s newsletter, NEXUS, which featured articles on Excellence Award recipients, probation happenings, and celebrations of birthdays and employment anniversaries. The task of producing this annual report falls to employees in this division and the project coordinator who worked with the executive director. In addition, the division staff provided administrative support and graphic design services to all employees of the department for special projects, flyers, announcements, and events. One staff member served on a Superior Court committee tasked with redesigning the court’s website, and provided additional graphic design services to the court. 29 Interim Division Director for Planning & Development Staff Probation Program Coordinator Deborah Tinajero Unit Supervisor Beth Shy Training Coordinator Rafaela de Loera Training Officer George Baum Administrative Coordinator JoAnne Pope Site Coordinators/Adult Education Instructors Susan Barlow Susan Enholm Rebecca Gray Cognitive Skills Coordinator Steven Emslie Adult Education Instructors Shanon Easterday Julie Gray Sheryl Norris Gale Reich John Hindman Adult Education Instructor/DES Workshop Instructor Heidi Bacon Administrative Assistants Lorraine Arvizu Sandra Cruz Kathleen Thomas Interim Division Director for Planning & Development Staff Probation Program Coordinator Annabea McKinley Assignments on June 30, 2002 30 The department’s budget was adversely affected by the tragic events of September 11,2001 and the subsequent economic downturn. Strategic planning by administrative staff focused on the continuation of effective and efficient probation services to the community despite a major decrease in funding. Employees experienced first-hand the effects of the large state deficit and the shortage of county funds this year, as they took on additional cases and even heavier workloads. Caseload management was challenging, as many vacancies were held open indefinitely. Staff is commended for implementing changes, for taking on additional cases, and for adjusting to a very difficult financial year. The department’s employee roster included 298 employees at the end of the reporting period, compared to 303 for the previous fiscal year. Activity Quantity Number of staff hired 30 Number of staff departing 35 Total number of staff as of July 1, 2002 298 Administrative staff maintained a budget of $15,303,566 in eleven separate funding sources, which represented a decrease of $195,137 over the previous year. The table below provides a breakout of funds. Funding Source Personnel Operating $3,827,050 $849,056 $4,676,106 Probation Fees 1,044,297 379,572 1,423,869 State Aid Enhancement 3,167,782 44,020 3,211,802 Intensive Probation 3,472,885 207,916 3,680,771 Community Punishment Program 856,645 85,899 942,544 Interstate Compact 280,019 6,068 286,087 Drug Enforcement Adjudication 193,633 -0- 193,633 Justice Court Screening / Probation Fees 10,073 6,062 16,135 Dept. of Education DES / JOBS Grant 92,708 27,658 120,366 Transferred Youth 50,000 -0- 50,000 Drug Treatment Education Fund 184,579 411,287 595,866 Other 106,387 -0- 106,387 Totals $13,286,028 $2,017,538 $15,303,566 County 31 Totals In addition to strategic planning, administrative staff participated in policy and program development, in the production and analysis of performance measures, the reporting of state measures, and in the coordination of human resources and financial functions. They handled the collection of court assessments and expenditure of those monies, prepared state grant applications, participated in operational planning and negotiation of state funding, conducted research, and provided statistical information for program and annual reports required by the state. Staff also tracked placements and funding for probationers receiving substance abuse and mental health treatment under the Community Punishment Program. Administrative staff enhanced the work of probation through service to employees, the courts, probationers, and ultimately, the community. Executive Director Unit Supervisor Barbara Johnson Project Coordinator Laura Pate Executive Assistant Linda Seidel Research Analyst Mary Rios Administration Level I Leona Powers Becky Raymond Assignments on June 30, 2002 32 Employees are the department’s finest resource. As in the past, staff continued to make a difference in Adult Probation and in their communities. This section spotlights several employees whose exemplary work ethic, creativity, and care for others is exhibited through their efforts. By acknowledging employees’ achievements, the Staff Relations Committee continued to accomplish its objective of supporting an organization that facilitates individual growth, creativity, and fulfillment. The committee sponsored several events: a holiday party for the children of staff, an appreciation breakfast for support staff, and a series of celebrations recognizing the efforts of officers during the national Probation, Parole, and Community Supervision Week in July. SRC spreads goodwill by sending get well and condolence cards, and by selecting recipients of the Excellence Award. In addition, members selected the 2002 Employee, Line Officer, and Supervisor of the Year. Jamie Stuck - 2001 Employee of the Year Described as showing a high caliber of professionalism, time management, and intelligence, Senior Surveillance Officer Jamie Stuck is recognized for his leadership and loyalty to the Adult Probation Department’s mission and objectives. He is known for working quietly and effectively behind the scene. His work ethic consists of a non-threatening, non-biased sensible approach, while practicing sound judgment and exhibiting expertise in the work of probation. Without complaining or compromising his other duties, Stuck covered an IPS caseload while the officer was on medical leave for nearly a year. He is a leader, according to former partners and as evidenced by his work and the support of his colleagues. Recently, his leadership abilities were challenged as he presided over the Pima County Probation Officers Association (PCPOA). Officer Stuck operated as a liaison among the membership, the Chief Probation Officer, the State Legislature and AZ COPS. His contributions in that arena benefited department employees, while earning their respect and appreciation. During his law enforcement career, as a Tucson police officer for more than 15 years and now with Adult Probation, Jamie has touched the lives of many. He has made a difference. The profession salutes his efforts and is better because of them. Rosanna Kent - 2001 Probation Officer of the Year “I thought I had a difficult caseload...she’s unbelievable.” That was the comment of an officer who overheard Senior Probation Officer Rosanna Kent speaking with a probationer. The probationer, a paranoid schizophrenic, was in the throes of decompensation. Rosanna was calming the situation as much as possible. This is but one example of the dedication that Rosanna exhibits on a daily basis. She supervises a challenging Seriously Mentally Ill unit . Kent is supportive and has seemingly unending patience. She has become an advocate for the rights of mentally ill probationers and searches for all possible options to assist them in successfully completing probation. She is tenacious in her rehabilitative efforts. At times, Rosanna has convinced and even forced mental health practitioners and administrators to provide mandated services for this vulnerable population. Rosanna actively serves on two interagency mental health committees, which allowed her to foster communication and clarify procedures between the department and various mental health agencies. Kent also serves within the department, mentoring new officers and assisting others anytime she’s needed. As one officer reflected, “She’s amazing. Simply amazing.” 33 Phillip Shelley – 2001 Supervisor of the Year Developing collaborative partnerships with citizens and agencies of Pima County, applying expertise in absconder apprehension, and directing and advising employees are just a few ways Supervisor Phil Shelley spends his day. Managing a unit of 14, Phil guides his staff daily by personally demonstrating and fulfilling the department’s mission and goals. One way he does this is by implementing (and participating in) new Community Service projects, which enable probationers to become more active and productive in neighborhoods. One such project focused on the restoration and cleanup of homes owned by low-income, homebound elderly. As a result of his initiatives, the Community Service Program received numerous community recognition awards. Due to positive working and committee relationships with local law enforcement agencies, as well as activity in the Tax Intercept Program, 505 absconders were apprehended and returned to justice under Shelley’s leadership. He is an active member of the State Warrants Committee and has assisted numerous Arizona probation departments in implementing Absconder Unit policy and procedure. Due to his initiatives and expertise, the Absconder Program received numerous recognitions, awards, and commendations. Phil brings well-deserved credit and honor to the department and to the probation profession worldwide. Hall of Fame Don R. Stiles was appointed Chief Probation Officer of the Adult Probation Department of the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County in July 1988. More than 24 years of corrections experience accompanied him, ranging from state-level administrative oversight to local community corrections. A native of Whitesboro, Texas, he holds a bachelors degree from East Texas Baptist University and a masters from Sam Houston State University. During his past 14 years of professional service, Chief Stiles has helped elevate the department’s reputation to the state and national forefront by implementing innovative programming, along with solid, long-standing approaches to true street supervision. Under his watch, the department established the first comprehensive officer safety training program (a national model), created cooperative interagency relationships, implemented new specialized caseloads, furthered the development of a literacy program for probationers, and instituted a 24-hour communication center. Additionally, his influence encouraged officers to improve the collection of court-ordered assessments. Chief Stiles was appointed by the Arizona Chief Justice to chair the Committee on Probation – a statewide policy-making and oversight committee. His leadership resulted in reappointment as chair by four different Supreme Court Chief Justices. Stiles also served on numerous state bar and ad hoc legislative committees, and he frequently testified at the Arizona Legislature regarding the impact of proposed legislation on community supervision. Chief Probation Officer Don R. Stiles retired just after the end of the fiscal year. He positively impacted probation services in Pima County and throughout the country. The department staff thank him for his contributions, dedication, and leadership . 34 Stu Jenks ~ Modern Visionary Sometimes we work so hard at criminal justice and victim restoration, we forget about art and beauty in the world. Stu Jenks hasn’t. To some in the department, Stu is simply one of the drug screeners. To others, Stu is “that guy who takes weird photos.” However, to a growing number of art enthusiasts worldwide, Stu is a modern visionary. After visiting his online gallery, one begins to understand why. Stu’s life and work is atypical of the usual APO statistic. Stu’s degree is not in criminal justice, social work or political science but in fine arts. It’s true that he’s also a certified addictions counselor, but that came later. Owlshead, Arizona Surprisingly enough, Stu didn’t grow up creating. “In the second grade, my art teacher rejected my project; she said it was lumpy,” Stu recalled. “It was lumpy, but that wasn’t the point.” That rejection caused Stu to hide his creativity until college, where he drifted from drama to scenery before he settled on art. After graduating with a B.F.A. degree in Conceptual Art in 1978, Stu got lost for a while. When he returned to art, he became intrigued with nighttime photography. Wanting to learn to develop his own photos, Stu quit his job and studied photography at Pima Community College. He hasn’t looked back. Stu’s work centers on the study of circles, spirals, and sacred spaces. He explained, “Each time I learn a little more about the space I’m in - both emotionally internal to my experiences and physically external to my environment. This series is as much about the exploration of my spiritual reality, as it is about an appreciation of form, shape, and design.” It is a series that has been noticed. Stu’s name is emerging around the world via the internet. He is mentioned in many websites, from people extolling his photography, to art discussion boards, to online galleries. His work is offered on a European art website. It has been purchased by afficionados the world over. Stu’s work has also entered the music world. His photography has appeared on several of local musician Steve Roach’s albums as well as on a local church’s chant CD. The qualities which make Stu’s art so exceptional have also carried over into his probation work. The patience and attention to detail required for night shoots comes in handy when screening individuals for drug use. The problem-solving and creative abilities that Stu regularly uses in the darkroom also translate to probation work, enabling Stu to write remarkable substance abuse treatment recommendations. In addition, “I wouldn’t be surprised that my nighttime sojourns into the desert, or the photographic experiments in my studio reflect a positive energy back to my work at the courthouse,” Stu adds. In the end, though, Stu’s art is for himself. “I feel physically better when I create,” he confesses. The entire process has become a meditation of sorts for Stu. “Sometimes it’s about art. Sometimes it’s about prayer. And when I’m lucky, it’s about both,” he concludes. Self Portrait 35 Louise Chernetz ~ Animal Savior When Louise Chernetz was ten years old, she made her first animal rescue-a baby robin that had fallen from its nest. Louise dubbed it “Sassafras” and gave it a home on her family’s screened porch until it was old enough to fly. Many years later, Louise is a highly respected senior probation officer in the Assessment Center. Her opinion is often sought, not only for the presentence reports she writes on sex offenders, but for everything from misdemeanors to murder cases. However, Louise still tends to displaced animals. At the aptly named The Last Resort, she offers a haven for the pets of people in crisis like chemotherapy, alcoholism, domestic violence, homelessness, even incarceration. Louise takes care of the pets -cats, dogs, birds, ferrets, reptiles, once even a tarantula -until their owners are able to take them back. “For so many people, especially those on the fringe, a bond with a pet is what helps them survive,” she says. The Last Resort was started in 1999, when Louise got a call from a neighbor who had fled with her children to a domestic violence shelter and was frantic about the pets she’d left at home. Louise took the animals in, then decided to create a nonprofit organization to assist other pet lovers in similar situations. Louise recruited a board of directors, printed a brochure, networked with agencies, found a pool of volunteers willing to take pets into their homes, and developed a contract for clients. “Owners need to agree to have their pet neutered or spayed,” she explained. “And when they’re back on their feet, they have to try to pay us for vets, licensing, and food.” Three years old, The Last Resort has nearly enough funding to break even, though Louise remains unpaid for her labor. That labor extends well into the night and consumes her weekends. Every night, after her probation officer duties are completed, she returns to her small brick home. There she greets and feeds her 20 or so cat guests, then steps out to the backyard, where anywhere from four to 12 large dogs are penned in homemade kennels. After doling out the attention they crave, Louise begins the glamorous task of picking up pet droppings for the second time that day. She tends to minor wounds and scratches, drives to the vet, and answers the phone. At a time in life when most people are calculating retirement options, Louise has put much of her income into The Last Resort. She lives in a dangerous neighborhood, drives an ancient car, hasn’t traveled in years, and rarely eats out. Though most people would consider this a meager lifestyle, it’s clear Louise is after a different sort of reward. “Being able to help pet owners who have nowhere else to turn, is a great feeling,” she says. “My very first client was a mentally ill, homeless lady who’d been living in her car with her dog, Sasha. I got a call from the women’s shelter saying she refused to go for treatment unless they found a place for Sasha. I took him for a couple of years. She got treatment, got better, found a job, got an apartment and picked up Sasha.” Running The Last Resort has had an impact upon Louise’s adult probation duties. “It’s easy to become jaded in this line of work. My view of people has become less jaded, less harsh, and more kind. Some of the clients at The Last Resort have really surprised me. I’ve also finely honed my time management skills!” Louise concluded. Special thanks to Sheila Curran 36 Keith Gorley ~ Helping Others Mend Volunteering is the way Keith Gorley gives back to his community, which in turn helps him understand those he encounters in life, as well as, on the job. As a senior probation officer doing a difficult job in the Assessment Center, Keith takes the time to acknowledge the spiritual, emotional, and physical pain that many of the probationers live with on a daily basis. This awareness has helped him to be a better officer and a better human being. He has volunteered during the past 19 years as a literacy volunteer and a Big Brothers, Big Sisters tutor. Presently, Keith volunteers with the Jewish Family and Children Services refugee program and visits with patients at the Tucson Heart Hospital. Mending of broken hearts is important to Keith. This is evidenced by his work with Divorce Recovery. “After completing a ten-week divorce recovery group, I volunteered and went through a group facilitator training program,” explained Keith. “We work in pairs of two, one male and one female. Divorce Recovery means a lot to me because it supported me and gave me an opportunity to meet other people who were facing similar experiences. It is very gratifying to walk others through the process and to see them regain a positive outlook. They start out feeling pretty rejected and generally leave feeling better about themselves.” Divorce Recovery is a support program that provides participants with information and offers a haven to share their experiences. Group participation is encouraged as a way of supporting each other outside a formal setting. Participants learn what to expect and how to grieve, process their thoughts and feelings, and deal with the practical matters of daily life. “There is life after divorce,” added Keith. “Having gone through the experience, I can better empathize with the pain and suffering of others whether triggered by a divorce or some other loss. I feel my service with this support program may have literally saved my job.” Officer Gorley plans to continue volunteering with Divorce Recovery after completing his master’s degree work; then, he will reassess his options and go on from there. How do you mend a broken heart? For Keith, it means giving his time, his heart, and his service. 37 38 Historical Background Pima County was created in 1864 with boundaries encompassing all of southern Arizona, including most of the land acquired from Mexico through the Gadsden Purchase. The region was settled in the 1690s by the Spanish, who faced the Native Americans already occupying the land. Silver and gold were discovered in the middle of the 18th century, and prospectors flooded in. Mining and ranching also drew settlers, despite the threat of attack from the Apaches. From a population of 395 in 1820, Tucson has grown to the second largest city in Arizona. Although greatly reduced from its original size, Pima County covers 9,184 square miles and ranges in elevation from 1,200 feet to the 9,185-foot peak of Mount Lemmon. Tucson is the home to the University of Arizona and many historical and cultural attractions. [Source: Pima County Web Site] The Population of Pima County As of July 1, 2001, Pima County’s population was estimated at 870,588, representing a 3.2% increase from the year before. However, the population was expected to grow only by 1.7% in the year 2002 (depending on annexations). By the year 2010, the population is estimated to reach 1,030,908. [Source: Tucson Planning Department, Population Estimates & Projections, 2001 ] 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 2000 2001 2002 2010 Pima County Population Distribution According to the Census Bureau’s most recent figures, Hispanics constituted 29.3% of the county’s total population compared to 25.2% for the state and 12.5% for the nation. Native Americans accounted for 3.2%, African Americans for 3.0%, Asian/Pacific Islanders for 2.1% and Caucasians for 45.9%. Those who listed “other” accounted for 16.5 % of Pima County’s population. Hispanic African American Native American Asian / Pacific Islander Other Caucasian 39 Crime in the United States According to United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, national violent crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2001: Note: The violent crimes included are sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide. The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign was implemented in 1993. The area with the lighter shading is before the redesign and the darker area after the redesign. The data before 1993 are adjusted to make them comparable with data collected since the redesign. [Source: US Department of Justice] Property crime also declined during this same time period by 6%, continuing a more than 20 year decline. (Note: Property crimes include burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft.) In 2001, the crime index rate increased slightly, up 0.9% compared to a 26.5% steady decline over the past ten years. The homicide rate doubled from the mid 1960’s to the late 1970’s. In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1985. It rose again in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000. Since then, the rate has declined sharply, reaching 5.7 per 100,000 by 1999. (Source: Uniform Crime Reports) 40 Homicide Victimization, 1950-1999 Year Homicide Rate per 100,000 Population Estimated Number of Homicides 1950 4.6% 7,020 1960 5.1% 9,110 1970 7.9% 16,000 1980 10.2% 23,040 1990 9.4% 23,440 1999 5.7% 15,533 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1950-99 Crime in Arizona In the year 2000, Arizona had an estimated population of 5,130,632, ranking the state 20th in population. For that year, the state of Arizona had a total crime index of 5,829.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people (compared to 5,896.1 in 1999). For violent crime, Arizona had a reported incident rate of 531.7 per 100,000 people (compared to 551.1 in 1999), which ranked the state as having the 14th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For property crimes, the state had an incident rate of 5,297.8 per 100,000 people (compared to 5,345.0 in 1999). Also in the year 2000, Arizona had 7 murders per 100,000 people (compared to 8 in 1999), ranking the state as having the 9th highest murder rate in the nation. [Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports.] Crime in Pima County In Pima County, the crime index rate (murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and arson) rose 1.12% this year with 66,778 offenses compared to 59,500 in 2000 (Maricopa experienced 206,385 offenses); however, the number of murders decreased this year from 92 in 2000 to 53 in 2001. Below is an index crime comparison for the last two years: Crime 2000 2001 92 53 443 412 Robbery 1,659 1,914 Aggravated Assault 3,361 3,483 Burglary 8,936 8,916 36,689 41,780 7,859 9,746 Arson 461 474 Totals 59,500 66,778 Murder Sexual Assault Larceny-Theft Larceny-Vehicle Theft 41 Juvenile Crime In 1995, 69 million persons in the United States were under the age of 18. This population is projected to reach 74 million by the year 2010. In the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, 35 persons under the age of 18 were placed on probation this fiscal year with nine receiving jail time as a condition of probation. None of the 35 juveniles began probation with a high school diploma. Twenty-eight attended charter schools, public schools and/ or GED classes. Eight earned their General Education Diplomas and three graduated from high school. Four juveniles who turned 18 this fiscal year attended community college and 30 received treatment services. Six juveniles were revoked from probation. [Source:U.S. Bureau of the Census] Disposition of Defendants Found Guilty At the end of the reporting period, the number of inmates incarcerated in Arizona prisons totaled 29,273. That represents an increase of 8.9% from 2001. During the 2001 calendar year, 4,068 defendants were found guilty of committing a criminal offense by the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, and 2,432 or 59.8% were granted probation supervision. [Sources: Arizona Department of Corrections and the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County.] Types of Crime The chart below contains information on the type of crimes committed by defendants placed on probation. Illegal goods (e.g., drug sales, possession) and crimes against persons are the most common at 29% and 28%, respectively. Illegal Goods (e.g. drug sales, possession) 29.0% Person (e.g. assault, robbery) 28.0% Public Peace & Traffic 17.0% Property 26.0% Presentence Investigations Assessment Center officers prepared 3,531 presentence reports this year, which is comparable to last fiscal year’s 3,548. Officers completed an average of 294 reports per month. 42 Defendant Demographics The following tables compare marital status, gender, ethnicity, age, employment status, and education levels of defendants sentenced to probation in 2001 to those sentenced in 2002: Marital Status 2000-2001 2001-2002 Married 1,588 22% 1551 21% Single 3,828 52% 4139 55% Living w/ Partner 20 0% 18 0% Divorced 1,123 15% 1,121 15% Separated 295 4% 270 4% Widowed 75 1% 67 1% Unknown 392 5% 359 5% Gender 7,000 6,068 5,856 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,463 1,000 1,457 0 2000-2001 2001-2002 Male Female Ethnicity 2000-2001 Percentage 2001-2002 Percentage Caucasian 3,365 46% 3,378 45% Hispanic 2,995 41% 3,159 42% African American 638 9% 657 9% Native American 243 3% 245 3% 45 1% 54 1% Asian 43 Age 2000-2001 2001-2002 19-29 39% 19-29 41% 30-39 31% 15-18 2% 15-18 3% 30-39 32% 50+ 7% 50+ 8% 40-49 17% 40-49 20% 15-18 19-29 30-39 40-49 50+ Employment Status 2000-2001 2001-2002 Employed 3,836 52% 3,747 50% Unemployed 3,848 39% 3,041 40% Student 136 2% 149 2% Retired 54 1% 59 1% Military 2 0% 3 0% 449 6% 526 7% Unknown Education Levels 2000-2001 2001-2002 Non H/S Grad 2,934 44% 3,001 44% H/S Grad 1,531 23% 960 22% GED 910 13% 960 14% 1,232 18% 1,234 18% 119 2% 121 2% Some College BA or BS 44 Children of Probationers There are 207,561 children between the ages of 0 and 18 residing in Pima County. Of these, 7,328 have an incarcerated parent and 6,600 are children of adults on probation. As these children age, they often follow in their parent’s footsteps, leading lives of crime; ending up in Arizona prisons and/or on probation. This year, the department participated in the Juvenile Services Coordinating Council’s Children of Prisoners Working Group. The goal was to develop a course of action and timeline outlining proposed enhancements to existing services, possible systems changes, and appropriate new programs. It is anticipated they will create a safety net in which young children of incarcerated parents can be identified and their needs addressed, thereby curtailing the generations of involvement in the criminal justice system. Adult Probation Supervision Caseloads, FY 2001-2002 Total Active Cases: 7,525 Standard Probation 67.2% Unsup 8.5% Justice Crt 9.3% IPS 10.3% DOC/Prob 4.7% Growth in Probation Caseloads 8,000 7,000 During the fiscal years betwen 2000 and 2002, the number of probationers on active caseloads fluctuated slightly with a 4.25% increase from last year. The chart on the right depicts these numbers: 7,472 7,218 7,525 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 FY 2000 45 FY 2001 FY 2002 Probation Outcomes Performance Measures - The Administrative Office of the Arizona Supreme Court has identified and developed performance measures in accordance with the statutory reporting requirements established by the Arizona Legislature. The measurements below depict the percentage expected by the supreme court and the percentage and totals achieved by the department during the year: Measure State Goal Achieved % of probationers paying court-ordered restitution 75 75 % of probationers paying court-ordered probation fees 75 75 % of probationers testing negative for prohibited substance use 77 73 % of probationers completing court-ordered community service 75 74 % of probationers paying court-ordered restitution 70 66 % of probationers paying court-ordered probation fees 64 66 % of probationers completing court-ordered community service 65 98.5 Intensive Probation Field Services Supervision Termination Types The following table measures termination types-the final outcome of probation. It should be noted some probationers receive early release due to positive performance on probation. 2000-2001 2001-2002 Closed Interest 376 11% 325 10% Revoked to DOC 699 21% 641 20% Early Termination 437 13% 481 15% Terminated 421 12% 298 9% Negative Termination 82 2% 77 2% Revoked to Jail 86 3% 39 1% 0 0% 2 0% 1,261 37% 1,264 40% 44 1% 33 1% Revoked (old term) Regular Termination Death 46 Probationers Give Back to the Community Restitution, Fines and Fees Collection of restitution, fines and fees from probationers compensate victims of crime and assist in maintaining probation services. This year, $3,240,407 was collected compared to $3,743,645 the previous year. Community Service Probationers are court-ordered to perform a specific number of community service hours as a form of restitution and as part of their rehabilitation. Numerous organizations have received these services, ranging from city and county government agencies, to non-profit groups such as the Boys Scouts of America. Probationers completed 284,985 hours of community service, giving back to the community $1,467,673 in free labor (calculated using minimum wage). Education and Employment Education plays a key role in successful probation terminations. This year, a total of 896 students were enrolled in adult education programs. Of these, 123 earned their General Education Diplomas and 67 graduated from the Cognitive Skills program. 47 Annual Report Committee Lorraine Arvizu, George Baum, Elizabeth Dalgleish, Rafaela de Loera, Errol Dimenstein, Susan Enholm, Yvonne Federico, Mike Fleming, JoAnne Pope, Melissa Robles, Deborah Tinajero, and Laura Wellner-Pate Contributions from George Baum, Ruben Castro, Cathy Cermak, Louise Chernetz, Rafaela de Loera, Ron Dominguez, Rob Druckenbrod, Ed Espinoza, Keith Gorley, Stu Jenks, Barbara Johnson, Diane McGinnis, Annabea McKinlely, JoAnne Pope, Gene Riddle, Mary Rios, Carl Sheets, Phil Shelley, Theresa Springer, Deborah Tinajero, Pattye Tolliver, Menachem Turchick, and Laura Wellner-Pate Statistical Report by Laura Wellner-Pate Photos by Mark Nobles, JoAnne Pope & George Baum Cover and graphics by JoAnne Pope Annual Report by Rafaela de Loera Printing by Pima County Printshop on recycled paper