The Arizona Superior Court in Pima County Annual Report Fiscal Year 2004 Arizona Superior Court Pima County 110 West Congress, 9th Floor K. Kent Batty Court Administrator Telephone (520) 740-3768 Hon. John S. Leonardo Presiding Judge Superior Court in Pima County 110 West Congress Tucson, AZ 85701 Dear Judge Leonardo: It is with pleasure that I transmit officially to you this report of the court’s work during fiscal year 2003-3004. While no summary report such as this could capture all of the fine work done by the judges and employees of the Superior Court, this compilation provides an excellent overview of the court’s achievements in that year. Those efforts continue to provide the best in court services to the residents of Pima County. Respectfully yours, K. Kent Batty 1 Table of Contents Organizational Chart 3 The Court 4 Financial Overview 6 Statistical Overview 9 Adult Probation 12 Probation Statistics 17 Department Highlights 19 FY 2004 Highlights 25 2 Presiding Judge Clerk of the Superior Court Associate Presiding Judge Education & Training Court Administrator Deputy Court Administrator Civil Bench Probate Bench Family Law Bench Clinical Liaison Adult Probation Calendar Services Conciliation Court Court Interpreters Criminal Bench Juvenile Bench Community Relations Facilities Management Financial Management Human Resources Law Library Jury Commissioner Pretrial Services 3 ITSD Department ————– Research & Statistics Court Reporters Organizational Chart Court Management Team The Court The Bench The Arizona Superior Court in Pima County is the second largest superior court in the state. The bench comprises 28 full-time judges who are nominated for office by the Pima County Commission on Trial Court Appointments and appointed by the governor. Each judge stands for retention in office during a general election and serves a four-year term if retained. The court also has three full-time judges protempore, 16 full-time commissioners and one part-time commissioner who are appointed by the presiding judge of the court through a local merit selection process. Judges are assigned on a rotating basis to one of five benches or departments: criminal, civil, probate, family law and juvenile. A presiding judge leads each bench. Generally, judges maintain their bench assignments for two to five years. In FY 2004, the Hon. Jan Kearney was appointed presiding judge for the family law bench joining the Hon. Michael Cruikshank, criminal bench presiding judge; the Hon. Charles Sabalos, civil bench presiding judge; the Hon. Clark Munger, probate bench presiding judge and the Hon. Hector Campoy, juvenile bench presiding judge. The Hon. Nanette Warner was appointed to preside over the newly created Mental Health Court and the Hon. Barbara Sattler was appointed to preside over the Drug Court. 4 The so-called “institutional memory” of the Superior Court bench retired at the end of January after 20 years of service. On Jan. 3, 1984, Judge Lina Rodriguez, then 34, became one of the youngest judges ever to take a seat on the superior court bench. During her 20 years on the bench, Judge Rodriguez presided over more than 400 trials. One of her specialties at the court was arbitration and mediation. Judge Rodriguez also managed a number of large litigations in her time at the court. Among the memorable cases Judge Rodriguez presided over during her tenure was the trichloroethylene (TCE) water contamination litigation. siding judge of juvenile court, and assigns its judges and commissioners. Its presiding judge, as established under state law, separately administers the juvenile court. The Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over delinquent and incorrigible youth in Pima County, as well as matters involving dependent children who are the victims of abuse, neglect or abandonment. The court is located at 2225 East Ajo Way and is staffed by over 500 employees. Judge Chandler is sworn in Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano named Juvenile Court Commissioner Terry Chandler as the next judge for Division 1, succeeding Judge Lina Rodriguez. Judge Chandler, who was appointed to the juvenile court bench in January 2000, remained assigned to the juvenile bench after she took the oath of office. Juvenile Bench Presiding Judge Hector Campoy announced the appointment of Javier ChonLopez as a commissioner, taking the seat held by Judge Chandler, effective July 1. In other news regarding honors to members of the bench, the Tucson Human Relations Commission presented Judge Hector Campoy a certificate of honor during its Unity in Tolerance program celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Criminal felony and some      misdemeanor cases; Civil cases involving sums of money in excess of $10,000; Forcible entry and detainer cases; Dissolutions of marriage, adoptions and other familyrelated matters; Probate matters; and Appeals from limited jurisdiction courts throughout Pima County. The presiding judge of superior court designates the pre- Court Administration Under the direction of the presiding judge, the court administrator is responsible for the nonjudicial operations of the court. To that end, court administration’s departments include: financial services, human resources, training and education, facilities management and information and technology services. Also reporting to the court administrator are adult probation, calendar services, court interpreters, the court reporters’ pool, jury services, the county law library and pretrial services. Court Jurisdiction The court’s jurisdiction extends to almost any type of case, except small claims, minor offenses and violations of city codes and ordinances. The Superior Court has jurisdiction over: Judge Campoy receives a certificate of honor 5 Financial Overview Appropriations The court’s budget for FY 2004 totaled nearly $35 million, supported with funds received from Pima County, the state of Arizona, and special revenue funds. The special revenue funds include fees for probation, conciliation court, law library, and drug court. The court also benefits from grants, which in FY 2004, amounted to less than 1 percent of total funding. The charts below illustrate the level of funding received from each of these primary funding sources in FY 2003 and FY 2004. As can be seen, the county’s share of overall court funding increased slightly between FY 2003 and FY 2004. These increases were primarily the result of annualizing salary increases approved by the board of super- visors in FY 2003 and of funding significant cost increases in Arizona State Retirement System contributions. In FY 2004, Pima County did not approve any salary increases. State funding also increased slightly, a welcome change from the negative trend the court had been experiencing since FY 2001 as a result of the state’s fiscal crisis. It was more welcome still since the court had been bracing for further reductions. However, late in the third quarter, the court received word from the state that additional funds had become available for its use. In the fourth quarter, still more funding restorations were made as the state’s financial position improved. Despite these critical funding restorations, the court’s collective annual state appropriation for FY 2004 was still approximately $1.3 million below historic annual funding levels. As in past years, the primary recipient of these reductions was the adult probation department. Managing the impact of continued state funding reductions required the court to continue a number of austerity measures initiated in prior years until January 2004. These measures included the continuation of a hiring freeze throughout the superior court and severe restrictions on capital purchases, travel, training, and other expenditures. In addition, the court did not restore probation services curtailed or eliminated in previous years such as dispatch, electronic monitoring and contract security services. Nor did it reintroduce probation services provided to Sources of Funding ~ FY 2003 State Funding 25% Fees 9% Sources of Funding ~ FY 2004 Pima County Pi C t General Fund 66% State Funding 25% Fees 7% Pima County General Fund 68% 6 Changes in Funding by Source Funding So urce FY 2 003 FY 2 004 Pe rce nt Change Pi m a C o unty 23, 168, 678 23, 890, 204 +3. 11 S t a t e Fu n d i n g 8, 523, 005 8, 638, 668 +1. 36 Fees (Exp endi tures) 3, 177, 386 2, 261, 250 -28. 83 146, 889 +57. 21 Grants To tal the justice and juvenile courts. Due to the stabilization and partial restoration of state funding losses, the continuation of austerity measures and the county’s decision to fund increased benefit costs, the court was able to preserve these funds as a contingency fund for any further future funding reductions or unanticipated expenditures; and, for the last half of the fiscal year, it lifted the hiring freeze. The table above illustrates changes that occurred in each of the primary funding sources during FY 2004, as compared to FY 2003. In the case of county, state, and grant funding, the amounts represented are actual appropriations received from each source. In the case of fees, the amounts reflect actual expenditures rather than an appropriation as these funds are managed in an enterprise fashion. In other words, expenditure levels in special revenue funds are limited to total revenues that are collected for these purposes. In FY 2004, appropriations from Pima County increased by $721,526, amounting to a 3.11 93, 436 $3 4, 962 , 505 $3 4, 93 7, 011 percent increase over FY 2003. In FY 2004, court-wide state funding increased by $115,663 or 1.36 percent. This increase was primarily attributed to an infusion of state Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund monies used to replace reductions in the State Aid Enhancement Fund. Grants received by the court increased by $53,453, primarily due to ad- 7 -0. 07 ditional funding from the Arizona Department of Education for the provision of adult education services in probation. Due to these improvements in state and local funding, the need to expend fee funds was dramatically curtailed. As a result, total fee expenditures declined $916,136 or 28.83 percent. Program Expenditures ~ FY 2004 Functi tio ion 3% 5% 34% 2% 1% each 5% 6% 42% Exp Ex xpendit itu ture Adult Probation $14,834,842 42 Judicial Services $11,833,254 34 Information Technology Services $1,966,470 6 Pretrial Services $1,904,934 5 Administrative Services $1,818,696 5 Conciliation Court $912,961 3 Calendar Services $671,279 2 Law Library $385,163 1 Interpreter Services $309,606 1 Jury Commissioner $299,806 1 Expenditure Areas In FY 2004, superior court expenditures totaled $34.9 million. Functionally, these expenditures can be broken out as reflected in the pie chart. Prim ary Re ve nue s ~ FY 2 004 R esti tuti on $1, 529, 854 C i vi l Fi li ng Fees $764, 145 L aw L i brary Fund $206, 151 Dom esti c R elati ons Fund $511, 682 Revenues Other than intergovernmental cost recovery activities, the clerk of the superior court collects all court revenues on behalf of the court. These revenues consist primarily of filing fees, fees for services, fines, penalties, surcharges, sanctions, and forfeitures. The table to the right illustrates some of the primary revenues collected on behalf of the superior court during FY 2004. Probati on Fees $1, 315, 810 C ri m i nal Fi nes $214, 570 Drug C ourt $99, 034 Judi ci al C ollecti on Enhancem ent Fund $651, 156 Sup eri or C ourt Autom ati on Fund $410, 525 8 Percent New case filings increased 7 percent from last year. Case dispositions increased 9 percent while cases pending increased by 1 percent. Family law cases made up 37 percent of the filings, 36 percent of the dispositions and 15 percent of the pending cases. Civil cases made up 30 percent of the filings, 32 percent of the dispositions and 13 percent of the pending cases. Criminal cases made up 24 percent of the filings, 23 percent of the dispositions and 13 percent of the pending cases. Probate cases made up 9 percent of the filings, 9 percent of the dispositions and 59 percent of the pending cases, due primarily to there unique nature. Criminal Caseload Activity Criminal defendant filings increased 11 percent over FY Comparison of Court Filings, Dispositions and Pending Cases FY 2003 & 2004 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 21,694 23,135 21, 59 22,946 28,983 29,142 Filings Disposition Pending FY 2003 2003. Drug cases continue to outrank all other charges filed with burglary, robbery and theft holding second place. While criminal case dispositions increased slightly over last year, the number of pending criminal cases increased 7 percent. Felony cases broken down by final disposition type show that 77 FY 2004 percent were closed by plea, 9 percent were closed by trial and the remaining 14 percent were dismissed. Four-year trends indicate there will be a 4 percent increase in case filings, a 7 percent increase in case dispositions and pending cases are expected to remain the same. Overview of FY 2004 Criminal Caseload Fe lo nie s Mis de m e ano rs & Unclas s ifie d A ppe als J P/City To tal Pendi ng 7/ 1/ 03 3, 284 82 78 3, 444 New C ases Fi led 4, 962 424 127 5, 513 Total C aseload 8, 246 505 205 8, 957 FY 2 004 Dis po s itio ns : Jury Tri als C om m enced 356 356 C ourt Tri als C om m enced 57 57 3, 595 3, 595 Pleas of Gui lty Di sm i ssals/ R em oved 677 441 Affi rm ed/ R eversed 23 1, 141 126 126 Total Di sp osi ti ons 4, 685 441 149 5, 275 Pe nding 6/3 0/04 3 , 561 65 56 3 , 682 9 Statistical Overview Court-Wide Activity Civil Caseload Activity Civil case filings increased 1 percent over last year. Case dispositions increased 8 percent while cases pending at end of year decreased 11 percent. Fouryear trends indicate there will be a 2 percent decrease in case fil- ings, a 7 percent decrease in dispositions and 7 percent decrease in pending cases. Medical Malpractice Contracts Eminent Domain Lower Court Appeals Non-Classified Totals 1, 163 497 128 926 31 26 1, 489 4, 260 New C ases Fi led 1, 526 614 80 1, 775 262 81 2, 625 6, 963 Total C aseload 2, 689 1, 111 208 2, 701 293 107 4, 114 11, 223 17 44 3 35 0 19 132 250 Judgm ent Entered 1, 224 465 75 1, 124 233 49 1, 900 5, 070 Other Di sp osi ti ons 460 168 29 661 12 9 771 2, 110 Total Num ber of Di sp osi ti ons 1, 701 677 107 1, 820 245 77 2, 803 7, 430 Pe nding 6/3 0/04 988 43 4 101 881 48 30 1, 3 11 3 , 793 TortMotor Vehicle Pendi ng 7/ 1/ 03 FY 2004 TortNon-Motor Vehicle Overview of FY 2004 Civil Caseload Dis po s itio ns : Transferred Out 10 Family Law Caseload Activity percent while pending cases inFamily Law case filings in- creased 3 percent. Four-year creased 13 percent over FY 2003. trends indicate there will be a 6 Case dispositions increased by 18 percent decrease in case filings, a 4 percent decrease in dispositions and a 4 percent increase in pending cases. Overview of FY 2004 Family Law Caseload Dis s o lutio n Se paratio n A nnulm e nt Pate rnity O the r Do m e s tic To tal Pendi ng 7/ 1/ 02 2, 131 33 21 843 736 3, 764 New C ases Fi led 4, 637 83 65 1, 082 1, 670 7, 537 Total C aseload 6, 768 116 86 1, 925 2, 406 11, 301 Transferred Out 10 0 0 2 15 27 Decrees Granted 3, 042 48 25 Other Di sp osi ti ons 1, 376 25 37 1, 390 1, 082 3, 910 Total Num ber of Di sp osi ti ons 4, 428 73 62 1, 392 1, 097 7, 052 Pe nding 6/3 0/03 2 , 3 40 43 24 53 3 1, 3 09 4, 2 49 FY 2 003 Dis po s itio ns : 3, 115 Probate Caseload Activity Probate case filings decreased by 3 percent over last year. Case dispositions have increased by 3 percent while pend- ing cases have increased 2 percent. Four-year trends indicate there will be a 14 percent decrease in case filings a 21 percent decrease in dispositions and a 9 percent increase in pending cases. Overview of FY 2004 Probate Caseload Es tate & Trus t A dm inis tratio n Guardians hips & Co ns e rvato rs hips A dult A do ptio ns To tal Pendi ng 7/ 1/ 02 6, 289 10, 225 90 16, 604 Ini ti al Peti ti ons Fi led 1, 138 1, 089 10 2, 237 Total C aseload 7, 427 11, 314 100 18, 841 928 913 0 1, 841 6, 499 10, 401 100 17, 000 FY 2 003 Dis po s itio ns : Total Di sp osi ti ons Pe nding 6/3 0/03 11 Adult Probation  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 Mission Statement outcomes. The Adult Probation Department’s mission is to serve the court, to actively promote community safety, to facilitate positive behavioral change in probationers and to respect victim rights. In performing our mission, we recognize that employees are our most valuable resource and we hold these essential core values: Integrity, Respect, Accountability, Fairness, Compassion, Creativity and Excellence. The Adult Probation Department in Pima County strives to achieve the highest standards in the administration of criminal justice and community corrections. Guiding Principles  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; FY 04 Highlights at a Glance  Preparation of 3,662 pre        sentence reports; Supervision of 7,419 probationers; Assessments of 1,031 probationers for substance abuse; Apprehension of 604 absconders; Completion of 3,166 DNA tests on felony probationers; Education services delivered to 662 adult and juvenile students; Collection of $3,879,927 in court-ordered restitution, fees and fines; Completion of 193,434 hours of community services by probationers; Probationers successfully completed probation 75 percent of the time, with a 25 percent revocation rate; and  Violations of probation conditions resulted in intermediate sanctions (rather than revocations) 64 percent of the time. 12 Personnel and Budget At the close of FY 2004, Adult Probation employed 254 people, a decrease of 32 positions over FY 2003. This decline was primarily the effect of budget cuts at the state level. Funding decreased 2.2 percent from $15,337,719 to $15,006,367. During this time period, the number of probationers requiring supervision increased by 84 for a total of 7,419 probationers. The funding outlook for FY 2005 appears to be brighter as appropriations have increased 6.3 percent to $15,954,639. Presentence Reports Officers prepared 3,662 presentence reports this year (including reports for those who did not receive probation), an increase of 7 percent from last year. This reflects a savings to taxpayers of $250,635 (compared to $234,816 in FY 2003 as seen in Table 1, Presentence Reports FY19982004). This savings was achieved by officers who produced reports on an accelerated timeline, thereby reducing the time defendants spent in custody. In addition, officers contacted over 4,000 victims to determine the impact of the crime and the need for restitution. Standard Field Caseloads Officers provided supervision to 6,088 probationers. Of these, 1,614 successfully completed their probation requirements, with 393 having their probation revoked. A total of $3,327,032 in court-ordered assessments was collected. Intensive Probation Services (IPS) Intensive probation supervision was provided to 1,331 high risk/needs probationers (an average of 501 per month), who might otherwise be sentenced to prison. The IPS unit comprises 22 teams, each having a senior probation officer and a surveillance officer. A total of 294 probationers successfully completed the program, while 228 had their probation revoked. A total of $552,895 in court-order assessments was collected, as probationers generated over $3,068,000 in taxable income. Officers maintained close supervision of this population, having made 88,897 personal contacts (home, employment, school, etc.), and performed over 29,776 urinalysis and Breathalyzer tests. Fines, Fees & Restitution Probationers are required to pay court-ordered restitution, fines and fees as a part of the conditions imposed by the court. Funds are used to compensate victims and to maintain/enhance probation services. Officers collected an impressive $500,000 Table 1: Presentence Reports FY 1998 ~ 2004 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 3,776 FY 1998 4,122 1999 3,632 2000 3,548 2001 more than last year, despite a reduction of 32 positions and only a small increase in the number of probationers supervised. The table on page 19 provide details. Absconder Warrants During FY 2004, warrant officers arrested 604 absconders, owing $1,806,185 in court-ordered assessments. These arrests help ensure that there is accountability for all probationers. Education Services Providing a broad spectrum of in-house education services for adult probationers, their families and other at-risk adults in the community, the department’s LEARN (Literacy, Education and Resource Network) program provided services to 662 students in three probation satellite offices. Of these, 78 students passed their GED exams, 10 were inducted into the National Adult Education Honor Society and 11 received scholarships to Pima Community College. A variety of life skills classes were attended, and 71 probationers graduated from the department’s cognitive skills program. Interns The absconder team 13 3,531 2002 3,418 2003 ,662 2004 donated 338 hours of service to the program. Random Drug Testing The Adult Probation Department adopted a random drug testing policy for employees in “safety sensitive positions” and those who perform “safety sensitive duties.” The action was in response to the recommendation of the Arizona Judicial Council and by order of the chief justice, that each county probation department in Arizona implement such a policy by January 2004. For the most part, this involves testing surveillance officers, probation officers and their chain of command. It was not coincidental that this policy was issued contemporaneously with a statewide policy that authorizes officers to carry firearms. The department has had a firearms policy in conjunction with a “reasonable suspicion” policy for drug testing. These new personnel policies that address both issues and will put all Arizona counties on the same page. Although Chief David Sanders expected general staff acceptance of the new policy, he did not expect overwhelming acceptance. As one officer put it, “It comes with the territory.” ficers to work continuously for more than 20 hours following leads and conducting surveillance. Annual Awards On March 10, 2004, Chief Probation Officer David Sanders A pair of officers with the hosted the department’s superviAdult Probation Department sor, officer, and employee of the was singled out for their efforts year awards. in the apprehension of alleged serial bank robbery suspect Craig Employee of the Year Ellis Broughton. The multiField Services South Diviagency Fugitive Investigative sion Director Ruben Castro preStrike Team took Broughton into sented the award for Employee custody on June 10, 2004. of the Year to Senior SurveilChief George Heaney, head lance Officer Melanie Heavilon. of the Operations Bureau for the Melanie came to the department Pima County Sheriff ’s in 1990 as a probation support Department, recognized Senior specialist and worked the seriProbation Officer Ruben Rosales ously mentally ill caseload. Beand Senior Surveillance Officer fore moving to her current proBill Bartlett for their efforts in a bation assignment on the residenletter to Chief Probation Officer tial drug treatment caseload, David Sanders. Melanie worked on the interstate Broughton was suspected of and intrastate caseloads and in robbing a half-dozen Tucson the DIRECT program. She comarea banks and a carjacking. He mented that she believes “probawas taken into custody at a local tion is a family” and probationmotel after a tip to 88-CRIME ers are a difficult population to and leads developed by the work with, but she enjoys the Fugitive Investigative Strike challenge to make a difference in Team pinpointed his location. someone’s life. Chief Heaney also pointed out that the pursuit and capture of the suspect required many of- Officers Praises Melanie Heavilon Peggy McCarthy 14 Officer of the Year Field Services West Division Director Ed Espinoza presented Senior Probation Officer Peggy McCarthy the Officer of the Year award. Before becoming a probation officer, Peggy worked as a fitness consultant and, later, as a correctional officer at the jail. When she first joined the department, Peggy supervised a standard field probation caseload, but she took on the additional task of supervising probationers in Ajo, a dangerous and challenging assignment. While supervising this caseload, she and another officer were instrumental in the capture of a major drug dealer in the area. Peggy worked on the DIRECT caseload, but, about four years ago, she transferred to intensive probation supervision (IPS). One year ago, she took on one of the juvenile remand IPS caseloads, a true display of Peggy’s dedication to the work of probation. Supervisor of the Year Chief Sanders awarded Kenneth McCulloch with Supervisor of the Year. After a 10-year period in the construction industry, Ken returned to school and earned his masters in education. He got a job as a probation of- Ken McCulloch ficer in 1988 and supervised a standard field caseload for oneand-a-half years before moving to IPS for six years. For a short time, Ken supervised interstate cases, but transferred to sex offender supervision, and has worked with this difficult population ever since. After his promotion to supervisor three years ago, Ken relocated to the assessment center, where he supervises officers who specialize in sex offender pre-sentence reports. He has a wealth of knowledge in this area, enjoys the intellectual aspects of his new position, and has been instrumental in the recent restructuring of assessment center leadership. Ken’s subordinates describe him as consistent, unassuming, supportive, levelheaded and balanced. He is able to see the “big picture” and uses sound judgment in his day-today decision-making. 2004 AZ Games Several officers from the department participated in the Arizona Police Athletic Federation’s 2004 Arizona Police and Fire Games in Tucson April 7-11, 2004. In the shooting event, Unit Supervisor Gene Riddle, the only adult probation officer competing in that event, took the silver medal in the three-gun limited category. This competition included use of non-standard equipment on four courses of fire that were scored for time and accuracy. The competition required Gene to start with a rifle, transition to a shotgun, and finish the course with a pistol. He also competed in five courses of combat pistol and he took a gold medal in the “A” class of this event. Making his wins even more impressive, Gene competed, in both events, against officers who work in SWAT. He has participated in the three-gun competition for three years, and he has been a firearms instructor for the department for more than 10 years. Senior Probation Officer Peggy McCarthy participated in the women’s 10k run taking the gold medal. She ran the easy 10K on the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Justice for a Better Arizona: A Strategic Agenda for Arizona’s Courts 2002-05 The department continued to respond to Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones’ Strategic 2002-2005 Agenda for Arizona Courts, which includes specific initiatives to hold probationers accountable in conjunction with offering rehabilitative services. Three initiatives pertaining to probation services were identified in the agenda: 1) Provide a balanced approach to probation that focuses on holding probationers accountable, keeping communities safe, and providing treatment and rehabilitation services to offenders. Enhance efforts to collect restitution and fees from probationers. Probationers are required to pay court-ordered restitution, fines and fees, as a condition of probation. Funds are used to compensate victims and to maintain/enhance probation services. Require that probationers complete all conditions of probation, including community service hours. The Community Service Program acquired additional part-time staff, which allows for expanded services. Over 193,434 hours of community service to over 200 community organizations was provided, resulting in $996,185 in free Unit Supervisor Gene Riddle on his gold medal quest 15 labor to the community (calculated at minimum wage). Community service work also contributed to the rehabilitation aspect of probation, as probationers learn new skills and improve self-esteem. Ensure the provision of treatment services for mentally ill offenders. A specialized caseload for seriously mentally ill probationers (with an average IQ of 63.4) has been in operation since 1990. This year, 106 probationers were supervised, and each underwent psychological testing and evaluation to receive mental health treatment and appropriate medication. A total of $21,543 was submitted in collections from this caseload, an increase of 35 percent from the previous year. 2) Develop innovative, effective methods to assist substance abusing offenders, including the continued expansion of drug courts, to prevent additional contact with the justice system and ensure community safety. Ensuring of fenders are appropriately screened for needs and risk to the community and appropriate services are provided. The department promotes the belief that “treatment works” in collaboration with community supervision, accurate assessment, appropriate placement and intervention. The Drug Treatment Education Fund provided funds for officers to assist drug offenders through comprehensive assessment and referrals to appropriate treatment by trained and certified therapists. Provide judicial education on the management and supervision of substance-abusing offenders. Approximately 60 hours of training was provided to Drug Court officers this year. Make greater use of drug courts and treatment in reducing substance abuse and recidivism in the justice system. Since drug offenses account for approximately 30 percent of all felony charges filed in Superior Court, in April of 2004, the Post-Conviction Drug Court Program was established. The program allows a probationer to complete probation in 18 months by participating in treatment programs, supervision, and frequent judicial reviews. Upon successful completion of the program, felony charges are designated as misdemeanors. The deferred judgment Drug Court Program, implemented in 1998, continued this year as well. A recent recidivism study indicated the Drug Court graduates had a 24 percent arrest/conviction rate versus 66 percent for defendants who were not in the Drug Court program. The department has 16 contracts with licensed agencies (totaling $215,085) providing a full continuum of outpatient substance abuse treatment services, in addition, $129,837 was spent to provide residential treatment for 258 probationers. Services included education, lapse/relapse prevention, 16 motivational therapy, and cognitive behavioral intervention classes. 3) Develop and implement a comprehensive officer safety program in order to ensure the safety of officers and staff, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of probation in protecting the community. Establish, implement, and monitor statewide policies concerning officer safety, utilizing the continuum of force model, up to and including the provision of firearms to officers. Officers continued to receive state-of-theart training in safety techniques from the Arizona Supreme Court. Topics included verbal tactics and the defensive use of capsaicin spray and the expandable baton. During FY 2004, the department met, and in fact, exceeded guidelines by the committee on Judicial Education and Training. In addition to the mandated 16 hours of training and education, employees earned more than 9,347 hours addressed to officer safety issues. Probation Statistics Sentencing Crime Type 13% 25% 29% 33% Illegal Goods & Services Property Public Peace & Traffic Person Caseload Distribution 5% 8% 9% Field Services 10% DOC/Probation Justice Court Unsupervised IPS 68% Specialized Caseloads 13% 9% 8% 18% 3% 21% 28% 17 DV Sex Offenders Agg DUI Drug Court Seriously Mentally Ill Residential Special Learning Needs Cost of Supervision $60 $50 $40 $30 Arizona State Prison (Tucson) ~ $56.66 $20 Intensive Probation ~ $14.00 $10 Standard Probation ~ $5.00 $0 Table 3: Fines, Fees & Restitution Collected Fis cal Ye ar To tal Co lle cte d Num b e r o f Pro b atio ne rs 1995 $3, 020, 934 6, 976 1996 $2, 742. 245 6, 843 1997 $2, 664, 135 6, 925 1998 $2, 932, 679 7, 654 1999 $3, 542, 606 8, 570 2000 $3, 819, 830 7, 472 2001 $3, 743, 645 7, 218 2002 $3, 743, 645 7, 525 2003 $3, 380, 005 7, 335 2004 $3, 879, 927 7, 419 18 The Human Resources Unit was exceptionally active this fiscal year. In addition to processing approximately 1,225 personnel action forms and 26 payrolls, the court was able to restore some of the positions that were lost during the financial crisis of the previous year. As a result, the court was able to lift the hiring freeze and subsequently conducted 32 recruitments, requiring the processing of approximately 1,800 applications and resumes. Approximately 55 new employees were hired from these recruitments. Additionally, HR assisted in filling 40 requests from various divisions for temporary coverage. In reviewing the recruitment and selection processes for the court, HR identified and secured new applicant testing software, which will assist the court in identifying the best-qualified applicant when filling vacant positions. In addition, HR worked with Information Technology Services Division (ITSD) to automate various HR processes to enhance the delivery of services to court employees. One of the enhancements was to provide various HR forms on the 19 Information Technology Services Division AGAVE For a number of years, the court has been working toward the replacement of its calendaring and case management system (CACTIS) with an up-todate technology solution. During 2004 the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), determined that the state’s AZTEC case management system had reached the end of its lifecycle and was also ready for a replacement system. Our court had examined the iCIS case management system developed and used by the Maricopa County Superior Court, and had determined that iCIS could be adapted for use here in Pima County. Working with the AOC and with the approval of the Supreme Court Commission on Technology, the court began a project to reengineer iCIS to meet the needs of the court. This project, which will result in major technology and business related efficiencies for our court, is called AGAVE. Department Highlights Human Resources court’s intranet thereby giving greater access to employees. Within the next five years, a number of long-term court employees are expected to retire from court service. During FY 2004, the court experienced the first surge of notifications from employees who are, or will be retiring. To assist them, HR has developed a tool on the intranet to help them consider their retirement options. HR identified and hosted 10 employee workshops covering various topics of employee wellness. Approximately 135 employees attended these workshops. Also, HR placed various articles in the court’s newsletter, Minute Entry, and through e-mail on topics of various interests to employees. HR began working with division directors and managers in early April to update job descriptions and to ensure that the court was compliant with the new anticipated revisions to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which were slated to be effective Aug. 23, 2004. APETS – Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System Work continued at a rapid pace on this project that began in 2000. In early FY 2004, the Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF) portion of APETS was implemented by the Adult Probation Department. Throughout FY 2004, court staff has been participating in a joint testing of each new build of the APETS program with Maricopa and Yuma counties, as well as AOC staff. The court’s ITSD staff has developed a data conversion program, which will be used to transition and move the data stored in our ROLODEX program into APETS when it is fully implemented early in 2005. Digital Recording The court has deployed 12 digital recording systems in hearing rooms and some courtrooms for use by the family law and probate benches in cases where a court reporter is not required. Internet Access for Jurors Working with the jury commissioner, ITSD staff configured and installed nine public access Internet computers in the Jury Assembly Room for use by jurors. Superior Court Intranet Redesign A new Intranet site called the ‘Compendium’ was created by ITSD for use by superior court staff. This site includes information on court announcements, policies, human resources and training forms, COJET compliance, upcoming classes and the electronic bulletin board. The Compendium also provides easy access to on-line case calendar reports, phone directories, employment information and other resources. Electronic Calendar Reports During FY 2004 an additional 12 paper versions of court calendars were converted to electronic distribution. This simple action has eliminated over 2,000 printed calendar pages per day. 20 Help Desk During FY 2004 the Information Technology Services Division responded to 5,186 calls to the Help Desk. Of this number 4,611 (88.9 percent) were resolved within 24 hours; 3,298 (63.6 percent) were resolved the same day; and 1,423 (27.4 percent) were resolved during the initial phone call. Jury Commissioner During FY 2004, a total of 114,970 jury summons/ questionnaires were mailed to prospective jurors for service in the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts, Tucson City Court and for state and county grand juries. Of that number, 82,200 of the summonses were for the superior and justice courts, 30,120 were for Tucson City Court and 2,650 were for grand jury service. Approximately 22 percent, or 24,898, of those summoned had their jury service postponed. Most of the postponements were because the jurors were out of town (5,389), had a work hardship (4,655), or because they forgot to report (3,686). In January 2004, a new statute went into effect specifying the reasons a person could be excused from jury service in Arizona. Prior to the new statute, jurors could be excused if they demonstrated that their service as a juror would impose an undue hardship. During FY 2004, approximately 12 percent, or 13,969, of the prospective jurors were excused from reporting to court. Illness was the most common reason for being excused from jury service (5,939), followed by being a caregiver (2,273). Another new statute, which went into effect in September 2003, allows certified peace officers, employed by the state of Arizona, to request an exemption from jury service. As a result, 69 peace officers were excused from jury service. In addition to those who were excused for hardship, 10,076 or approximately 9 percent of persons summoned did not meet the statutory qualifications for serving as a juror. Most of the prospective jurors who were not qualified were either not United States citizens (4,365) or were not Pima County residents (4,095). An additional 12 percent of the summonses mailed (14,154) were returned as undeliverable. Approximately 9.8 percent of the jurors summoned (11,274) failed to appear as directed for jury service. A total of 28,505 prospective jurors reported for jury service in the superior and justice courts during FY 2004. That is approximately 35 percent of the 82,200 summoned for these courts. Of those who reported for service in the superior and justice courts, 27,906, or 98 percent, were drawn for jury panels. Of those, 5,227 were selected and sworn as petit jurors for a trial. Therefore, approximately 6 percent of those summoned or 18 percent of those who reported became sworn petit jurors. A total of 11,450, or approximately 41 percent, of the potential petit jurors who were drawn on jury panels were not used during the jury selection process. These jurors were drawn for jury panels but were not questioned during voir dire either because the trial did not proceed or because the jury panel was selected before their name was called to enter the jury box in the courtroom. During FY 2004, jurors received $595,712 in jury pay. Also, $295,054 was paid for mileage and $300,658 for per diem expenses. Each juror who reports for service is eligible to receive a roundtrip mileage reimbursement at the current mileage rate of 34.5 cents per mile. The per diem amount is $12 per day and is paid only to sworn petit jurors who are impaneled. Conciliation Court During FY 2004, the Family Center of the Conciliation Court (FCCC) continued its traditional family court services, conciliation counseling, mediation and custody/access assessment. The loss of a senior clinician through retirement and the inability to replace her due to budget constraints meant that existing staff had to take on additional caseloads. To assist with the load, FCCC streamlined its intake process and improved its website which now includes downloadable Jury Commissioner Kathy Brauer explains the work flow to commissioners 21 forms for conciliation and mediation. Despite the “crunch” the conciliation court added a new and exciting service to its roster, special master cases. Starting in October 2004, judges were able to appoint special masters from the local legal and mental health communities that will be asked to deal with day-to-day issues that arise and cannot be heard quickly in court. The special masters program is designed to provide additional options to those involved in divorce. There are constant conflicts regarding school, parenting time and exchange of children, clothing or health care. The special masters program is designed to relieve pressures on both the court and families. Once a special master has made a decision regarding an issue, a report regarding the master’s findings and recommendation must be submitted to the court in writing for the court to enter an order or take other appropriate action. Once the order is filed the court can sign off. With the approval of the past and current family law presiding judges, conciliation court staff underwent c o u r t - ap p r ove d training to become special masters for indigent and lowincome litigants. At the end of FY 2004, FCCC had two active cases. The goal for the coming fiscal year is to be able to handle 10 cases. In addition to taking on some cases for the family law bench, FCCC has convened a quarterly meeting of all masters, both public and private, at our offices. The purpose of these meetings will be to offer support and share information on this dynamic program. Other highlights in the last fiscal year included negotiating a new contract for the Judicial Supervision Program, negotiating a contract extension for the Parent Information Program, and continuing to oversee the budget for the Expedited Child Support and Parenting Time fund. FCCC also continued its relationship with the University of Arizona departments of Psychology and Family Studies and Human Development. The fruits of this collaboration included an invitation to present data on our three-year study of domestic violence in family law cases at the 2004 Governor’s Conference on “Ending Domestic Violence in Arizona.” Research work in this area is ongoing and is supported by grants received by key UA faculty. In the coming fiscal year, we expect, with assistance from the UA, to be able to add an evaluation component to the special master program. Pretrial Services The primary responsibility of Pretrial Services (PTS) is to provide comprehensive background information and release options to the court to assist in the release decisions for pretrial defendants. During the past fiscal year there was a 7 percent increase in cases presented for in-custody felony initial appearances. The court set conditions of release on approximately 8,800 felony cases, and PTS provided information and recommendations on 99.5 percent of these cases. Pretrial Services continues to screen county misdemeanor arrests for eligibility for release prior to initial appearances. There were roughly 11,800 A defendant is screened by Pretrial Services 22 county misdemeanor arrests and 4,250 were eligible for prerelease consideration, and of this group, 2,659 were identified as suitable for release and were released by PTS staff. There were 5,400 felony cases where a bond was set at the initial appearance hearing, and 3,227 of those cases were reassigned to staff for further review. New reports were prepared and presented to the court that addressed modifying conditions of release in 1,624 cases. This was an 18 percent increase in reports prepared over last year. While there was an overall increase in felony cases during FY 2004, the defendants released into the custody of PTS remained consistent with FY 2003. Staff supervised 2,582 defendants and closed out 2,082 of those cases. Eighty-one percent of those closures were considered successful (no failures to appear, no felony rearrest, and no revocations for failure to abide by court ordered conditions of release). Staff efforts continue to show success in reducing the number of warrants issued out of the arraignment court. In many cases, defendants do not receive notice of this hearing and Calendar Services’ front desk A Calendar Services work station when the defendant does not appear, a warrant is issued. Staff ’s outreach efforts have reduced the number of warrants issued out of arraignment court by 50 percent. In late spring a new pilot project was initiated to conduct outreach efforts on cases where the defendant failed to appear in superior court and a warrant was issued. Replicating the outreach process adopted for the arraignment court (letters, phone calls, and field visits), our goal was to arrange the selfsurrender of those defendants for whom a warrant issued and whose original release conditions had been either on their own recognizance (ROR) or to the custody of PTS. Since the inception of this project, 29 percent of the warrants issued have been resolved without arrest. Toward the end of the fiscal year this division was impacted by two major changes: the intake staff moved from an office outside the jail complex into a new jail intake facility which brought our pre-initial appearance screening directly into the jail environment. The courts, in re23 sponse to the new challenges presented by this new intake facility, implemented a twice a day initial appearance court. Both of the changes have presented unique challenges but ultimately have proven to be beneficial to the pretrial screening process as well as to the newly arrested defendant population. Calendar Services Calendar Services began work on a policy change for the court in the fall of 2003 by surveying all the judicial administrative assistants working at the downtown building. Meetings were held to determine whether or not the divisions wanted responsibility for their calendars and if so, what the role would be for the calendar services staff. After several months of discussions, each bench adopted policies designed to clearly define the role played by each department. While the judicial administrative assistants accepted the challenge of doing their own data entry (many had been taking that responsibility for years), calendar services assumed increased compliance tasks for each bench. For example, the civil bench authorized the dismissal of cases for inactivity or lack of service without having a judge’s signature. In addition, the family law bench allowed Calendar Services to take responsibility for the 8:30 a.m. judgment debtor exam, forcible entry, and garnishment calendar, which helped free up time for the commissioners’ judicial administrative assistants. Calendar Services expects additional changes with the implementation of a new case management system. The goal is to devise new, more efficient ways to not only improve the court’s case management abilities but also enhance customer service. To that end, the calendar services office was remodeled in FY 2004 adding a reception area and increasing the work area of each employee. These larger work areas give calendar services staff more room to use a dual monitor system so that data entry can be accomplished while viewing the documents in the imaging system managed by the Clerk of the Superior Court. As a result, staff is able to obtain necessary information without requesting the court file and eliminate time spent sorting and filing paperwork. Training & Education After much planning and discussion, the training units for superior court and adult probation consolidated on Aug. 1, 2003. This was one of several recommendations by Harvey Rose Accountancy Corp. in their audit report to the Pima County Board of Supervisors in April 2001. The consolidation resulted in a training partnership that yielded both opportunity and innovation. Opportunity came in the form of three Administrative Office of the Courts regional conferences that provided a forum for Pima County Superior Court trainers, as Rafaela de Loera and Pat Skinner taught customer service and ethics classes. Innovation came in the form of new classes that were developed to share statewide and at home. One of the best received of these new offerings was “Who Killed the Mockingbird,” a threehour ethics class built around the classic film “To Kill A Mockingbird,” starring Gregory Peck and focusing on a sensational trial in a small-town courtroom. Less than a month into 2004, a dispatcher with the Pima County Adult Probation Department became the first COJET compliant employee. Pima County Superior Court Training Coordinator Rafaela de Loera 24 Training Coordinator Pat Skinner training announced on Jan. 30, 2004, that Nancy Custer, a dispatcher at the south office of adult probation, had completed Council on Judicial Education and Training courses with credits that totaled 16, the number required during 2004. Not only did Nancy have 16 credit hours, but also the courses she took included the required ethics and customer service courses. Interpreter’s Office The Office of the Court Interpreter participated in 5,106 hearings during FY 2004. There were also 69 events in limited jurisdiction courts in which interpreters participated. Interpreters also were responsible for translating 705 pages of materials submitted to the court for use in pending cases. Interpreters proficient in American Sign Language assisted 27 hearing-impaired jurors during FY 2004. A total of 14 lesser-used languages were interpreted during court hearings in FY 2004. Those languages included: American Sign Language, Arabic, Bosnian, Dinka, Farsi, Korean, Mandarin, Navajo, Polish, Russian, Somali, Thai and Vietnamese. The Pima County Drug Court program, operational since January 1998, has continued to evolve into an effective program for the court. In July 2002, Judge Patricia Escher took the reins as the presiding drug court judge. She continued the development of the drug court program and was instrumental in its expansion. Some of Judge Escher’s accomplishments included:  The implementation of a mentation of a postconviction drug court program. The post-conviction program, which began accepting participants in April 2004, is designed to supervise defendants who do not qualify for the original, deferred-judgment program. The components of both programs are similar. Judge Escher and the Prop. 200 probation officers, working with the county attorney, public defender, and legal defender offices developed the program after seeing the success of the deferred-judgment program. Both programs will fall under the jurisdiction of one judge. Both programs attempt to address community safety and probation supervision needs. Dedication to this goal has resulted in a program that is: study that determined the program to be cost effective, as well as revealing that graduates from the program had a lower percent of recidivism than nongraduates, 24 percent and 66 percent respectively;  Development of operational manuals for the court and drug court team members;  The consolidation of Proposition 200 cases under  consistent with the intent and spirit of mandated the jurisdiction of one court treatment for substance division; abusers; A drug court graduate is congratulated on his success 25 of the probation officers assigned to the program; and  more responsive to community safety. Judge Escher’s tenure as drug court judge ended in June 2004 when Judge Pro-Tem Barbara Sattler assumed the presiding drug court duties. Twice-a-day Initial Appearance Court Starting in May 2004, persons who are arrested in most unincorporated areas of Pima County and in the city of Tucson had their first appearance before a judicial officer within 14 hours of their arrest instead of the mandatory 24 hours. Initial appearances are held at 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. The Twice-a-Day-Initial Appearances (2xIA) concept had been in development for three years. The justice court had conducted initial appearances for all county felonies and county misdemeanors at 2 p.m. The city court did their own initial appearances for their misdemeanors at 9 a.m. There was also an agreement that, if the city missed an arrestee at 9 a.m., the county would pick them up at 2 p.m. and, if the county missed somebody at 2 p.m., they would have their initial appearance the next morning at 9 a.m. in city court. A number of years ago, Tucson City Court and Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts entered into an intergovernmental agreement providing for weekend initial FY 2004 Highlights  Development and imple-  more responsive to the needs Drug Court appearances to be conducted at city court’s facilities utilizing a video link with the jail. Under the new 2xIA plan, the 9 a.m. initial appearances are conducted via the video link from the jail to city court and the 9 p.m. initial appearances are conducted at the jail. Arraignments for persons charged with felonies are not a part of 2xIA. The new process for initial appearances is more efficient for the jail. The design of the new jail facility revolves around a holding area called the lower level where arrestees, both male and female, are held in their street clothes after they are booked. The goal is to have them seen in court within 14 hours. There are other detention facilities in the United States that have implemented this concept and experienced a decrease in assaults by inmates on inmates and assaults by inmates on staff. The relocation of the Pretrial Service Jail Unit to an area within the new jail facility allows staff members better access to persons who have been arrested. The 2xIA program provides staff more time to prepare recommendations for judicial officers. Facilities Numerous construction and renovation projects have reached a successful conclusion, but there are additional projects planned for floors seven, eight and nine that have yet to be scheduled due to funding issues. The latest major project was the construction of three new courtrooms and judicial offices 2xIA courtroom on the west side of the third floor. The new third floor, west side courtrooms feature modifications from the designs used for the three east side courtrooms on the third floor. Those modifications include a change to the walking ramps up to the witness stand and placement of the chairs in the jury boxes. Those changes are planned for the east side courtrooms at a later date. E-Filing The Court and the Clerk of the Superior Court launched a pilot project in May 2004 designed to reduce the amount of paperwork filed in probate cases. The clerk’s office began accepting the e-filing of court documents from a pair of volunteer, private law firms that practice primarily in the area of probate law. When it is fully implemented, the e-filing system is expected to result in much of the 26 probate caseload at the court becoming digital. The probate caseload was the logical place to start e-filing practices because it is a specialized, contained, area of the law. E-Filing Appeals The use of computers within the operations of the courts is becoming more commonplace with each passing day. This is particularly evident with the efiling of court transcripts to Division II of the Arizona Court of Appeals by court reporters at Pima County Superior Court. Division II is the only court in Arizona using this particular efiling system, which was developed by the chief information officer for the court of appeals. The benefits of e-filing are obvious with cost savings realized by a reduction in the amount of paper used, a reduction in the amount of storage facilities necessary for case files and more immediate distribution of case files and transcripts with parties to a case and the court. At the end of FY 2004, the Superior Court was the only court providing Division II with electronic versions of case filings. That soon will change with the addition of other courts within the jurisdiction of Division II. Legislative Reforms In late 2003, the Arizona Legislature approved additional funding and reforms of Child Protective Services (CPS). The immediate impact was an increase of CPS cases on juvenile court calendars. In 1997, there were just over 500 such cases filed and during FY 2004 that caseload exceeded 850. The expected increase in the number of cases being filed with juvenile court will result in a need for additional judges and courtrooms. A design study performed by Pima County facilities management officials indicated that the cost to build four new courtrooms would be close to $2 million. In May 2004, the voters approved that $2 million as part of a bond election. Court Reporters E-Filing One of the more interesting results of the recent special session of the Arizona Legislature was the creation of the right to a jury trial for parents facing termination of their parental rights. Until then, the judge who hears a dependency case would make the decision regarding whether or not a petition for termination should be filed and then hear the trial on the motion for termination of parental rights. The legislature has now given parents the option of having a jury of eight make that decision. A severance trial must comply with the rules of civil procedure. Therefore, the verdict of the eight-person jury need not be unanimous. Because juvenile court is not equipped to summon prospective jurors and to hold jury trials at their facility on Ajo Way, trials are conducted at superior court downtown by a juvenile court judge. Operation Child Support Local law enforcement and superior court officials were not fooling when they launched Operation Child Support on April 1 in Pima County. Officers began serving arrest warrants at 6 a.m. on parents who owed $3.7 million in court-ordered child support. Defendants were brought directly to superior court for initial appearances where their case files were waiting. By the end of the day, 40 men and women appeared before Comm. Kyle Bryson for an initial appearance to set conditions of release. They owed a combined total of $764,000. 27 One man owed over $100,000 on three different cases. Perhaps the most interesting case of the day was a Marana man who directed officers to a brick in his yard under which was buried approximately $5,200 in a bag marked child support. Color of Justice Stepping down from their judicial benches and leaving their black robes and gavels behind, a group of Arizona judges and legal scholars gathered for a forum in January with a number of local high school students, their school administrators and career counselors to discuss careers in law and the judiciary. In conjunction with the National Association of Women Judges, Arizona judges from municipal courts, the superior court and the Arizona Supreme Court, met Jan. 30, 2004, with students from Tucson High School, Cholla High School, Pueblo High School, Sunnyside High School and Desert View High School. Known as the Color of Justice program, and popularized by judges in states and communities across the nation, this Tucson-based effort was a critical opportunity for participating students to interact with actual jurists from the bench. The goal was to solicit the potential interest of young people from diverse backgrounds, to consider a future career working with the law. The Color of Justice Blood Drives Superior court has participated in the county’s blood drives at the Public Works Building for several years, but the location outside the courthouse meant many employees could not participate. The American Red Cross was contacted and officials there agreed to hold regular blood donation events at superior court, with the first inhouse blood drive being held on Nov. 4, 2003. Subsequent blood drives were scheduled approximately every eight weeks. In addition to donors, several staff members volunteered to help with arranging the tables and chairs both before and after the drive, transporting equipment, greeting donors at the registration table and working in the canteen making sure the donors received refreshments after their donation. Medical facilities around the state of Arizona need about 300 pints of blood on a daily basis and there are many days they run short. Service Pins The court began the practice of awarding court service pins as distinctive tokens of appreciation for the longevity of its 28 employees. The pins are awarded in five-year increments through 30 years of service. The pins honor the people who have given the court so much. Their longevity is a great asset, providing the court with the high level of skill that experience brings and supplying an institutional memory that has guided the court through untroubled waters. Co-Editor ~ David Ricker Co-Editor ~ Doug Kooi Co-Editor ~ Lisa Royal Co-Editor ~ Susan Foster Layout Editor ~ JoAnne Pope K. Kent Batty Court Administrator 29 Acknowledgements This report represents the achievements of employees working for Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. We extend special thanks to the following individuals for contributing to this annual report: