adult probation department

of the arizona superior court in pima county

annual report 2003
probation: its past, present, and future

table of contents . . .
i

letter to judge leonardo

ii

probation: its past, present, and future . . .

iii

its mission . . .

iv

probation: a new perspective . . .

vi

its organizational framework . . .

1

its assessment center . . .

4

its field supervision division . . .

15

its operational services division . . .

17

its administrative services . . .

18

saluting its employees . . .

20

the judicial benches . . .

21

its statistical information . . .
acknowledgements

December 31, 2003
The Honorable John S.Leonardo
Presiding Judge
Superior Court in Pima County
110 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Dear Judge Leonardo:
On behalf of the Adult Probation Department, I am pleased to present the department’s 2003 annual report,
“Probation: its past, present and future.” Probation’s recent past includes the exodus of many years of experience with the retirement or departure of various leaders, a restructuring of divisions, and major changes to the
existing management framework. Its present status can be found between the pages of this report. Its future lies
in the continual implementation of best practices in probation work.
Achievements for the 2002-2003 reporting period include:
•
the preparation of 3,418 presentence reports, including 1,030 accelerated jail reports
•
the supervision of 7,335 probationers
•
the substance abuse assessments of 1,656 probationers
•
the apprehension of 650 absconders
•
the provision of educational services to 884 adult and juvenile students
•
the collection of $3,380,005 in court-ordered restitution, fees, and fines
•
the completion of 223,649 hours of community service by probationers
I appreciate the efforts of the department’s employees as they continually strive to provide the “best” probation
services to the court and the community. Sustained support from the Bench and from Court Administrator K. Kent
Batty enables their success. On a personal note, I am grateful for having been appointed to
my current positon on January 13, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,

David F. Sanders
Chief Probation Officer
i

probation: its past, present, and future. . .
Past . . . A memorial plaque in Boston credits John Augustus as the Father of Probation stating, “moved by the plight of
those in jails and prisons of his day, a humble Boston bootmaker began a great movement in the reformation of offenders
when, in 1841, he took from the court for a period of probation one who under his care and with his friendship became a
man again.” The “helping” concept of probation was repelled by law enforcement who preferred punishment. Because of
his tenacity the courts slowly agreed that not all criminals needed to be imprisoned. In the beginning, probation officers
were volunteers who evolved into “the eyes and ears of the local court.” During the early 1900s in Arizona, probation was
a stepchild to the corrections system. It started as a reformation movement for juveniles in 1907 by civic-minded businessmen
from Benson, which lead to the creation of a juvenile court. Pima County’s first (juvenile) probation officer was appointed
and received his first case on November 26, 1907. The separate offices of adult and juvenile probation were established
by statute 20 years later in the counties of Pima and Maricopa. However, juvenile probation continued to provide adult
services until the appointment of Glen Poole as Pima County’s first salaried adult officer on December 1, 1945. By 1991
probation services were being provided by 234 staff from four offices. It was not until 1956 that all states had enacted
adult and juvenile probation laws. By 1989, intensive probation and other alternative sanctions were adopted by the 50
states. Reports in 1973 and 1976 labeled probation first as the “brightest hope for corrections” then as a failure and “in
crisis.” Program evaluations in 1993 showed that appropriate programming reduced recidivism. (Petersilla, 1998)
Present . . . Probation in America, exclusive of the federal system, currently provides the following types of services:
intake and investigation, supervision, provision of referral to treatment and other services, monetary collections, and
services to victims. State appropriations fund all or portion of probation services in all but two states. According to Camp
& Camp (1999), the national average caseload sizes for adult supervision were 93 for standard probation, 30 for intensive
probation, 21 for electronic monitoring caseloads, and 34 for specialized caseloads. In Pima County the mandated caseload
sizes are 60 for standard, 25 for IPS, and 60 for specialized caseloads. Camp and Camp reported that daily costs of
supervising adult probationers in 1998 varied from 72 cents in South Dakota to $8.25 in Vermont. In Pima County, the
estimated daily cost is $5 for standard and $14 for IPS. While the number of probationers has increased significantly, the
past decade, with adults on probation comprising more than 60% of the total offender population, funding for probation
remains static and has declined in some states. Issues of credibility, lack of public confidence, poor probationer performance,
and ineffective probation supervision practices continue to impact probation services across the country. The customary
“fortress probation” (supervision from the office) and passive case management “enable” noncompliance and criminal
behavior by probationers as evidenced by soaring recidivism rates, which ranged from 43% of probationers being rearrested
for a felony within three years of their probation sentence (Langan & Cunniff, 1992) to 65% being arrested for a felony or
misdemeanor during their probation term (Petersilla, Turner, Kahan & Peterson, 1985). Currently in Pima County the
probation recidivism rate is approximately 20%.
Future . . . Trends in probation, according to Tampa’s Correctional Probation Deputy Administrator, I.Brown, include

surveillance efforts becoming more integrated with local law enforcement; expansion of automation to create paperless
offices; supervisory functions primarly used for quality control; collection of monetary obligations consuming more of
officers’ time; interim disciplinary sanctions developed that can be used in lieu of court; community service becoming more
retributive; information collected on offenders containing more detail. One thing that won’t change is that good, purposeful, common sense supervision of offenders works. Performed correctly, it holds offenders accountable while providing the
most cost effective sentencing option for the courts.

ii

its mission . . .
Our mission is to serve the court, to actively promote community safety, to facilitate
positive behavioral change in probationers and to respect victims rights. In performing
our mission, we recognize that employees are our most valuable resource, and we hold
these essential core values.
Ñ
Ñ
Ñ
Ñ
Ñ
Ñ
Ñ

Integrity
Respect
Accountability
Fairness
Compassion
Creativity
Excellence

The Adult Probation Department in Pima County
strives to achieve the highest standards in the
administration of criminal justice and community
corrections.

Adopted December 5, 2003

iii

probation: from a new perspective
With the changing of the guard during January 2003, the philosophy of probation and its direction in
Pima County requires consideration. Chief David F. Sanders, who relocated from the Nevada Federal
Probation system, agreed to field questions from staff. Below are questions provided by R. Druckenbrod
and S.Tolson, with Chief Sander’s responses.

What is your philosophy for probation?
I believe in the justice model of probation whereby consideration goes well beyond the offender (what caused the
crime, what needs can we meet) to include the victim and the public at large. Beginning with the probationer, however, we
must recognize that criminal law is designed to punish those who are convicted of criminal offenses. My belief in probation
as a criminal punishment stems from the basic principle of personal responsibility: that the defendant chose to commit the
crime.
Under Arizona law, a judge may suspend the imposition or execution of a sentence and place a defendant on
probation. To the layperson that sounds like no sentence was imposed at all; in fact, a sentence of probation was imposed.
Probation is not a free pass. Probation is a punitive sentence, and it will remain a credible sanction as long as the length and
conditions are driven by the seriousness of the offense, the culpability of the defendant, his criminal history, uniformity in
sentencing, proportionality, and fairness.
A sentence to probation that is properly crafted with the aid of a presentence report will be credible in the eyes of
the offender, the victim, the public, the legislature, and those of us in probation who execute the sentence. The field
officer’s first order of business is just that, to execute the sentence of the court. The manner in which we do that will
influence the outcome. Every term of probation includes elements of control (punishment) and elements of correction
(rehabilitation). It is that “1 - 2 punch” of control and correction that distinguishes us from social workers or police officers.
It is that “1 - 2 punch” that makes probation so effective. While much of our controlling and correcting work is with the
probationer, the outgrowth of that is victim restoration, community protection, and a caseload that is largely successful
under supervision.

In what direction do you see probation going over the next several years?
From time to time, there are efforts in some states to shift probation departments to the Executive Branch of
government. I resist those efforts because probation officers are the “eyes and ears” of the court. I am reminded that
several years ago I met with a group of judges from Russia who were attempting to restructure their court system. Foremost
on their minds was how judges in America command so much respect and authority. Many of their own judgments, it
seemed, were ignored. We had a presentence report translated to Russian, and they read it in conjunction with the
judgment and various conditions of probation. They came to recognize that probation officers play a huge role in the
execution of the sentence imposed by the court.
In their debriefing, the Russian judges said they were most impressed by the fact that “each judge in America has a
personal army.” No, we are not an army, but, in my opinion, we are most properly and most effectively placed in the
Judicial Branch of government. To be more specific as to probation in Arizona, I would like to think that probation will be
part of the solution to prison overcrowding, not part of the problem. Sure, most of the probationers who are seriously
noncompliant and subsequently revoked are sent to the Department of Corrections, but that represents only twenty percent
of the population under supervision.

iv

Much of our direction is currently driven by statute. For example, most of our fieldwork is driven by contact-withthe-probationer standards, which are established by statute or administrative order. If I could choose a new direction in
supervision, it would be issue-driven supervision. We would deploy our resources where they were most needed, and reduce
the emphasis on counting contacts. We would emphasize the value of collateral contacts rather than just those with the
probationer. We would not ask the probationer how he is doing; we would tell him. This, in my opinion, would take us to
a higher level of proactivity and case management. I know we embrace many of these concepts already, and we are not
mindlessly counting meaningless contacts with probationers. Nevertheless, legislative and administrative support of these
principles would move us ahead as a department and as a statewide system.

Is there one experience from the trenches of probation work that shaped the rest of your
probation career?

I’m tempted to tell old war stories, but nobody wants to hear them. Or I could reminisce about probationers who
turned their lives around because of what happened during the term of probation. Success stories number more than we
know. What strikes me, though, is an experience from the 1970s. A probation manager called me into his office and
recounted a personal story from the 1950s about a probationer he had supervised. He had found a good job for the
probationer. Unfortunately, the probationer was later reported by the employer to have stolen some merchandise. The
officer petitioned for revocation and the offender went to prison. Shortly thereafter, the employer contacted the officer
(now the manager), having found the merchandise that he thought to have been stolen by the probationer. The officer did
nothing, speculating that even if the probationer did not steal the goods, given his track record, he probably did something
similar in nature. In the aftermath of the story, the probation manager felt no better for telling it and there was nothing I
could say that would help. I didn’t even try. He carried this sad story of ethical transgression into retirement.

Is it your belief that treatment intervention works?
In a word, “yes.” During the 1980s, one of my assignments as a probation officer was to monitor the performance
of drug treatment programs in addition to my more traditional duties. As a contract monitor, I wanted the same level of
credentialing as those I monitored, so I became state-certified as a substance abuse counselor. I came to understand
addiction and what works in treatment. Most impressive was how the treatment community cooperatively worked with the
criminal justice system to achieve successful outcomes that would otherwise have been impossible.
In 1995 I asked a student intern, now a probation officer, to do an anonymous survey of 225 probationers in drug
treatment programs. Eighty-six percent responded that their level of functioning in the community had improved as a
result of treatment. Eighty percent “felt better” and most of them were working on communication skills, relationship
building, and personal behavior management. Most surprising to me was the fact that seventy-four percent of those in
treatment, if given a choice, would not choose to terminate treatment. Among the seventy-four percent, twenty-one
percent would actually opt to increase the intensity of treatment.
As probation officers working with drug-dependent probationers and their treatment providers, we are uniquely
positioned to make a huge difference. But treatment intervention involves more than substance abuse treatment. In an
issue-driven environment, probation personnel are not just allowed to take a holistic approach to supervision, they are
encouraged . Treatment intervention involves services beyond drug treatment to include low-income services, money
management, basic education, specialized services such a sex offender/domestic violence counseling and monitoring, and
more. Given the balancing act that we do every day, intervention also involves enforcement, and, when necessary, that
works, too.
The work is complex, dynamic and rewarding. The number of people who choose careers in probation does not
surprise me, nor does the fact that they enjoy the work as much as I do.

v

its organizational framework. . .
Administrative Assistant
Linda Seidel

Operational Services
Theresa Springer, Director
Clerical Support
Records
Radio Communication
Dispositions
Records Checks

Chief Probation Officer
David F. Sanders

Assessment Center
Ed Espinoza, Director
Presentence Investigations
Treatment Contracts
Screenings

vi

Business Office
Renny Rapier

Field Supervision
Ron Dominguez, East Director
Ruben Castro, South Director
Carl Sheets, West Director
Standard Probation
Intensive Probation
Sex Offenders
DIRECT
Absconders / Warrants Unit
Special Learning Needs
Seriously Mentally Ill
Aggravated DUI
Domestic Violence
Justice Courts
Inter / Intra & Interstate Compact
Drug Court
Community Service
Juvenile Services
Training
Automation
Program Development
Volunteers & Interns
Publications
Grants
LEARN

its assessment center. . .
The fiscal year saw the formal adoption of a new mission statement written by Probation Officer Judith Heffner as well
as the debut of the revised Operations Manual.
The mission of the Assessment Center Division is to conduct a comprehensive
investigation of defendants in order to provide the court with the highest quality
information available to assist in dispositional decisions and to aid in the
development of the supervision and classification plan. This is accomplished
by:
• Identifying relevant criminogenic factors and support systems
• Obtaining professional evaluations
• Assessing defendant’s conduct and character
• Evaluating defendant’s risk and needs
• Assessing rehabilitative potential and appropriate placement

Presentence Reports
• Slight decrease in numbers of reports prepared and drug/drug-related cases
• Decreases consistent with national trend of a modest reduction in crime
• Criminogenic factors emphasized in reports to recognize social factors that influence rehabilitative potential
and/or potential to recidivate
Fiscal Year
• # of presentence reports
• # of drug/drug-related cases

2000-2001
3550
1328

2001-2002
3531
1323

2002-2003
3418
1295

Jail Project Update
• Seven officers and a support specialist prepared 1030 accelerated reports for incarcerated defendants
• Reduced time spent in custody saved $234,186 in jail costs to Pima County and its taxpayers

Victim Services
Obligated to contact crime victims for their impact statements, sentencing recommendations, and restitution requests,
officers discussed crimes and consequences in order to provide the court with accurate information.
• Provide correct restitution amounts to corresponding victims
• Staff achieved an average victim response rate of 79.76%, representing a 3.5% increase from the previous year
• Assessment Center staff exceeded their goal of increasing victim responses by 3%

1

Automation Improvements
•
•
•
•

Resulted in nearly a 100% on-time report distribution rate
Increased use of Email facilitated rapid communication with staff and timely distribution of reports to attorneys
Resulted in Drug Court and Prop 200 reports completed in 10 days rather than the 20 days allotted
Provided an additional resource to investigate defendants’ backgrounds, to check for child support obligations and
prior criminal histories

Future Automation Applications
• Scrutiny of credit history, assets and spending patterns to improve the collection of assessments
• Assistance with establishing probationers’ payment schedules and money management
• Identification of assets that could satisfy court-ordered assessments
• Implementation of APETS, the statewide database system for data retrieval and analysis

Treatment Intervention for Probationers
In 2002, research from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration estimated that 22 million
Americans 12 and older suffered from drug and/or alcohol substance dependence
or abuse. Yet, 94% felt they did not have problems serious enough to seek
treatment. Of the remaining 6% who recognized they needed treatment, only
24% were able to obtain it. Through investment in treatment, the goal is to
break the cycles of addictions and other behavioral problems for future
generations.
Adult Probation believes treatment works and sees the criminal justice system
playing a vital role in facilitation of that treatment, as evidenced by the following
achievements:
• Continual support of “best practices” in treatment intervention
• Adherence to established protocols that place probationers in appropriate
treatment upon demand

•
•
•
•
•

• Referral to treatment services accessible in 7 to 10 days, except for some
residential treatment beds
Responsible use of the treatment budget for fiscal year 2003, which totaled $396,103
Contracting with 21 agencies who provided a full spectrum of treatment
1,656 substance abuse assessments by assessment team and the contracting of 212 psychological reports
Replacement of in-house cognitive skills with the “Thinking for A Change” program
Implementation of Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive Awareness (MICA) to assist resistant probationers

2

its employees. . .
Division Director
Ed Espinoza
Probation Program Coordinator Rob Druckenbrod
Probation Unit Supervisors
Ralph Avella

Errol Dimenstein

Lead Probation Officer

Ken McCulloch

Linda Montoya

Kerry McLaughlin

Senior Probation Officers
Armando Acuna
Louise Chernetz
Jim Good
Judith Heffner
Dawn Nixon
Sharon Rhoy
Kris Sparks

Rejeana Bowersox
Elizabeth Dalgleish
Keith Gorley
Bob Kridler
Debbie Pela
Katie Riley
Jean Thews

Karen Bustamante
Martha Esquivel
Teresa Harvey
Jane Lowery
Darrell Reeves
Jim Robinett
Sue Von Borstel

Probation Officers

Patricia Abou Srour

Debra Bruce

Cesar Castillo
Carol Fecher
Kim Hatfield
Shirley Moreno
Suzanne Reeves
Jaime Siqueiros

Administration I
Patricia Biscardi

Diana Bustamante

Michelle Fleetwood

3

Stu Jenks

Kerry Pettit

its field supervision division . . .

The goal of the Field Supervision Division, through the dilligent work of officers and staff at three satellite offices,
is to provide services to an increasingly diverse population of probationers and to selectively and proactively intervene
with probationers to reduce the likelihood of future criminal activity. The mission of officers in field services is to
serve, to protect, to attempt to restore victims and the community, and to assist probationers in becoming lawabiding, productive citizens through compliance with court orders.
In January 2003, ongoing statewide budgetary shortfalls caused several
programs to be reduced or eliminated. Community Punishment
Program funding was not available during the latter half of the fiscal
year, resulting in a lack of full funding for all Intensive Probation
Supervision (IPS) teams. Through attrition total numbers of IPS teams
were reduced. Various officer vacancies in standard supervision
remained throughout the reporting period.
The department saw the exodus of another veteran director whose
experience and leadership helped shape the practice of probation in
Pima County. Ron Dominguez retired at the end of the reporting
period after 20 years of dedicated service. His efforts and works are
acknowledged and much appreciated.
Despite funding and staffing hardships during the 2002-2003 fiscal year, staff at the three satellite facilities supervised
7,335 probationers throughout Pima County. Officers applied a balanced supervision approach by holding probationers
accountable while supporting development of their competencies. Each field office is equipped with a full continuum
of services for all levels of supervision. Officers supervised the following case loads in conjunction with the auxiliary
services provided by staff.
• Absconders Warrants Unit
• Aggravated DUI
• Community Punishment Program (CPP)
• Domestic Violence
• Drug Court Program
• Intensive Probation Supervision
• Interstate Compact Supervision
• Intercounty Supervision
• Justice Court/Limited Jurisdiction Supervision
• Juvenile Transfers
• Residential Treatment
• Seriously Mentally Ill
• Sex Offenders
• Special Learning Needs
• Standard Field Supervision
Auxiliary services:
• Automation
• Publications

• Community Service
• Training/Officer Safety

• Education Services
• Volunteers/Interns

4

This report highlights the activities of the Aggravated DUI caseload,
the Drug Court and Community Service Programs, Education Services
and Training.

Aggravated DUI
For the third consecutive year, budget constraints and staff reductions
prompted program reorganization. During March 2003, the DIRECT
structure was consolidated with the Aggravated DUI caseload, resulting
in one streamlined program.
• One team was housed west, one east, and two remained
at the south office.
• Teams began to accept only alcohol-related offenses, including:
• Aggravated DUI
• Misdemeanor Endangerment
• Misdemeanor DUI
• Teams graduated compliant probationers and commenced the
revocation process for the noncompliant.
• Caseloads increased from 45:2 to 60:2, following the Administrative
Office of the Courts’ guidelines for standard field caseloads.
• Existing levels of diminishing supervision were collapsed into a
single maximum supervision level. During the first 6 months of
the program, probationers must:
• complete a DUI alcohol screening
• attend a MADD/Victim Impact Panel
• complete outpatient alcohol education and treatment
• abide by curfew and approved weekly schedules
• complete 85 hours of community service work
• Supervision contact standards were adjusted to:
• 2 field contacts per month (1 field and 1 home visit)
• 2 scheduled office visits per month
• 1 monthly collateral contact with treatment provider

Statistical Profiles
At the end of the reporting period, 275 probationers on the Aggravated
DUI caseload were being supervised: 83% males, 45% Caucasians, and
46% employed.
The box on the right features probationer success stories. Their
compliance and achievements warrant acknowledgement.

5

Success Stories
Basil M. went through the AGG/DUI
program without a hitch, while supporting
himself, his wife, and their two children.
He talked about gaining insight into how
drinking alcohol not only impacted his life
but the lives of his family. He talked about
how his relationship with his wife and
children had improved and they now have
money to do things together since he no
longer spends his paycheck drinking. He
also talked of how his self-esteem improved
and that he’s glad he went through the
program. He feels he got his life and his
family back.
Barbara L. was sentenced to probation on
1/10/2003, and placed on the AGG/DUI
caseload. She maintained her employment
at a local luggage store throughout the
seven months she was on the program.
Barbara did not receive a single violation,
and completed all the requirements in a
timely manner. She maintained a positive
attitude throughout supervision, and she
should be successful on standard probation.
Thomas S. was placed on the program for
DUI and Endangerment and ordered to serve
30 days in jail. After contacting his officer
immediately upon his release, he moved
into a local halfway house. He has been
following his weekly schedule, completing
AGG/DUI requirements, and has received
no violations.

Drug Court Program
• The program is based on a therapeutic, early intervention, and non-adversarial model
• The primary objective is to rehabilitate rather than punish
• A judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation officer, and treatment provider work as a team,
encouraging and promoting substance-free behavior

Statistical Overview
• Drug offenses account for approximately 30% of all felony charges filed in the Superior Court in Pima County
•
•
•
•
•

The number of Drug Court participants at the end of fiscal year 2002-2003 was 109
134 participants were terminated from the program during the fiscal year
66 participants graduated Drug Court
$158,460 were collected in probation fees, fines, and restitution
FY 2002-2003 Drug Court budget totalled $215,000: treatment ($182,000) and drug tests($33,000)

Community and victim benefits
• Early disposition for those selected to participate
•
•
•
•

• Arraignment, change of plea, and sentencing conducted at one hearing within 14 days of arrest
• Numerous court hearings, court-appointed counsel, police interviews, and a trial are eliminated
Successful completion of the program results in dismissal or reduction of original charges
Participants obtain employment and housing, achieve educational goals, famil y reunification, self-development,
and confidence, often resulting in a clean and sober lifestyle
Graduates are less likely to re-offend than those on standard probation
A recent recidivism study indicated Drug Court graduates had a 24% arrest/conviction rate versus 66%
for those completing standard probation

Program challenges
A review by the current judge who hears Drug Court
cases determined, with the support of Court
Administration, that the program is effective and
should be expanded to include those defendants
convicted of crimes where treatment is part of the
mandated services. The challenge will be to refine
the program to include this population without
overloading court time or inhibiting the quality of
probation supervision to the Drug Court program.

6

Community Service

Staff working the program referred probationers who were court-ordered to complete
community service at more than 150 pre-approved worksites for non-profit groups,
government agencies, and community-based organizations. Despite staff reductions
due to budgetary constraints, work crews were expanded to operate from Thursday
through Sunday. On Thursdays, probationers cleaned and washed nearly 100
departmental vehicles each month at the South office. The Meals on Wheels program,
which serves the immediate needs of the elderly, was added to the list of supervised
projects. Community requests for the weekend crews increased during the reporting
period; some current projects include:
•Weed and Seed Community Programs
•Veteran’s Administration (VA) Hospital
•Reid Park Zoo
This fiscal year, the cost savings to Pima County for work done by probationers in the Community Service Program
exceeded 1.1 million dollars (calculated at current minimum wage). Community Service statistics for the year include:
•46,848 hours completed by supervised crews
•223,649 total community service hours in the 2002-2003 reporting period
In May 2003, the VA Hospital honored the Department’s Community Service Program during an awards ceremony for
providing community service workers. Since 1997, probationers have performed more than 35,000 hours of community
service at the 116-acre facility. Additional accolades included the following letter from a grateful individual who
commends the efforts of probationers doing the work of community service.
Dear Chief Sanders:
I wish to thank you for making possible all the great help that I received in getting the piles of flammable wood out of
my yard. This effort of getting the dumpsters and all the manpower took great organizing and time out of all of your
busy and demanding lives. The great crew of individuals that came to work in my yard were terrific. I have never seen
such an incredible team of people work so hard and well to get the job done. This act of kindness and generosity came
at a time when things had gotten extremely difficult for me. My oldest son died of brain cancer not too long ago and
the rest of my four children left for boot camp to serve their country in the army this summer. With a fulltime job at
Tucson High School and my finances and energy drained, I had much difficulty in getting rid of the termite eaten
floorboards by myself after I had gutted my ancient historic house. While people complained about the mess in my
yard, your terrific team decided to do something about helping me rather than condemn me. This has changed my life
entirely. I was getting very depressed and overwhelmed every time I saw the terrible woodpile. Now I can concentrate
on repairing, restoring my adobe home and be a better citizen.
Martha H. E.

7

Education Services
The mission of the LEARN program is to provide probationers with
the skills and attitudes necessary to complete a successful term of
probation, become functional members of society, and pursue future educational opporunities.
Education Services’ Literacy, Education and Resource Network
(LEARN) program provides a broad spectrum of in-house education
programming for adult probationers, juveniles adjudicated to adult
probation, the probationer’s families and other at-risk adults in the
community. It is funded by the department, the Arizona Department
of Education, and Pima College Adult Education. In 1988, the
department became the first probation agency in the nation to
implement a literacy and education program in a probation setting.
After 15 years of service, nearly 1,900 student have earned their
General Education Diplomas (GED). Approximately 520 students have improved their literacy skills, and about 680
have increased their English speaking abilities.

Summary of Program
• 884 adults and juveniles served at three LEARN labs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•

695 probationers referred through the court
94 LEARN students passed GED exams, including 7 juveniles
2 students inducted into the National Adult Education Honor Society
22 graduates awarded scholarships from the Altrusa Club, Inc., and the Pima College Assessment Center
84 probationers graduated from the Cognitive Skills Program
8 probationers completed the newly formed Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive Awareness (MICA) class
196 students attended a variety of life skills classes offered by LEARN, including:
• 100 probationers participated in HIV/AIDS awareness classes
• 56 participants completed six-week parenting classes in collaboration with Parents Anonymous of Tucson
• 30 LEARN students attended Pima Community College new student orientation, which was sponsored by
LEARN and as a prerequisite for an Altrusa scholarship
• 10 students completed a KUAT-TV and Literacy Volunteers of Tucson workshop titled “TV and Your
Children,” which gave parents suggestions about choosing age-appropriate TV programs.
26 jail inmates (11 males and 15 females) completed a six-week job readiness pilot program. The program
represented collaboration among staff from LEARN, the Pima County Jail, and Pima College Adult Education.
262 hours of volunteer service were logged at the LEARN labs
20 college student intern hours were also provided

8

Program Highlights
• State Technical Assistance Review, an audit conducted by the Arizona Department of Education, validated that
the department’s LEARN program meets
1. program planning
3. curriculum and instruction
5. recruitment and retention
7. access and accommodations

or exceeds standards in the eight rating areas:
2. educational gains
4. support services
6. staff development
8. confidentiality of student records

•

Susan Enholm was named Arizona Supreme Court/LEARN’s “Teacher of the
Year” in the adult division. She was presented an award at the Arizona
Correctional Educators’ Professional Development Symposium. Her philosophy
of education builds on what J. Rousseau said, “Every mind has its own form.”
The purpose of education, according to Enholm, should be to guide that form
to its fullest potential.

•

The LEARN program published its first literary collection of student writings.
“Stepping Stones” is a book of non-fiction and poetry.

Training
Probation employees are mandated to complete 16 hours of training every calendar
year by the Supreme Court’s standards governing judicial branch education. For the 2003 calendar year, employees
earned more than 10,000 hours of training. All employees met their training requirements.
General training for staff and officer safety instruction proved to be the mainstay of offerings delivered and supported
by the training officer, training coordinator, and administrative assistant. Officer safety training maintained a
position of prominence as the department’s training officer traveled throughout the state for most of the fiscal year,
providing train-the-trainer standardized instruction. Officers and staff continued to provide training in the community
and the state as they instructed at the probation academy, the intensive probation institute, and conferences for
judicial staff.
At the end of the reporting period, the training coordinator and administrative coordinator joined Superior Court’s
Training and Education unit as the final step in merging services in Human Resources, Finances and Training. The
training officer remained with Adult Probation and has assumed the title of Officer Safety Training Officer. He
continues to provide officer safety instruction on defensive tactics and firearms, in addition to providing training at
the state level.
The following two pages contain descriptions of all supervision case loads at Adult Probation.

9

its probation caseloads. . .
During fiscal year 2002-2003, officers from three field offices supervised 7,335 probationers in Pima County, including
Arizona intercounty caseloads, and United States Interstate Compact Supervision agreements. The following descriptions
detail the field supervision caseloads and the auxilary services for probationers, victims, the court, and the community.

Absconder Warrants Unit . . . Officers have the primary goal of returning to justice those probationers who have
absconded. Holding offenders accountable to victims, the community, and the court means laboring from a combined
model of risk control and correctional intervention. In concert with other law enforcement agencies, the team apprehended
650 absconders, serving justice, protecting the community, and returning them to accountability.
Aggravated DUI . . . Probationers convicted of a charge of aggravated driving under the influence must first serve a
mandatory prison sentence, which is followed by a term of probation. The two-person teams managed a population of 229
probationers. Treatment, sobriety, and stability benchmark the ideal lifestyle of this offender who has been returned to the
community after successfully completing the program and terminating probation.

Community Punishment Program (CPP) . . . The diversion of select offenders from incarceration to probation is
the main function of this state-funded programming resource. CPP helped fund three LEARN labs serving 884 adults and
juveniles. The program provided funds to assist 162 sex offenders on specialized caseloads with polygraph testing and
counseling services.

Domestic Violence (DV) . . . Preventing family violence and increasing safety for victims, their families, and the
community remains the focus of officers who supervised 620 DV offenders adjudicated by Tucson City Court and 299 DV
probationers sentenced by Justice Court during this reporting period. Case management revolves around the probationers’
responsibility to the victims and the court. Treatment combined with risk control and correctional intervention provide for
probationers’ rehabilitation.

Drug Court . . . A judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, probation case manager, and treatment provider team up to work
with offenders during the one-year program. It is intensive, requiring cooperation and commitment from offenders and
their court team. For the offender, the aim is to create a drug-free lifestyle and to graduate from the program. During the
reporting period 269 offenders participated in Drug Court, with 66 probationers successfully graduating.

Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) . . . As a prison-diversion program, IPS is statutorily mandated and structured
with an emphasis on control-oriented supervision. Education, treatment, and community service requirements are mandatory
for probationers on this caseload. Two-person teams supervised 659 IPS probationers at the three field offices.

10

Interstate Compact Supervision (ISC) . . . Complying with the policies of the compact for probation and parole
supervision, ISC is a mandated program for probationers accepted by Pima County from the other 49 states. Supervision for
these offenders is similar to that for standard Pima County probationers. For those probationers who are leaving the state,
the ISC policies and procedures are used to establish supervision in the accepting jurisdictions. During fiscal year 20022003, the total number of incoming ISC probationers totaled 228 and out-of-state probationers equaled 252.
Intercounty Supervision . . . Supervising Pima County probationers leaving the jurisdiction is established within the
14 remaining Arizona counties. Outgoing cases numbered 260 this reporting period, with a probation officer monitoring
compliance. When violations occur, the court is notified.
In standard and specialized caseloads, Pima County probation
officers supervised 513 incoming, intercounty cases.

Justice Court Supervision . . . Probation services to the limited jurisdiction of Pima County Justice Courts were
provided by three probation officers. During this reporting period these officer supervised 413 probationers.

Juvenile Transfers . . . At the end of the reporting period, 89 youthful offenders were supervised by establishing
curfews, schedules, and drug screening. Parental contacts, home/office and field visits, mental health and education
services, and family and employment services support the program’s primary objective of providing additional sentencing
options.

Residential Treatment . . . For probationers with chronic drug problems who fail to maintain the court’s order of
abstinence, residential treatment is required as part of a multimethod approach. Intensive surveillance, intervention and
enforcement of probation conditions await the probationer upon release from a facility. During the reporting period, 175
probationers participated in residential treatment.
Seriously Mentally Ill and Special Learning Needs . . . These populations present specific challenges to supervising
officers. Whether managing those with serious mental issues or those with IQ scores of 78 and below, officers collaborate
with treatment and educational/vocational training agencies. Two-person teams supervised 105 seriously mentally ill
probationers and 51 offenders with special learning needs this fiscal year.

Sex Offenders . . . Using strictly imposed conditions and court orders, officers supervised 261 probationers. Vigilant
caseload management includes stringent contact requirements and tracking offenders’ attendance at mandatory treatment. Teams supervising this population carry standard field and IPS sex offender cases.

Standard Field Supervision . . . Under a legislative mandate of a ratio of 60:1 (60 probationers to 1 officer) for
standard field cases, officers supervised 5,132 offenders this fiscal year. Case management conditions include treatment,
education, and community service requirements as ordered by the court.

11

its east division employees. . .
Division Director

Ron Dominguez
Administrative Assistant
Rosie Vasquez

Probation Program Coordinator

Deborah Tinajero

Probation Unit Supervisors
Michael Bartling

Jeff Knox

Kevin Mulligan

Cris Spiegel

Harrison Blackwell
Julienne Brown
Ted Forgach
Jennifer Herberholt
Kelly Pesano
Richard Walitshek

Rex Bowersox
Jeremy Byrd
Karen Fulton
Rick Hornback
David Pickle

Dan Brown
Ken Clayton
Lisa Garland
Linda Landry
Gene Sweeney

Scott Greene
LeRoy Procter

Tom Paulos
Joe Puglia

Senior Probation Officers
Elaine Bates
Joanne Brown
Rocky Dotzler
Carmen Harper-Young
Ed Lowery
Leo Vidal

Senior Surveillance Officers
Dan Brooks
Tony Perez
Kevin Shearer

Eric Fast
Pamm Pope
Donna Van Vlack

Adult Education Instructors
Susan Barlow (site coordinator)
Julie Gray

Susan Enholm (site coordinator)
Rebecca Gray (site coordinator)

Cognitive Skills Coordinator

Steven Emslie

Administrative Assistants

Lorraine Arvizu

Shanon Easterday

Leona Powers

Training Coordinator

Training Officer

Administrative Coordinator

Rafaela de Loera

George Baum

JoAnne Pope

12

its south division employees. . .
Division Director

Ruben Castro
Administrative Assistant
Yvonne Federico

Probation Program Coordinators

Chris Lester

Annabea McKinley

Unit Supervisors
Barbara Druke
Barbara Johnson

Bill Edris
Phil Shelley

Ron Gary

Mary Jo Gasparro

Senior Probation Officers
Bob Amerson
Mike Cook
Hugo Gonzalez
Sandra Mace
Jaime Reyes
Sandy Horen

Steve Armenta
Cathie Cravens
Lois Jones
Kathy Martinez
Ruben Rosales
Judy James

Helena Bailey
Christine Davis
Steve Kachur
Peggy McCarthy
Paula Schlecht

Suzanne Cartier
Brandee Hammond
Rosanna Kent
Nacho Moreno
Arlene Verdugo

Bill Castaneda
Ed Gilligan
Lisa Lewis
Judy Raetzman
Connie Wills

Anita Hess
Gil Serna

Mariana Madrid
Adriana Silva

Mark Maish

Carolyn Marietta

Felipe Espino
Corey Higgins
Trina Miller

Karen Evans
Jerry Hudy
CeCe Roger

John Fulton
Tom Jackson
Sonia Tolson

Probation Officers
Ramon Garate
Jennifer McLaughlin

Senior Surveillance Officers
Russ Adamski
Phil Grajeda
Kevin Kingsley

Bill Bartlett
Melanie Heavilon
Ed Lopez

Surveillance Officer

Mark Echavarry

Administration I

Gail Young

Litigation II

Kimi Golemieski

Alina Rodriguez

13

its west division employees. . .
Divison Director

Carl Sheets
Administrative Assistant
Melissa Robles

Unit Supervisors
Cathy Cermak
Gene Riddle

Donnie Johnson
Pattye Tolliver

Dan Montano

Rob Nixon

Jane Swivel

Kathy Bennett
Malcolm Colquitte
Carl Formby
Wendy Islas
Laura Lindberg
Patricia Romero
John Sutton

Georgette Berry
Art Cook
Ray Forsythe
Kim Jacobs
Gloria Montano
Tony Sanell
Sylvia Tellez

David Bertelsen
Richard Duncan
Pam Hamlett
Jimmy Jones
Gary Nakamoto
George Smigelski
Jamie Tribolet

Bob Bonilla
Melissa Edwards
Larry Huff
Keith Kanzler
Candelaria Ortiz
Troy Spence
Ray Valenzuela

Radonna Darnell
Lisa Nowacki-Hubble

Ian Alexander

Wendy Irish

David Jurado

Rene Castro
Richard Romero
Art Waterman

Jim Gomez
Steve Schmidt

John Joiner
Jim Smith

Senior Probation Officers
Teri Abrams
Colleen Collins
Larry Escobedo
David Harper
Charlie Kreitner
Ricardo Ortiz
David Storch
Mike Walters

Probation Officers
Bob Artuz
Richard Montgomery

Senior Surveillance Officers
Dale Bennett
Kevin Nonaka
Peter Somerlik

Ed Bernal
Rosa Maria Peralta
Sonia Tolson

Surveillance Officer Aaron Blackburn
Administration 1
Karen Barrins

Laura Martinez

Dianna Rodriguez

14

15

its operational services. . .
WIth a goal to develop productive employees who are prepared for a changing
department while providing quality clerical support in multifunction areas,
supervisors and staff:
• facilitated more than 150,000 office visits at the four offices
• provided victim services by mailing more than three thousand
letters, which requested information regarding losses
• responded to more than 350,000 radio calls
• assisted officers with case management processes, using
established automated business systems procedures
• adapted to changes in the division, including major revisions to
the structure and function of the Radio Communication Center
• continued networking with staff in the County Attorney’s Victim
Notification Unit and the Clerk’s office to ensure entry of
complete victim and restitution information
• provided calibration, maintenance, and repair of breath alcohol testing
equipment, and continued training other law enforcement agencies
on the use of the equipment
For a third consecutive fiscal year, the Treatment Assessment Screening Center (TASC) provided the following drug
testing services:
• call-in program to randomly determine when probationers should report for drug testing
• walk-in facility where monitors observe collection of specimens
• courier pickup of samples from satellite offices
• test results forwarded to officers within 24-hours
Officers utilized test results to make case management decisions and to
verify probationers’ compliance with court orders.
At the end of the reporting period, Division Director Theresa Springer retired
after 30 years of dedicated service. The Operational Services Division has
been phased out. Supervisors and their staff were reassigned to directors at
the three field offices and to a unit supervisor in the Assessment Center.
Director Theresa Springer is commended for her efforts at uniting and
facilitating the growth and positive direction of clerical support staff at Adult
Probation.

16

its employees. . .
Division Director

Theresa Springer

Supervisors
Rosemary Broduer-Mendez
Betsy Jennings

Jo Fontenot
Ray Lekawa

Yolanda Harris

Jamie Perry

Rosa Donaldson
Sheila Hampton
Amanda Kelley
Edna Ortiz
Letty Soto
Shelly Welsh

Maria Escobedo
Molly Hernandez
Jan Lomen
Debra Pike-Slaughter
Jessie Vasquez
John Wilcoxon

Deanna Franson
Marsha Hutchison
Melissa Lopez
Sheila Ramon
Anna Vidal
Sue Williams

Mike Fleming
Francisca Sepulveda

Norma Gallego

Priscilla Granillo

Vince Speitel

Richard Wagner

Litigation Support II
Josie Camacho
Gina French
Jami Kaminski
Xochitl Martinez
Julie Sirrine
TG Wallace
Rena Winters

Litigation Support I
Ana Escalante
Traci Lewis

Dispatcher II
Casey Camacho

Mike Harayda

Dispatcher I
Nancy Custer

Michelle Modless

17

its administrative services...
Adult Probation’s Administrative Services faced major changes during the reporting period with the addition of a
business analyst, the resignation of the executive director, and the hiring of a chief probation officer.
In September 2002, the Research and Evaluation Unit was expanded to include the Business Office. A business analyst
was recruited to provide direction for the unit and to support the development of improved business processes. Since
the formation of the Business, Research and Evaluation Office, a variety of projects have been designed and implemented
to move the department toward fulfilling its mission. Those of major significance included the DNA Testing and
Recording program, an expansion of the scope of fees and restitution collections, and the recording and reporting of
case management data to the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court. This unit is the behind-the-scenes group of
people whose mission is to facilitate the supervision of probationers.
David F. Sanders began his career in probation in 1971 working at the Kansas City municipal court. He served in the
Western District of Missouri’s United States District Court as a probation officer and supervisor until 1992 when he was
named Chief Probation Officer for the United States District Court, District of Nevada in Las Vegas. On January 13,
2003, he was appointed Chief Probation Officer in Pima County. His duties included the management of eleven
separate funding sources, which totaled $15,337,719 in fiscal year 2002-2003. Of that budgeted sum, $13,138,519 was
expended in personnel costs and $2,199,200 in operating expenses. As chief of the second largest probation department
in the state, Sanders is charged with leading the work of 286 employees and vows “to earn his keep, working hard to
make a meaningful contribution.”

its employees...
Business Systems Supervisor

Chief Probation Officer
David F. Sanders

Renny Rapier

Administrative Assistant

Project Coordinator
Laura Pate

Linda Seidel

Research Analyst
Mary Rios

Litigation Support II
Becky Raymond
18

saluting its employees...
For years those in leadership positions have publicly noted that the employees of Adult Probation represent its finest
resource. In a salute to its personnel, the 2003 Employee of the Year, Probation Officer of the Year and Supervisor of
the Year are featured.
The Staff Relations Committee (SRC), in accomplishing its goal of supporting an organization that fosters individual
growth, creativity and fullfillment, acknowledges these employees’ achievements. The members continue to provide
opportunities that strengthen and facilitate the work of probation through its many employees. The SRC selected the
following exemplary employees in 2003:

Employee of the Year
It had only been 24 hours since the defendant overdosed on heroin. Facing
arrest, she panicked and reached behind her back, grabbing a 12-inch knife.
Using his crisis managment skills techniques, coupled with a quiet demeanor
and extreme patience, Senior Surveillance Officer Phil Grajeda convinced
the probationer to put down the knife and not hurt herself or others. This
is only one example of Phil’s excellent professional instincts, his compassion
for probationers, and his calming effect in dangerous situations.
Known for taking extra time and energy to assist probationers in changing
their lives, Phil observes their progress by attending educational and
treatment graduations. He also periodically supervises weekend probationer
community service work crews. In addition, Phil is extraordinarily helpful,
resourceful and consistent with his probationers while carefully monitoring
their compliance.
After working as a jail corrections officer, Phil joined the department where he has served for nine years. Phil is
a new employee mentor for other surveillance officers. Upbeat, detail-oriented, levelheaded, caring, and honorable
are just a few characteristics that describe him. Co-workers appreciate his low-key demeanor, but must most of
all, they enjoy his dry sense of humor and quick wit.

19

Probation Officer of the Year
Standard, Intensive Probation, Residential, Assessment, Justice Court, Domestic
Violence - - - this officer has done it all! A 19-year veteran, Tony Sanell is an
excellent representative of probation services. He consistently demonstrates
conscientiousness, exceptional case management abilities, professionalism and
integrity, all of which come naturally to Tony, who holds high expectations for
himself. Due to his quality performance, Tony is relied upon for problem solving
and service improvement. He has a good rapport with his probationers and positively
influences even the most recalcitrant.
Tony’s heart for public service began early as a restitution center volunteer. He
also worked with delinquent youth and conducted environmental education classes.
Tony was a correctional officer and also worked at VisionQuest. His Masters Degree
in Rehabilitation Counseling resulted in effective communication skills and insight.
His public service extends further: as a pilot for 36 years, he served on the Civil Air
Patrol flying more than 100 missions, and with the Flying Samaritans, completing
more than 60 missions in Mexico. He also volunteers in the department, serving as an officer safety and firearms instructor.
Driven to perfection, results-oriented, leader and volunteer; these traits characterize this exceptional officer. He is truly
deserving of being selected as one of Arizona’s best.

Supervisor of the Year
Setting high expectation standards for her unit results in presentence reports that
approximate perfection. A supervisor since 1982, and employed by the department
for 28 years, Linda Montoya exhibits exceptional knowledge of all aspects of the
presentence process.
Linda demonstrates a high degree of caring and support for her unit while insisting on
a high quality work product. She believes in respecting others and extends this belief
to defendants, victims and staff. She communicates openly and honestly. A testimony
to her leadership and work ethic was her unit’s nomination for an innovation award by
the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission in the spring of 2002. Through the unit’s
efforts, the time defendants spend in custody between the change of plea and
sentencing date was reduced from 31 to 26 days, resulting in a cost savings of $103,929
during a six-month period. Linda inspires excellence on the job and leads by example.
She is supportive of ideas and discusses new ways of fulfilling the department’s mission
and goals. She is an icon of excellence and warrants the recognition of Supervisor of
the Year.

20

the judicial benches...
Superior Court
Presiding Judge
John Leonardo

Associate Presiding Judge
Patricia Escher

Juvenile Presiding Judge
Hector Campoy

Judges
Edgar Acuna
Christopher Browning
Jane Eikleberry
Virginia Kelly
Richard Nichols
Nanette Warner

Michael Alfred
Carmine Cornelio
Richard Fields
Kenneth Lee
Lina Rodriguez

Deborah Bernini
Michael Cruikshank
Jan Kearney
Leslie Miller
Charles Sabalos

Ted Borek
John Davis
John Kelly
Clark Munger
Paul Tang

Kyle Bryson
Sharon Douglas
Douglas Mitchell
Stephen Rubin

Terry Chandler
Richard Henry
Karen Nygaard
K.C. Stanford

Suzanne Cuneo
Ted Knuck
David Ostapuk
Joan Wagener

Jose Luis Castillo

Carmen Dolny

Susan Bacal

Pro Tempore Judges
Howard Fell

Frank Dawley

Commissioners
Karen Adam
Frederic Dardis
Margaret Maxwell
Elizabeth Peasley-Fimbres
Deborah Ward

Justice Court
Presiding Judge
Paul Simon

Associate Presiding Judge
Jim Green

Judges
James Angiulo

21

its statistical information. . .
In July of 2003, Pima County’s population was 910,850. The City of Tucson represented slightly more than half of
that total, at 53%. Arizona experienced the second highest rise in population in the nation with a 2.8% increase
between July 2001 and July 2002. The greatest source of this rise was due to domestic migration. Nationwide, the
population level increased about 1% during the same period.
According to the 2002 Census, the median age of the county population is 36.1 years, nearly equal to the state’s
34.2 and the nation’s 35.9. Twenty-six percent of the county’s population is under 18 years old and 14% are 65
years and older. This is comparable to the state as a whole at 26% and 13% and the nation’s 26% and 12%,
respectively.
White non-Hispanics constitute 61% of the county’s population. Hispanics comprise 29%, which is higher than the
state and national percentages (27% and 13% respectively). Pima County’s Native American population is 3%,
compared to the state’s 5% and the nation’s 1%. African Americans constitute 3% of the county’s population, which
is the same as the state’s but considerably lower than the nation’s 12%. Asian persons accounted for 2% of the total.
The median income of households in Pima County was $37,638, compared to $41,172 for the state and $43,057 for
the nation. Seventy-five percent of the people employed were private wage and salary workers; 19% were federal,
state or local government workers, and 6% were self-employed.
In 2002, 84% of the county’s population, who were 25 years or older, had at least graduated from high school and
28% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Among people 16 to 19 years old, 13% were droputs; they were not enrolled
in school and had not graduated from high school. This is consistent with the overall population of Arizona and the
nation as a whole, although the droput rate for the nation was lower at 9%.
In the following pages, statistical information regarding the work of probation is provided. Graphs depict the
number of defendants processed through the Assessment Center during a ten year period. Trends in sentencing
sanctions are provided. A simple profile of the defendants sentenced to probation is included along with a comparison
of profiles between the 1994 and 2003 fiscal years. A graph on page 26 illustrates a peak growth in probation
caseloads in 1999, with a steady population during the past four years. The statistical information concludes with
a piechart showing five primary caseload types and two tables, one which provides a breakdown of specialized
probation caseloads and another that outlines the termination of cases by type.
As a sentencing opition, probation affords the potential of reoffender rehabilitation within the community setting,
restitution to the victim, restoration to the community and protection of its citizens. The Adult Probation Department
of the Superior Court in PIma County strives to continue these benefits while overcoming the challenges of tighter
budgets, fewer staff and more difficult probationers.

22

How many offenders does the Adult Probation Department process in their Assessment Center Unit?
This chart depicts the growth in sentencings
over a ten-year period. In the 2002-03 fiscal
year, there were 3,780 sentencings in the
Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. This
represents a decrease of 172 sentencings from
the previous fiscal year. Also indicated is the
number or presentence reports the department
has produced over the ten-year period.

5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1993

1994

1995

1996
Sentencings

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Presentence Investigations

What were the trends in sentencing sanctions over the ten year period between 1994 and the 2002-2003
fiscal year?
The sanctions used to sentence defendants in the Superior Court in Pima County are categorized into the following:
probation, jail, prison, and death. The chart below shows the trends over time for the major sanctions of
probation, prison and jail over a ten-year period.
3,000

As shown, sentencings to probation
have increased from 1,878 in 1994 to
2,312 in fiscal year 2003, a 23%
increase. Sentencings to prison/jail
have inreased from 1,270 in 1994 to
1,467 in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, a
15.5% increase. The majority of
defendants sentenced in 2002-2003
were either sentenced to probation
(61%) or prison (37%) .

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998
Prison / Jail

1999

2000

2001

Probation

23

2002

2003

What were the Jail Project savings?
During FY 2003, seven officers and one support specialist prepared accelerated presentence reports for incarcerated
defendants. This resulted in significant savings for the public, as illustrated below.

M o nth

A c c elera ted
ja il c a s es

A vera g e num ber
o f da ys

J uly 2002

67

24. 61

$ 90, 687. 85

$21, 667. 80

A ug us t 2002

94

24. 91

128, 784. 70

18, 612. 00

Septem ber 2002

91

24. 75

123, 873. 75

20, 070. 05

O c to ber 2002

107

23. 15

136, 237. 75

17, 360. 75

N o vem ber 2002

106

23. 47

136, 830. 10

21, 745. 90

Dec em ber 2002

64

24. 00

84, 480. 00

17, 600. 00

J a nua r y 2003

63

22. 92

79, 417. 80

14, 137. 20

Febr ua r y 2003

115

24. 75

156, 543. 75

19, 417. 75

M a r c h 2003

78

25. 0

107, 250. 00

12, 870. 00

A pr il 2003

96

23. 0

121, 440. 00

26, 400. 00

M a y 2003

77

24. 0

101, 640. 00

21, 175. 00

J une 2003

72

24. 0

95, 040. 00

23, 760. 00

A vera g e

85.83

24.05

$113,518.81

$ 19,568.04

To ta ls

1030

$1,267,185.70

$234,816.45

24

J a il c o s t
@ $55 per da y

Sa v ing s

Who were the defendants sentenced to probation in Fiscal Year 2003?
The Majority of defendants sentenced to
probation were between the ages of 19 and
29, 81% were male, 58% were not married,
21% had a high school education, and nearly
70% either committed a property or drugrelated crime. This table shows a full
description of defendants sentenced to
probation in the FY 2002-2003.

Status at time of sentencing

Percentage

Male

81

White

44

29 years of age or less

48

Single or divorced

73

Less than a high school education

40

Employed

49

Crime Type:
Property
Person
Illegal Goods & Services
Public Peace & Traffic

25
29
26
20

Felony
Misdemeanor

1994-1995

2002-2003

Male

82

81

White
Crime Type:
Property
Person
Illegal Goods & Services
Public Peace & Traffic

41

44

34
27
31
9

25
29
26
20

Felony

91

Misdemeanor

9

25

The table to the left compares
defendants sentenced to probation in
1994 to those on probation in FY 2003,
with regard to gender, race and
sentencing crime type. Defendants
in FY 1994-1995 were more likely to
commit crimes against property
whereas those in 2003 were more
likely to comit crimes against persons.

Growth in probation Caseloads, 1994-2003
The number of probationers supervised has remained fairly steady the
past 4 years, after the tremendous
growth in 1999. Since 1994, the
numer of probationers supervised
has increased by 42 percent.

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1994

1995

1996

1997

Supervision location of Probation Caseloads, FY 2003
Type o f Super v is io n

N um ber

Per c enta g e

In t e r s t a t e C o m p a c t

228

3%

O u t o f S ta te

252

3%

O u t o f C o u n ty

260

4%

In C o u n t y C o u r t e s y

513

7%

6, 082

83%

7335

100%

In C o unty Re g ular
To ta l

26

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Main Probation Caseloads, FY 2003

9%
8%

Unsup.
9%
Justice Crt
DOC/Prob
IPS

70%

SAE

Specialized Probation Caseloads, FY 2003
C a s elo a d

N um ber

Per c enta g e

S e x O f f e n d e rs

261

3. 6

S p e c i a l L e a rn i n g N e e d s

51

.7

S e ri o usly M e ntally Ill

105

1. 4

D IR E C T / A G G D U I

257

3. 5

Re si d e nti al

92

1. 3

D ru g C o u rt

157

2. 1

D o m e sti c Vi o le nc e

375

5. 1

S ta n d a rd

6, 037

82. 3

To ta ls

7,335

100

27

Termination Types
The following table measures termination types - the final outcome of probation. Some probationers receive
early release from probation due to their positive performance.

O utc o m e

N um ber

Per c ent

C lo se Inte re st

320

10. 56

Re v o k e d to D O C

536

17. 68

E arly Te rm i nati o n

471

15. 54

O th e r Te rm i nati o n

193

6. 37

N e g ati v e Te rm i nati o n

122

4. 03

Re v o k e d to J ai l

48

1. 58

1321

43. 58

20

. 66

3031

100%

Re g ular Te rm i nati o n
D e a th
To ta l

28

29

acknowledgements...
contributions from:
ed espinoza
rob druckenbrod
barbara druke
chris lester
renny rapier
mary rios
david f. sanders
carl sheets
phil shelley
deborah tinajero
laura wellner-pate

annual report by rafaela de loera
graphics and cover by joanne pope
photos by apo staff
statistical report by laura wellner-pate

printing by pima county printshop