Maricopa County
Annual Report of
Community Indicators

Credits

Credits
Board of Supervisors
Andrew Kunasek, Chairman, District 3
Fulton Brock, District 1
Don Stapley, District 2
Max W. Wilson, District 4
Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox, District 5
County Administrative Officer
David R. Smith
Deputy County Administrator
Sandra L. Wilson
Deputy Budget Directors
Chris Bradley
Brian Hushek
Budget Administrator
Lee Ann Bohn
Managing for Results Coordinator
Cindy Goelz, Acting
Office of Management and Budget
301 W Jefferson St, Ste 1070
Phoenix AZ 85003-2143
Phone (602) 506-7280
Fax (602) 506-3063
www.maricopa.gov/budget

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Table of Contents
Executive Summary

1

Fiscal Strength

4

Economic Development

7

Environment

11

Health

14

Public Safety

16

Transportation

19

Education & Recreation

22

Citizen Satisfaction

25

Summary of Community Indicators

27

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Executive Summary
By the mid-1990’s, Maricopa County had achieved solid success in managing its budget
and finances and began to realize the fruits of its efforts. In 1998 after a review of best
practices in the field of performance measurement and performance-based budgeting,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began to develop a proposal for strategic
budgeting, in which strategic planning, budgeting and performance measures would be
aligned in a unified process known as “Managing for Results” – a fully integrated
management system focused on achieving results for Maricopa County’s citizens.

Managing for
Results System
Managing for Results (MfR) is
a
comprehensive
and
integrated management system
that focuses on achieving
results for the customer and
makes
it
possible
for
departments to demonstrate
accountability to taxpayers.
This on-going and cyclical
system is depicted at right.

Decision Making

Planning for Results

• Future Demand

• Vision & Mission

• Performance Targets

• Strategic - Goals

• Adjust Allocations If Required

• Operational - Results

• Operational/Process Improvement

• Family of Measures per Activity

Evaluating Results
• Performance Audit
• Employee Evaluations
• Resources Consumed
• Citizen Survey & Input

• Employee Performance Plans

Managing
for Results

Reporting Results
• Data Verified

Deliver
Services

• Actuals vs. Forecasts
• Baselines & Benchmarks

Collect
Data

Budgeting for Results
• Demand for Services
• Performance Budget
• Resource Allocation

• All Customers Included
In February 2001, the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors
approved a new mission for the fourth largest county in the United States:

To provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public
services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities.
The Board also approved a vision:
Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, efficiently and innovatively.
We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent.

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 1

Seven strategic objectives were also developed to guide the fastest growing large
county into the 21st century:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Maricopa County will continue to improve its positive public image
based on results achieved.
Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas in a fiscally
responsible manner.
Minimize the burden on the property taxpayer through rate reductions.
Healthy community and solvent healthcare system.
Safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal justice
system.
Provide regional leadership for a regional transportation system.
Land use will be planned, managed and funded responsibly; Luke AFB
will be preserved.

Reporting Results
The development of the mission, vision and strategic objectives was a major step for
Maricopa County’s Managing for Results initiative. The process continued as all County
departments developed their own mission, vision, strategic goals and performance
measures. This process culminated in reporting the results to the citizens of Maricopa
County.
This information can be found at the County’s website at
www.maricopa.gov/cio/mfr/. What this data does not do is present a picture of the
quality of life in Maricopa County.
Maricopa County is accountable to its residents by communicating what it does or does
not achieve. This report is intended to demonstrate the impact that Maricopa County’s
Managing for Results initiative has had on the community. While many of the indicators
are not completely within the control of County government, decisions made by County
leadership influence the measures and contribute to the quality of life in Maricopa
County.
In 2001, Maricopa County was selected as one of the 40 leading counties to participate
in the Government Performance Project. The Government Performance Project is a
national project conducted by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at
Syracuse University in partnership with Governing magazine. The study collects,
evaluates, and compares information about how well governmental jurisdictions are
managed in five key areas: financial management, human resources, information
technology, capital management, and managing for results. The comparative results of
the study were published in a special issue of Governing in February 2002. Maricopa
County was identified as one of the best-run counties in the country and was one of only
two counties in the nation to receive the highest overall scores of “A-“.

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 2

The most recent information available is used throughout this report. In many
instances, the latest data is from calendar year 2003; however, there are some cases
where 2002 is the last time a particular measure was published. Much of the
information found in this report is from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey (ACS). The ACS provides estimates of demographic, social, economic and
housing statistics based on data gathered in 36 comparison test counties across the
United States. Maricopa County was not one of the 36 counties where interviews
occurred in 2003.
To evaluate its performance, Maricopa County benchmarks itself against other similarly
situated counties, all in the western United States. Similarities exist in the areas of
population/demographics, growth/economic development, and size/geography. The
nine counties are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Clark County, Nevada
Harris County, Texas
King County, Washington
Los Angeles County, California
Multnomah County, Oregon
Orange County, California
Salt Lake County, Utah
San Diego County, California
Santa Clara County, California

Certain items such as property taxes could not be benchmarked with these communities
as statutes vary from state to state. In those cases, Maricopa County has used other
Arizona counties as its benchmark.
If after reviewing the Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators you have
any questions or comments, please contact the Office of Management and Budget at
602.506.7280.

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 3

Fiscal Strength
The ability of the County to meet the needs of its citizens is directly related to its ability
to achieve and sustain fiscal stability. Effective and efficient use of resources is a
cornerstone of building the foundation necessary to achieve the outcomes that citizens
desire.

Bond Rating
Bond ratings are an indicator of how the financial community views the fiscal stability of
an organization. Organizations are judged on their current debt position and potential
liabilities, as well as their financial management practices. High bond ratings allow for
favorable interest rates should the County need to borrow funds.
Moody’s and Fitch are two bond
ratings agencies.
Maricopa
Bond Ratings
(High to Low)
County’s bond rating by Fitch
increased in 2003. Fitch noted
Fitch:
Moody’s:
that the “upgrades are based on
AAA
Aaa
the imminent transfer of the
AA+
Aa1
County’s healthcare delivery
AA
Aa2
system to a separate voterAAAa3
approved special health district
A+
A1
with its own property tax levy”.
A
“The upgrades also reflect
A2
Acontinued
financial
A3
BBB
improvement despite slower
Baa
growth
in
the
County’s
C
predominant revenue source”.
This independent validation
provides confidence about the County’s financial health to investors and taxpayers
alike. The ranking system of these agencies is illustrated above.
According to Maricopa County’s Internal Audit Financial Conditions Report, the Fitch
IBCA credit rating is an opinion on the ability of an entity to meet its financial
commitments. Maricopa County’s rating of AA + is reflective of a “Very High Credit”
quality. Per Fitch, a “Very high credit quality of 'AA' denotes a very low expectation of
credit risk. They indicate very strong capacity for timely payment of financial
commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events”.

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 4

Maricopa County also received
high bond rating marks from
Moody’s. The County’s bonds
are rated Aa3, which is
considered high grade. Per the
Internal
Audit
Financial
Conditions Report, the Moody’s
rating
is
a
result
of
“improvements to the County’s
financial condition, conservative
fiscal strategies, elimination of
non-service support for the
County
hospital
and
the
County’s low debt position”.
The chart to the left compares
Maricopa County’s bond rating
with other similar counties in the
U.S.

Comparison of Bond Rating
County

Moody’s Rating

Harris

Aa1

King

Aa1

Multnomah

Aa1

Clark

Aa2

Orange

Aa2

San Diego

Aa2

Los Angeles

Aa3

Maricopa

Aa3

Santa Clara

Aa3

Tax Rate
Maricopa County’s Strategic Plan includes a Strategic Priority to “Minimize the burden
on the property taxpayer through rate reductions”. Many factors influence the County’s
ability to achieve this priority. Current and accurate property valuation, as well as
prudent spending plans and responsible spending, are key in minimizing the overall tax
burden of our citizens.
Maricopa County’s property taxes are charged for each $100 of assessed value of
property. The Primary Tax supports the County General Fund, which pays for the
general operations of the County. In FY04, Maricopa County’s combined property tax
rate also included amounts for Debt Service to fund the repayment of general obligation
bonds, as well as taxes to provide operating revenue for the Flood Control District and
the Library district.
Maricopa
County’s
overall
Property Tax rate was held flat
three years in a row. In FY04,
Maricopa’s combined property
tax rate was the fourth smallest
of all Arizona counties at
$1.5448, as compared to the
high of Pima County at $5.454.
The chart to the right illustrates
the steady decrease in the
overall property tax rate.
Maricopa
County’s
rate
dropped again for FY05 to
$1.47

Maricopa County
Overall Property Tax Rate
(per $100 of Assessed Value)

$1.75

$1.62

$1.57

$1.54

$1.60

$1.54

$1.54
$1.47

$1.45
$1.30
$1.15
$1.00
FY 00

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY05

Page 5

The Primary Tax rate was also
held flat from FY03 to FY04 at
$1.2108. The chart to the left
demonstrates
the
relative
steadiness of this rate, even
though mandated service costs
continue to increase year after
year.

Maricopa County
Primary Tax Rate
(per $100 of Assessed Value)

$1.25
$1.21

$1.21

$1.20

$1.19

$1.18
$1.16

$1.15
$1.10
$1.05
$1.00

FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

Maricopa County’s Primary Tax
rate is consistently below the
state average. The chart at
right provides a comparison to
other Arizona counties over the
past three fiscal years.

FY 04

Primary Property Tax Rate Comparison for
Select Arizona Counties
(per $100 of Assessed Value)
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00

FY2001-02

FY2002-03

FY2003-04

Pinal

$4.60

$4.60

$4.60

Pima

$4.07

$4.07

$4.07

State Average

$2.12

$2.17

$2.17

Mohave

1.75

1.75

1.75

Yavapai

1.61

1.68

1.68

Maricopa

1.18

1.21

1.21

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 6

Economic Development
During times of economic growth, consumer confidence increases as a result of
improved salaries and stable employment. This translates into additional disposable
income which promotes continued growth and prosperity.

Unemployment Rate
Low unemployment is a
Maricopa County
significant factor in economic
Unemployment Rates
stability.
Adequate
5.6%
opportunities for employment
6.0%
result from the ability to attract
4.9%
5.0%
and
retain
productive
4.2%
3.9%
businesses that can employ the
4.0%
available workforce.
The
2.7%
County has a role in drawing
3.0%
businesses to the community
2.0%
by promoting an environment
that is supportive to business
1.0%
and industry. It can accomplish
this by insuring resources, such
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
Jun-04
as public transportation, are
developed and accessible and
by having favorable tax structures for both businesses and citizens.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Maricopa County is experiencing a recovery from the recession of 2001-2002. The
unemployment rate decreased in 2003 and is continuing that trend through June 2004,
where the rate was 4.2%. The graph above illustrates the trend since 2000.
Maricopa County is fortunate to have rebounded so quickly from the recession. It had
the second largest 12 month increase in employment as of June 2004 per the Bureau of
Labor Statistics July 28, 2004 release, with an increase in employment of 41,200. It
trailed Washington DC, where the increase was 82,000 for the same period.

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 7

Maricopa County had the third
largest percentage increase in
employment during that same
period, behind the Las Vegas
and
Washington,
DC
metropolitan areas. As noted in
the chart to the right, Maricopa
County’s unemployment rate is
very favorable as compared to
the
other
benchmark
jurisdictions. Only San Diego
and Orange Counties have
rates lower than Maricopa.

June 2004 Unemployment Rates
Comparison to Similar Counties
7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0%
Harris

Multnomah

Los
Angeles

Santa Clara

King

Salt Lake

Clark

Maricopa

San Diego

Orange

7.0%

6.8%

6.7%

6.2%

5.9%

5.3%

4.5%

4.2%

4.1%

3.5%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Per Capita Income
Individuals’ participation in economic growth is dependent upon their income levels and
their ability to purchase the goods and services they need and want. This ability is
directly influenced by the employment opportunities available to them.

Maricopa County
Per Capita Income

Per capita income is total
personal
income,
which
includes
net
earnings,
$40,000
dividends, interest, rent and
$30,000
personal receipts received,
divided by the total population.
$20,000
The most recent information
available on per capita income
$10,000
is from calendar year 2002. At
that time, Maricopa County’s
$0
per capita income was $29,020,
2000
2001
2002
which was 110% of Arizona’s
$28,993
$29,068
$29,020
Maricopa County
$25,661
$26,055
$26,360
Arizona
average and 94% of the
$29,847
$30,527
$30,906
National Average
national average of $30,906,
according to the Bureau of
Economic Analysis’ BEARFACTS Report. The chart above illustrates the most recent
three years available.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 8

Maricopa County’s per capita
income is low as compared to
the benchmarking counties.
Only Salt Lake is less at
$28,539 in 2002. The graph at
right reflects Maricopa County’s
position as compared to the
other counties.

Comparison of 2002
Per Capita Income
$50,000
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Salt Lake

Ma ricopa

Clark

LA

Multnoma h San Diego

$28,539

$29,020

$29,396

$30,804

$33, 840

$34, 872

Harris

Orang e

Kin g

San ta
Clara

$36,825

$38,367

$44,135

$46,499

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

The Ratio of Average Home
Price to Average Income
Affordable housing opportunities spur expansion of communities, which adds growth to
the local economy. Housing costs are influenced by a number of factors, some of which
the County controls, such as planning, zoning, building permits and associated fees.

Maricopa County
Home Value to Family Income
Maricopa County

2000

2001

2002

2003

Median Home Value

$132,730

$138,918

$149,807

$156,623

Mean Family Income

$ 65,097

$ 65,730

$ 67,137

$ 67,624

Ratio Median Home
Value to Mean Family
Income

2.04

2.11

2.23

2.32

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2000 through 2003

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

The median value of a home in
Maricopa County continues to
increase.
In 2003, it was
$156,623, a 4.5% increase
above 2002.
The average
family income, while increasing,
is not growing at the same rate.
The growth from 2002 to 2003
was less than 1%. Thus, the
amount of a family’s income
required to secure housing is
increasing.
This
is
demonstrated in ratios reflected
in the table at left and the graph
at the top of the next page.

Page 9

Maricopa County Ratio of Median Home
Value to Mean Family Income
2.40

.

2.32

2.30

2.23

2.20

2.11

2.10

2.04

2.00
1.90
1.80

2000

2001

2002

2003

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2000 through 2003

Comparison Median Home Value to
Mean Family Income in 2003
While Maricopa County’s ratio
continues to increase, it is still
very favorable as compared to
other benchmark communities.
Only Harris County, Texas has
a smaller ratio when comparing
the median home value to the
average family income, as
illustrated to the right and below

2003 Median Home 2003 Mean Family
Value
Income

County

Ratio Median Home
Value to Mean
Family Income

Harris

$ 111,677

$ 68,145

1.64

Maricopa

$ 156,623

$ 67,624

2.32

Salt Lake

$ 167,739

$ 71,213

2.36

Clark

$ 168,145

$ 64,513

2.61

Multnomah

$ 182,075

$ 64,727

2.81

King

$ 288,517

$ 88,655

3.25

LA

$ 323,066

$ 69,397

4.66

Orange

$ 418,712

$ 85,143

4.92

San Diego

$ 385,798

$ 72,063

5.35

Santa Clara

$ 587,034

$ 105,115

5.58

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2000 through 2003

2003 Ratio of Median House Value
to Mean Family Income
6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Harris

Maricopa

Sal t Lake

Cla rk

Multn oma h

King

LA

Orange

Sa n Diego

Santa
Clara

1.64

2.32

2.36

2.61

2.81

3.25

4.66

4.92

5.35

5.58

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2000 through 2003

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 10

Environment
Many factors influence the decision on where people choose to live. In Maricopa
County, issues dealing with air quality and water availability are becoming increasingly
important and may affect choices to locate and stay in the County.

PM-10 Exceedances
Particulate matter is the term for solid or liquid particles found in the air. While some
particles are large and dark enough to be seen, such as soot or smoke, others can only
be seen through an electron microscope. Research has found that PM-10 has the
ability to reach the lower regions of the respiratory tract. PM-10 affects the respiratory
system in people and animals. Particulates that have high acid levels can cause
damage to man-made materials
Maricopa County
and reduce visibility, according
to
the
Maricopa
County
PM-10 Exceedances
(Days per year where at least one site exceeded the 24-hour standard of 150 ug/m3)
Environmental
Services
Department
2003
Network 10
9
Report.
8
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

6
Maricopa County has been
found to have serious non4
attainment
of
air
quality
2
standards related to PM-10 as
required by the 1990 Clean Air
Act. As a result of that finding,
the County’s Environmental
Services
Department
is
2000
2001
2002
2003
increasing
its
enforcement
efforts to achieve compliance.
They are increasing the number of inspections as well as improving the quality of
inspections as they relate to earthmoving and vacant lots. PM-10 levels are monitored
at 15 sites throughout the county. The chart above illustrates the days per year that at
least one monitor exceeded the 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter
(ug/m3).
Source: Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services

Ozone Exceedances
Ozone is a colorless gas that can be found in the air we breathe. Ozone exists naturally
in the Earth's upper atmosphere, known as the stratosphere, where it shields the Earth
from the sun's ultraviolet rays. However, ozone is also found close to the Earth's
surface. This ground-level ozone is a harmful air pollutant. Ozone is primarily a
summertime air pollution problem in Phoenix (May through September). Ground-level
ozone is formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight.
Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 11

Sources of VOCs and oxides of nitrogen include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

automobiles, trucks, and buses
large industry and combustion sources such as utilities
small industry such as gasoline dispensing facilities and print shops
consumer products such as paints and cleaners
off-road engines such as aircraft, locomotives, construction equipment, and lawn
and garden equipment
Ozone concentrations can reach unhealthy levels when the weather is hot and
sunny with relatively light winds.

Ozone is to your lungs what the sun is to your skin. Repeated exposure to unhealthful
levels of ground-level ozone will stiffen lung tissue much like repeated sunburn will lead
to leathery, wrinkled skin.
•
•
•

Ozone is a severe irritant that can cause choking, coughing and stinging eyes.
Ozone damages lung tissue, aggravates respiratory disease and makes people
more susceptible to respiratory infections.
While anyone who is
Maricopa County
active or works outdoors
Ozone Exceedances
is affected by unhealthful
(Days per year where at least one site exceeded the 8 hour standard of .085 ppm)
ozone levels, children
20
and the elderly are 22
20
17
especially vulnerable to
18
its harmful effects.
14
16

Ozone levels are tracked
throughout the County at 18
sites.
The graph at right
highlights the number of days
at least one of the sites
exceeded the 8-hour standard
of .085 parts per million (ppm).

12

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2000

2001

2002

2003

Source: Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services

Water Availability
There has been much discussion and planning at the State level regarding the on-going drought
and long-term water availability in Arizona. In the spring of 2003, Governor Napolitano ordered
the creation of a drought plan to address the issues faced by the State. The plan contains

three sets of guidelines for: state government, local government and utilities, and
individuals. The guidelines call for planning, increased awareness and conservation at
all levels.

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 12

The County is not directly charged with addressing the issue of water availability.
However, the issue impacts its citizens, and as such, the County has a role in insuring a
plan is in place to address the concerns. The County’s participation in a solution will
contribute to the long-term viability of the community.
Statistics on water availability could not be located. We hope that in future reports
statistics will be available which allow for the monitoring of the progress of the drought
plan and water availability.

Open Space
While growth is desirable, it is necessary to balance development with the preservation
of open space to provide recreational and leisure environments.

Maricopa County is comprised of incorporated and unincorporated areas, each of which
is responsible for zoning. For the unincorporated areas, Maricopa County’s Planning
and Development Department is responsible for the planning and zoning of property.
Developers submit plans which include the amount of space they will dedicate as open
space. In addition to the dedicated space in sub-divisions, Maricopa County’s
unincorporated areas have
2,404,550 acres of open space.
Open Space in Maricopa County
This includes parks, wilderness
2,404,550 Acres
areas and national forests.
(Unincorporated Areas)
Sonoran Desert
Barry M.
The graph to the left illustrates
Ntional
Goldwater
Monument
the areas preserved as open
Gunnery Range
496,000 acres
819,000 acres
(20.6%)
space. This represents 48.3%
(34.1%)
of the 7,781 square miles of
unincorporated
area
in
Maricopa County. It should be
Tonto National
noted that this measure is
Forest
489,250 acres
solely for the unincorporated
(20.3%)
Maricopa
areas. Please note that cities
County Regional
Parks 120,000
and towns in Maricopa County
acres (5.0%)
BLM Wilderness
have additional areas that are
Areas 480,300
acres (20.0%)
preserved as open space.
Source: Maricopa County Planning and Development Department

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 13

Health
The benefits of a healthy community are varied and numerous. It results in a productive
workforce. Additionally, if people are in good health, there is less drain on the limited
resources in the healthcare system, allowing critical issues to be addressed.

Infant Mortality Rate
Changes to the infant mortality
rate can be an indication of an
issue
developing
in
the
community. Being aware of
such a change will allow the
health care system, at both the
public and private levels, to
develop
the
appropriate
response to address the
problem.

Infant Mortality Rate
(Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births)

7.5
6.9

7

7.0

6.7 6.8

6.5
6.5

6.4

6.3

6
5.5
5

Maricopa
County’s
Infant 4.5
Mortality
rate
has
been
4
consistently less than the
2000
2001
Maricopa County
national average. The chart at
Source: Maricopa County Department of Public Health
right illustrates the trend of
deaths per 1,000 live births since 2000.

2002
2003
National Average

Immunization Rate For Children
From 0 to 24 Months of Age
Many childhood diseases can be prevented and on-going good health can be achieved
by insuring that children receive the proper immunizations. The effects of receiving the
immunizations are felt throughout a community, from the school system, to the work
environment, as well as home life.
By age 2, children should have the following immunizations:
•
•
•
•
•

4+ doses DTP
3+ doses poliovirus
1+ doses MCV
3+ doses Hib
3+ doses HepB

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 14

Maricopa County’s record of
immunizing its children is less
than the national average. The
graph at left reflects the past
four years of Maricopa County’s
performance as compared to
the national average.

Immunization Rate
(for Children at 24 months old)
80.0%
74.2%

75.0%

72.4% 72.9%
71.0%

70.7%

68.6%

70.0%
66.0%

65.0%

62.5%

60.0%
55.0%
50.0%

2000

2001
Maricopa County

2002
2003
National Average

Source: Maricopa County Department of Public Health

Rate of Deaths Before Age 75
Similar to the tracking of the
infant mortality rate, tracking
the rate of deaths before age
75 can point to concerns in the
healthcare delivery system or
environment.
Understanding
that there are problems is the
first step in developing a
solution.

Mortality Rate
Residents Under Age 75
(Deaths per 100,000 residents)

400

393.4

390.0

380
360
342.3
335.4

340

Maricopa County’s death rate
for individuals under age 75 has
been consistently less than the
national average. The chart at
right illustrates the trend of
deaths per 100,000 residents
since 2000.

391.1

329.7
322.6

320
300
2000

2001
Maricopa County

2002

2003

National Average

Source: Maricopa County Department of Public Health

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 15

Public Safety
Citizens consider their safety as one of the most significant factors affecting their quality
of life and where they choose to live and work.

Violent Crime Rate Per 100,000 Population
Annually, the FBI publishes
crime statistics for communities
across the United States. The
2003 statistics for the entire
Maricopa County metropolitan
area are not yet available.
However,
based
on
the
preliminary data, the violent
crime rate would be decreasing
from 2002.
Violent crimes
include murder, rape, robbery
and assault. The graphs to the
right and below show the trend
over the past 4 years as well as
how
Maricopa
County
compared to others in 2002.

Maricopa County
Violent Crime Rate
(Violent Crime per 100,000 population)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0

2000

2001

2002

2003*
*

560.4

566.5

572.1

546.3

Estimated

Source: GPEC/FBI "Crime in the United States 2002

Comparison of 2002 Violent Crime Rates
(Rate per 100,000 Residents)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Orange

Salt Lake

King

Santa
Clara

278.1

302.8

353.3

357.3

Multnomah San Diego Maricopa
372.3

480.9

572.1

Clark

Harris

LA

678.9

814.2

902.4

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2002

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 16

Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Population
In contrast to the trend of
violent crimes, property crimes
have increased at an alarming
rate in Maricopa County. This
category of crimes includes
burglary, larceny, arson and
auto theft. As with the violent
crime statistics, 2003 data is not
yet completed. However, the
initial data reflects a rate close
to the 2002 rates. The charts to
the right and below illustrate the
trend and comparison to other
counties.

Maricopa County Property Crime Rate
(Property Crimes per 100,000 population)

6,500

6,274.6

6,200
5,860.3
5,900

5,644.8

5,600
5,300
5,000
2000

2001

Source: GPEC/FBI "Crime in the United States 2002

Comparison of 2002 Property Crime Rates
(Rate per 100,000 Residents)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

6,258.3

Santa Clara

Orange

LA

San Diego

Clark

Harris

Multnomah

King

Salt Lake

Maricopa

2288

2510

3096

3131

4132

4691

4723

4866

5080

6275

2002

2003*
Estimated

The County continues to work
with other local governments to
develop strategies to address
the high property crime rate,
which includes auto theft, where
Maricopa County leads the
nation with a rate of 1,320 auto
thefts per 100,000 population.
In FY2004-05, the Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office received
funding for 42 additional patrol
positions. This new staff should
have a positive impact on the
property crime rate.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report 2002

Emergency Response Rate
Response times measure the speed which emergency personnel are able to respond
when called. People want assurance that they will receive the help they need, when
they need it. A timely response to emergencies contributes to the citizens’ sense of
safety and security in their community.
Currently, no central area collects emergency response time information for all
jurisdictions and agencies in the County. The Maricopa County Sheriff tracks a metric
which measures the percentage of Priority 1 calls responded to within acceptable
standards. In FY03, the Sheriff’s office reported that they achieved the standard of 5
minutes on 26% of the calls. For FY04, the 5-minute standard was achieved on 32% of
the calls. With the addition of 42 patrol positions, this rate should improve in the coming
years.
Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 17

Percent of Cases Resolved Within
Established Time Standards
The Court has established the following standards regarding case resolution as noted
below:
Criminal:
Civil:
Family:
Juvenile Dependency:
Juvenile Delinquency:

99% of criminal cases resolved within 180 days
95% of civil cases resolved within 18 months
99% of cases (pre-decree) resolved within 12 months
95% of cases (pre-finding) resolved within 90 days
95% of cases resolved within 90 days

Maricopa County Percent of Cases
Processed within Timeframes by Case Type
Case Type

FY 2000

FY 2001

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

Criminal

81.00%

78.00%

83.00%

86.00%

83.30%

NA

87.00%

86.00%

95.00%

93.90%

87.00%

85.00%

85.00%

85.50%

85.20%

Juvenile
Dependency

NA

NA

NA

88.40%

88.10%

Juvenile
Delinquency

NA

NA

NA

87.50%

85.20%

Civil
Family

The Courts have established
high expectations with case
processing
time
frames.
Therefore, there is very little
margin for error. The chart to
the left and the one below
depict the Court’s performance
over the past five years.

Source: Maricopa County Superior Court

Maricopa County Percent of Court
Cases Processed Within Timeframes
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Criminal

2000

Civil

Family

2001

2002

Juvenile
Juvenile
Dependency Delinquency

2003

2004

Source: Maricopa County Superior Court

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 18

Transportation
The ability for citizens, their families and friends, their employers/business associates,
and others, such as tourists and businesses, to access and move about in Maricopa
County is a major contributor to the livability of the area. The County has direct
responsibility for some of the local transportation system, such as the roadways in
unincorporated areas. It also is a key player in regional transportation planning which
affects all who live and work in Maricopa County.

Percent of Workers
Using Alternative
Modes of Travel
The availability and use of
alternative modes of travel can
impact a variety of measures,
such
as
commute
time,
congestion
and
accident
statistics.
It also influences
other quality of life measures
such as ozone levels.

Maricopa County
Use of Alternative Transportation
(Percent of workers using alternative modes of transportation)
23.00%

22.13%

22.00%
21.00%
19.66%
20. 00%

18.94%
18.47%

19. 00%
18.00%
17.00%
16.00%
2000

2001

2002

2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2000 through 2003

Use of alternative modes of
travel in Maricopa County had
been decreasing as illustrated in the chart above. However, there is a slight increase in
2003 as noted in the graph
Comparison of Alternative
above. It will be interesting to
Transportation Use in 2003
track this measure in future
(Percent of workers using alternative modes of transportation)
years as gas prices continue to
35.00%
rise.
30.00%

As compared to other counties,
Maricopa County is about
average with respect to the
percent of its workforce that
uses alternative transportation
as noted in the graph to the left.

25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%

Multnomah

King

LA

Salt Lake

Clark

Maricopa

30.14%
27.78%
23.14%
22.14%
19.07%
18.94%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2003

Harris

San Diego

Orange

Santa Clara

18.20%

17.53%

16.65%

16.22%

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 19

Average Commute Times
As
Maricopa
County’s
population grows, so does the
commute
time.
The
development of areas in all
directions of the County also
can contribute to the rise in this
measure. In 2003, the time
increased as depicted in the
chart at the right.

Maricopa County Average
Commute Time
(In Minutes)

25.2

25.0

25.0
24.7

24.8
24.6
24.3

24.4

24.2

24.2

Maricopa County’s commute
times rank in the middle of the
benchmark counties, with Los
Angeles being the most time
consuming at 28.7 minutes.
The chart to the right illustrates
the various commute times.

24.0
23.8
23.6
2000

2001

2002

2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2000 through 2003

Comparison of Commute Times
in 2003
(in minutes)

Percent of Major
Intersections With
Traffic Congestion

30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0

In 2000, the total percent of
20.0
congested principal arterial
18.0
intersections
was
18.18%
according to the Maricopa
Association of Government
(MAG) Regional Transportation
Plan. More recent statistics for all of Maricopa County were not available.
Salt Lake

Clark

Multnomah

Santa
Clara

Maricopa

King

Orange

San Diego

Harris

LA

19.6

22.7

23

23.4

24.7

25.4

25.6

25.9

27

28.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2003

On the November 2, 2004 ballot, Maricopa County citizens will be presented with
Proposition 400. This initiative, to be decided by the voters, calls for a 20 year
extension of the half-cent transportation sales tax in Maricopa County which is due to
expire in 2005. This tax was first approved in 1985 to fund freeway construction. It is
estimated that the tax would result in $9 billion of funding between 2005 and 2025 for
the regional transportation plan crafted by the Maricopa Association of Governments.
The plan calls for new and upgraded freeways, new arterial streets, additional buses
and bus routes, as well as a continuation of the light rail project, all of which will help
alleviate traffic issues due to ongoing population growth

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 20

Accident Rate Per Intersection/Roadway
Crash rates provide an indicator of problem locations and are utilized to increase the
safety of the County’s roadways. The overall County crash rate measures the number
of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per mile of County owned roadway,
per year.
As noted in the charts below, the overall crash rate is declining even as the number of
vehicle miles increases.

Maricopa County Crash Rate
Factors

1998

1999

2000

2001

Miles of County Owned Roads that
have Traffic Counts

1,592

1,729

1,719

1,690

Total County Road Miles

2,822

2,768

2,719

2,680

2,885,592

3,453,031

25,58,490

3,818,639

VMT/Mile/Day

1,812

1,997

2,070

2,260

Crashes

3085

3188

2985

2341

% of the Network Counted

55.2%

62.4%

63.4%

63.1%

1.65

1.58

1.45

1.06

VMT/Day

Crash Rate

Source: 2003 Safety Management System Report, Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Maricopa County Crash Rate
(Per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled)
1.7

1.65
1.58

1.6
1.45

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2

1.06

1.1
1.0
1998

1999

2000

2001

Source: 2003 Safety Management System Report, Maricopa County Department of Transportation

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 21

Education & Recreation
A quality education system is conducive to the development of an informed and
productive population. Communities where citizens have areas to relax and enjoy the
environment improve their overall livability.

Student/Teacher Ratio
The ratio of students to teacher
has decreased slightly over the
past two years as reflected in
the chart to the right. A lower
student teacher ratio allows for
more attention per student.
The information provided is only
for public schools in Maricopa
County.
It does not reflect
information from private or
charter schools in the county.

Maricopa County
Student/Teacher Ratio
15.94

16.00
15.90
15.80

15.64

15.70
15.60
15.50
15.40

2003

2004

Data Source: Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools

AIMS Scores
Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), a Standards-Based test, provides
educators and the public with valuable information regarding the progress of Arizona's
students toward mastering Arizona's reading, writing and mathematics standards. AIMS
tests are administered each year to students in grades 3,5,8,10,11 and 12 in Arizona’s
schools.
Each grade level has specific criteria for each discipline defining the four levels of
achievement:
• Exceeds Standards
• Meets Standards
• Approaches Standards
• Falls Far Below the Standards

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 22

Meeting
or
exceeding
standards will be a graduation
2004 AIMS Results
requirement beginning with the
(Percent of Students who Met or Exceeded Standards)
class of 2006. Students will
100%
have five opportunities between
Grades 10-12 to achieve this
50%
standard.
Tests are initially
administered in the spring of
sophomore year. Students who
0%
3rd
5th
8th
10th
11th
do not at least meet the
12 Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
standards are required to
66%
49%
28%
45%
22%
13%
Math
retake the test in their junior
74%
54%
52%
63%
37%
26%
Reading
year.
They are given 2
Writing
81%
63%
58%
66%
44%
39%
opportunities during that year to Source:
Arizona Department of Education
meet the standards.
Those
who do not meet the standard
in 11th grade will need to retake
the tests during their senior year. Again, there will be two opportunities to pass the test.
Each time the test is administered in 11th and 12th grade, the pool of students taking the
test gets smaller. The likelihood of success appears to diminish after each test
administration since those that remain are in the “Falls Far Behind” and “Approaches
Standards” categories. The chart at the above depicts the results of the most recent
tests, administered in 2004.

Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have
Completed High School/Earned a Bachelor’s Degree
An educated and informed
population provides valuable
contributions to a community.
They are responsible citizens
who
are
productive
and
participate in bettering their
surroundings, resulting in an
improved quality of life.

Education Attainment of
Population Over Age 25
LA

5.96

27.9

Harris

5.91

27.3

Clark

5.5

Orange

7.54

San Diego

7.74

Maricopa

7.85

73.9
77.0

18.4

80.5
33.5
32.1
27.5

82.1
84.7
84.8

44.1
8.01
87.0
The percent of Maricopa Santa Clara
33.9
6.15
Multnomah
87.1
County residents over twenty27.2
9.05
Salt Lake
89.1
five that have completed high
42.2
7.71
King
92.1
school, including equivalency,
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of Popluation Over Age 25 Attaining:
is 84.8% per the most recent
High School Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree
available data from 2003.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2003
th
Maricopa County has the 5
highest completion percentage as compared to the benchmark counties. The percent of
residents with an Associate’s Degree is the third highest of the benchmark counties at
7.85%. The percent of Maricopa County residents who have completed a Bachelor’s
Degree is 27.5%, or 7th in relation to the other nine counties. The chart to the right
contains the benchmark data for both measures.

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 23

Total Miles of Recreation Trails Per Population
The availability of recreation opportunities contributes to the quality of life of the citizens.
Maricopa County continues to expand its trail system. The Parks and Recreation
Department has developed a Trails master plan, which would circle the County upon
completion. The accompanying charts illustrate the type of trails currently in place and
the increase in the miles of trails over the past two fiscal years.

Maricopa County Recreation Trails
Barrier Free
Trails
3.6 miles (2.1%)
Competitive
T racks
36.7 miles (21.4%)
Designated MultiUse Trails 131
Miles (76.5%)

The information is specifically
about
trails
owned
and
maintained by Maricopa County
through
its
Parks
and
Recreation Department. Other
jurisdictions located in Maricopa
County also have trails, but are
not included in the statistics.

Source: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department

Maricopa County Miles of
Recreation Trails
125
100
75
50
25
0

2003
2004

Barrier Free Trails

Designated Multi-Use
Trails

Competitive Tracks

3.2
3.6

127.7
131.0

34.7
36.7

Source: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 24

Citizen Satisfaction
A key component in Maricopa County’s Managing for Results initiative is evaluating
results. Understanding how our performance is viewed by our customers is paramount
to process improvement. County leadership’s decision-making abilities are enhanced
by having this feedback available. Using this information, results-oriented resource
allocation is possible. The retooling of processes to better meet the needs of the
citizens is also a potential outcome of having this data.
Maricopa County has long understood the importance of gathering this information.
Since 2000, the County has conducted an annual Citizen Satisfaction Survey to get
feedback from its customers on how it is performing

Quality Rating of Services Delivered
Citizens want and deserve quality services from government for their tax dollars. The
Citizen Satisfaction Survey is
Maricopa County
the tool used by the County to
assess how its customers
Citizen Quality Rating
perceive the quality of service
delivered
by
County 100%
departments. By gathering and
80%
analyzing this data, the County
89%
91%
is able to improve the quality of 60%
service delivery.
40%

The Citizen Satisfaction Survey 20%
asks, “In general, how would
0%
you rate the job that Maricopa
FY03
FY04
County is doing? Would you
Maricopa County is doing a Fair or Better Job
say it is excellent, good, fair,
poor or very poor?”
An
overwhelming majority of individuals surveyed in both FY03 and FY04 believe Maricopa
County is doing a fair or better job.
Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03 and FY04

Responsiveness to Citizens
The County recognizes the importance of delivering services in a timely manner. To be
effective, services should be available when they are needed or requested. The ability
to meet this demand is a key component of service delivery.
As part of the annual Citizen Satisfaction Survey, the County measures the citizens’
perception of the County’s responsiveness to its needs through the following question:

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 25

Maricopa County
Citizen Responsiveness Rating
100%
80%
60%

73%

73%

FY03

FY04

40%

“What
about
the
responsiveness
of
County
government, would you say it is
excellent, good, fair, poor or
very poor?” For each of the
past two fiscal years, 73% of
the citizens have indicated the
County has done a fair or better
job.

20%
0%
Maricopa County's Responsiveness is Fair or Better
Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03 and FY04

Percent of Satisfied Citizens
Insuring that its customers are
satisfied is a major focus for
Maricopa County. A number of
surveys are conducted each
year to judge how customers
feel about the services they
receive from Maricopa County.
The County utilizes the results
of the survey to enhance its
services to meet the needs of
its customers.

Maricopa County
Citizen Satisfaction Rating
100%
80%

75%

77%

76%

81%

83%

60%
40%
20%

The County’s annual Citizen
Satisfaction Survey asks “How
0%
FY00
FY01
FY02
satisfied are you with Maricopa
County government?”
The
satisfaction rating has increased each of the past two fiscal years.

FY03

FY04

Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03 and FY04

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 26

Summary of Community Indicators
Community Indicator

2002

2003

2004

Moody’s Bond Rating

Aa3

Aa3

Unavailable

Fitch Bond Rating

AA

AA+

Unavailable

Overall Property Tax Rate

$1.54

$1.54

$1.54

Primary Tax Rate

$1.18

$1.21

$1.21

Unemployment Rate

5.6%

4.9%

4.2%

Per Capita Income

$29,020

Unavailable

Unavailable

Median Home Value

$149,807

$156,623

Unavailable

☺

Mean Family Income

$67,137

$67,624

Unavailable

☺

2.23

2.32

Unavailable

PM-10 Exceedances-Days

2

4

Unavailable

Ozone Exceedances-Days

17

14

Unavailable

Open Space- Acres

2,404,550

2,404,550

2,404,550

Infant Mortality Rate

6.4

6.3

Unavailable

Immunization Rate

72.4%

68.6%

Unavailable

Mortality Rate before age 75

329.7

322.6

Unavailable

☺

Violent Crime Rate

572.1

546.3

Unavailable

☺

Property Crime Rate

6274.6

6258.3

Unavailable

☺

Case Processing Rate: Criminal

83%

86%

83.3%

Case Processing Rate: Civil

86%

95%

93.9%

Case Processing Rate: Family

85%

85.5%

85.2%

Case Processing Rate: Juvenile Dependency

Unavailable

88.4%

88.1%

Case Processing Rate: Juvenile Delinquency

Unavailable

87.5%

85.2%

18.47%

18.94%

Unavailable

24.2

24.7

Unavailable

Unavailable

15.94:1

15.64:1

☺

% Population >25 High School Graduate

83.5%

84.8%

Unavailable

☺

% Population >25 Bachelors Degree

26.3%

27.5%

Unavailable

☺

Unavailable

165.6

171.3

☺

Citizen Satisfaction with Quality of Service

88%

89%

91%

☺

Citizen Satisfaction with Responsiveness

73%

73%

73%

Citizen Satisfaction with Maricopa County

76%

81%

83%

Home Value to Income Ratio

% Use of Alternate Transportation
Commute Time - Minutes
Student/Teacher Ratio

Miles of Trails

Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Progress

☺

☺

☺
☺

☺

☺

Page 27

Office of Management and Budget
301 W Jefferson St, Ste 1070
Phoenix AZ 85003-2143
Phone (602) 506-7280
Fax (602) 506-3063
www.maricopa.gov/budget
Maricopa County 2004 Annual Report of Community Indicators

Page 28