Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Publication Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review January 2003 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Chairperson RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor CARROL de BROEKERT Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director RON CHRISTENSEN Gila County Board of Supervisors CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff BILL FITZGERALD Yavapai County Adult Probation Officer DENNIS GARRETT Department of Public Safety Director TERRY GODDARD Attorney General BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney RICHARD M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Attorney CHARLES L. RYAN Department of Corrections Acting Director CHRISTOPHER SKELLY Judge, Retired RICHARD YOST City of El Mirage Police Chief MICHAEL D. BRANHAM Executive Director JOHN BLACKBURN, JR. Program Manager STEVE BALLANCE Statistical Analysis Center Director DON THOMAS Senior Research Analyst JACKIE MINERO Research Analyst TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 11 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 13 RESEARCH PURPOSE......................................................................................... 15 RESEARCH METHODS........................................................................................ 15 POPULATION.................................................................................................... 17 NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY ....................................................... 19 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT O F PUBLIC SAFETY ....................................................... 21 NIBRS ............................................................................................................. 22 PART I CRIMES.................................................................................................. 23 CRIME DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................... 23 Crime Index ................................................................................................... 27 Violent Crime ................................................................................................ 28 Murder ..................................................................................................... 30 Forcible Rape ............................................................................................. 32 Robbery .................................................................................................... 34 Aggravated Assault ...................................................................................... 36 Property Crime .............................................................................................. 38 Burglary .................................................................................................... 41 Larceny-Theft............................................................................................. 43 Motor Vehicle Theft ..................................................................................... 45 PART II CRIMES................................................................................................. 48 PROSECUTION.................................................................................................. 51 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ........................................................ 53 COURT SERVICES DIVISION................................................................................. 53 Superior Court ................................................................................................ 53 Justice Court .................................................................................................. 56 Municipal Court ............................................................................................... 57 ADULT SERVICES DIVISION ................................................................................. 59 Adult Standard Probation................................................................................... 59 Adult Intensive Probation .................................................................................. 60 JUVENILE JUSTICE SERVICES DIVISION.................................................................. 62 Referrals ........................................................................................................ 63 Petitions ....................................................................................................... 65 Juveniles in Standard and Intensive Probation ........................................................ 67 Juveniles Direct Filed In and Transferred to Adult Court............................................ 68 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS ......................................... 72 GENDER .......................................................................................................... 73 RACE/ETHNICITY .............................................................................................. 73 AGE ................................................................................................................ 74 MOST SERIOUS COMMITTING OFFENSE ................................................................. 75 TOTAL NUMBER OF JUVENILES IN CUSTODY ........................................................... 76 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ....................................................................... 78 PRISON POPULATION GROWTH TREND.................................................................. 79 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 1 INCARCERATION RATE TREND.............................................................................. 82 PRISON ADMISSIONS, RELEASES, AND TIME SERVED................................................ 83 PRISON POPULATION FORECASTING ..................................................................... 85 OFFENDERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION....................................................... 85 STAFFING AND EXPENDITURES............................................................................. 86 INMATE POPULATION PROFILE............................................................................. 89 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 94 POPULATION .................................................................................................... 94 CRIME............................................................................................................. 94 VICTIMIZATION................................................................................................. 95 ARREST ........................................................................................................... 95 COURTS........................................................................................................... 95 PROBATION...................................................................................................... 96 CORRECTIONS .................................................................................................. 96 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................102 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2 TABLES AND FIGURES POPULATION TABLE 1: POPULATION...................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 1: CHANGE IN POPULATION.................................................................. 18 CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION TABLE 2: RATE OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION PER 100,000................................ 19 TABLE 3: VICTIM OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP FOR VIOLENT CRIME...................... 20 TABLE 4: VIOLENT CRIMES REPORTED TO POLICE BY GENDER AND RACE............ 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FIGURE 2: CRIME INDEX OFFENSES(NATIONAL) ................................................ 23 FIGURE 3: CRIME INDEX OFFENSES(ARIZONA) .................................................. 24 FIGURE 4: VIOLENT AND PROPERTY CRIMES IN 2001 ........................................ 25 TABLE 5: NATIONAL CRIME INDEX (RATES) ....................................................... 25 TABLE 6: NATIONAL PART I CRIMES .................................................................. 26 TABLE 7: ARIZONA CRIME RANKINGS 1991 AND 2001........................................ 27 TABLE 8: ARIZONA PART I CRIMES 2000-2001................................................... 28 TABLE 9: VIOLENT CRIME RATE PER 100,000 ..................................................... 28 FIGURE 5: VIOLENT CRIME RATE 1991-2001...................................................... 29 TABLE 10: MURDER RATE.................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 6: MURDER RATE 1991-2001................................................................. 31 TABLE 11: MURDER PERCENT CHANGE IN ARREST ............................................. 31 TABLE 12: FORCIBLE RAPE RATE PER 100,000.................................................... 32 FIGURE 7: FORCIBLE RAPE RATE 1991-2001 ...................................................... 33 TABLE 13: FORCIBLE RAPE PERCENT CHANGE IN ARREST................................... 33 TABLE 14: ROBBERY RATE PER 100,000 ............................................................. 34 FIGURE 8: ROBBERY RATE 1991-2001 ............................................................... 35 TABLE 15: ROBBERY PERCENT CHANGE IN ARREST............................................ 35 TABLE 16: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT RATE PER 100,000......................................... 36 FIGURE 9: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT RATE 1991-2001........................................... 37 TABLE 17: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT PERCENT CHANGE IN ARREST........................ 37 TABLE 18: PROPERTY CRIME RATE PER 100,000................................................. 38 FIGURE 10: PROPERTY CRIME RATE 1991-2001................................................. 39 FIGURE 11: PROPERT CRIME ARREST RATE ....................................................... 40 TABLE 19: BURBLARY RATE PER 100,000 ........................................................... 41 FIGURE 12: BURGLARY RATE 1991-2001 ........................................................... 42 TABLE 20: BURGLARY PERCENT CHANGE IN ARREST.......................................... 42 TABLE 21: LARCENY -THEFT RATE PER 100,000................................................... 43 FIGURE 13: LARCENY -THEFT RATE 1991-2001 ................................................... 44 TABLE 22: LARCENY -THEFT CHANGE PERCENT CHANGE IN ARREST .................... 44 TABLE 23: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT RATE PER 100,000 ........................................ 45 FIGURE 14: ARIZONA PART I CRIME PERCENT INCREASE/DECREASE 1991-2001. 46 FIGURE 15: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT RATE 1991-2001......................................... 47 TABLE 24: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT PERCENT CHANGE IN ARREST ....................... 47 FIGURE 16: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT ARREST RATE ............................................ 48 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 3 PART II CRIMES TABLE 25: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE...................................................... 49 TABLE 26: DRUG SALES/MANUFACTURE ............................................................ 49 TABLE 27: DRUG USE AND POSSESSION............................................................. 49 TABLE 28: DANGEROUS NON-NARCOTIC DRUG SALES/MANUFACUTURE ............. 50 TABLE 29: DANGEROUS DRUG USE AND POSSESSION......................................... 50 PROSECUTION TABLE 30: ARIZONA COUNTY ATTORNEY FILINGS .............................................. 52 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS TABLE 31: 2001 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL ................................................ 53 TABLE 32: 2001 SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY ............................ 54 TABLE 33: SUPERIOR COURT FILINGS BY YEAR AND COUNTY ............................. 55 TABLE 34: SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS 1991-2001 ..................... 55 TABLE 35: FILINGS IN SUPERIOR COURT 2000/2001 ......................................... 56 TABLE 36: 2001 JUSTICE CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY ........................................... 56 TABLE 37: JUSTICE COURT FILINGS BY YEAR AND TYPE ..................................... 57 TABLE 38: 2001 MUNICIPAL CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY ...................................... 57 TABLE 39: MUNICIPAL COURT NON-TRAFFIC CRIMINAL FILINGS BY YEAR .......... 58 TABLE 40: PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR...... 61 TABLE 41: PROBATIONERS ADDED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ............................ 61 TABLE 42: COMMUNITY WORKED SERVICE HOURS COMPLETED.......................... 61 TABLE 43: PROBATIONERS REVOKED TO DOC .................................................... 61 TABLE 44: JUVENILES REFERRED....................................................................... 64 TABLE 45: MOST SERIOUS OFFENSES................................................................. 65 TABLE 46: JUVENILES PETITIONED BY COUNTY ................................................. 66 TABLE 47: JUVENILES PETITIONED BY OFFENSE ................................................ 67 TABLE 48: PROBATIONERS ON STANDARD AND JIPS DURING FISCAL YEAR ........ 68 TABLE 49: DIRECT FILED .................................................................................. 69 TABLE 50: TRANSFERRED.................................................................................. 70 TABLE 51: JUVENILE TO ADULT COURT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 70 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS TABLE 52: COMMITMENTS BY GENDER .............................................................. 73 TABLE 53: COMMITMENTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY................................................. 73 TABLE 54: COMMITMENTS BY AGE..................................................................... 74 TABLE 55: COMMITMENTS BY COUNTY .............................................................. 75 TABLE 56: COMMITMENTS BY OFFENSE ............................................................. 76 TABLE 57: JUVENILE CORRECTIONS POPULATION 1997-2001............................. 76 TABLE 58: TOTAL NUMBER OF JUVENILES ON PAROLE........................................ 77 TABLE 59: LOCATION OF COMMITTED POPULATION ........................................... 78 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TABLE 60: GENDER/SENTENCY TYPE OF COMMITTED POPULATION..................... 78 FIGURE 17: ENDING ADULT COMMITTED POPULATION 1991-2001...................... 79 FIGURE 18: PERCENTAGE OF PRISON POPULATION GROWTH ............................. 80 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 4 FIGURE 19: PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1991-2001 ..................................... 81 FIGURE 20: ARIZONA INCARCERATION RATE 1991-2001.................................... 82 FIGURE 21: INCARCERATION RATE COMPARISON.............................................. 83 FIGURE 22: ADULT PRISON ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES ................................... 84 FIGURE 23: AVERAGE TIME SERVED FOR PRISON RELEASES............................... 85 FIGURE 24: OFFENDERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 1991-2001 ............. 86 FIGURE 25: ADC FULL TIME EQUILIVENT POSITIONS 1991-2001 ........................ 87 FIGURE 26: ADC AGENCY EXPENDITURES 1991-2001......................................... 88 FIGURE 27: ADC COST PER INMATE DAY ............................................................ 89 FIGURE 28: SENTENCING COUNTY OF COMMITTED ADULTS ................................ 90 FIGURE 29: RACE/ETHNICITY OF COMMITTED ADULTS ...................................... 91 FIGURE 30: OFFENSE CATEGORY OF COMMITTED ADULTS 1991-2001 ................. 92 FIGURE 31: AGE OF COMMITTED ADULTS 1991-2001.......................................... 93 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank the law enforcement, prosecution, probation, correctional agencies and court services who contributed to this report. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Lynn Allmann, Department of Public Safety Bobbie Chinsky, Arizona Supreme Court Elizabeth Eells, Ph.D., Arizona Supreme Court Daryl Fischer, Ph.D., Department of Corrections Debbie Libenguth, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Mark J. McDermott, Arizona Supreme Court Kathie Putrow, Department of Juvenile Corrections John Vivian, Ph.D. Department of Juvenile Corrections Jack Wilson, Department of Public Safety Theresa Wong, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Arizona faces numerous challenges in the coming year in maintaining established levels of services and addressing the critical needs of the criminal justice system and balancing those against the safety of the public. The difficulties facing the state budget and the decisions associated with a sluggish economy are not unique to Arizona. Arizona has experienced enormous population growth over the past 10 years placing a burden on all levels of government to fund operations to meet this demand. Moreover, the effort to maintain current levels of public safety is further strained by the trend of a growing population at a time when increased security is sought. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 41-2405, the Arizona Crime Trends publication provides the Governor, the criminal justice community and the public with a compilation of crime related data from national sources and criminal justice agencies throughout Arizona. Arizona Crime Trends is intended to provide decision makers with information to assist them in meeting their mandates to the citizens of Arizona. To strengthen the information provided in this report, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) solicited the participation of key criminal justice stakeholders. This collaborative partnership included the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Arizona Supreme Court including Court, Adult and Juvenile Services, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and Arizona Department of Corrections. This partnership is noteworthy because it is a first time attempt to display crime trends information utilizing a broader systemic approach. This publication begins with a brief summary of Arizona population trends over the past ten years. A comparative analysis is provided with national population trends over the same period. The outline of this publication follows the flow of a defendant or case through the criminal justice system. The discussion on crime trends begins with reported crime and arrest information captured through the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) submitted by law enforcement agencies to the Arizona Department of Public Safety. This section presents a comparative 10-year look at reported crime rates in Arizona based upon FBI adjusted data and portrays Arizona’s comparative rankings among the remaining states (not including the District of Columbia). This is followed by a discussion of specific elements of the Uniform Crime Report arrest data regarding demographic information and Part I offenses. Part I offenses consist of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson. Each offense type is defined in detail as it appears in this document. There were two main indicators used in this document in order to compare crime trends. First, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) were used. These data are published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and is the nation’s Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 7 primary source of information on criminal victimization. Secondly, data were used from the Uniform Crime Report, which is reported on a yearly basis to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The UCR crime data were calculated and presented to show Arizona’s relationship nationally. Further, UCR data are an excellent source when looking at crime activity in Arizona over the past 10 years. No matter which indicator one uses, whether the National Crime Victimization Survey or the Uniform Crime Reports, crime was on a decline over the period from 1991 to 2000. Relatively, when looking at these same sources in the most recent year available (2001), one factor remains consistent. For the first time in a decade, there was an increase over the 2000 national crime rate for the majority of UCR Part I crimes. Murder and robbery rates have increased, and all property crimes and rates increased with motor vehicle theft experiencing the largest increase of any Part I category. Arizona currently ranks number one in the nation in overall crime index, property crime and motor vehicle theft. Arizona ranks in the top ten nationally in murder, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft. Arizona’s number one ranking in total crime index can be partly explained by the fact Arizona is ranked number one in property crime and motor vehicle theft. Motor vehicle theft is an important factor in property crime rates and in turn, property crime represents 88 percent of the total national crime index and 90 percent of the total Arizona crime index. Nationally, the motor vehicle theft rate has gradually declined from 1991 (659.0 per 100,000) to 2001 (430.6 per 100,000). This change represents a 33 percent decline over the past 10 years. In contrast, Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate has experienced increases over the past decade. Arizona has moved from the 6th highest rate of motor vehicle theft in 1991 to the number one ranked state in the nation in 2001. These data illustrate a disturbing two year trend in which Arizona is separating itself from national motor vehicle theft rates. This becomes even more apparent when one considers Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate is 40.9 percent higher than second ranked Nevada. Of particular note is the motor vehicle theft arrest rate decreased by 44 percent for individuals under 18, while increasing 119 percent for 18 and older. For UCR reporting purposes, one arrest is counted for each separate occasion in which an individual is taken into custody, notified to appear, or cited for an offense (Crime in the United States 2001). When examining the overall arrest data in Arizona, it is evident arrest rates are down. Despite this fact, the workloads for each of the key criminal justice stakeholders are up. This suggests individuals are being held more accountable for their crimes. Legislation initiated such as Truth-inSentencing and mandatory sentencing may be contributing factors. Other Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 8 contributing factors include increasing penalties for driving under the influence and harsher penalties for drug offenses. When compiling the data for this report, the ACJC Statistical Analysis Center had some difficulty retrieving statistical information, particularly data pertaining to the prosecution of criminals within Arizona. One major contributing factor to the collection limitations is that there is no central agency or organization which tracks prosecution information statewide. There are also substantial differences in the terminology associated with key reporting measures for individual counties. An established reporting format for counties to submit prosecution data on a statewide level is also lacking. Finally, there were limitations presented by several of the county attorney offices in regards to the reporting capabilities of their current case management systems. As a result, reliable comparisons between counties were not possible. It is recommended that future efforts look at standardizing data elements for reporting and analysis purposes. A potential venue for this discussion is the Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (APAAC). There were 60,800 individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation departments at the end of FY2001, up 5.9 percent from FY2000. The number of juveniles on probation was up 2.4 percent to 9,625 at the end of FY2001. Within the past five years, the number of adults and juveniles placed on probation has risen by 32.0 percent and 23.8 percent, respectively. It is also interesting to note during the same period, both adult and juvenile arrests declined. Between FY1996 and FY1998, the first full year of implementation of Proposition 102 enabling legislation, juveniles in adult court increased by 69 percent. From FY1998 to FY2001, there was an overall decline (40 percent) in juveniles in adult court. Between 1996 (663 juveniles) and 2001 (671 juveniles) the number of juveniles in adult court has only increased by eight. Additional research is needed to determine what caused the initial increase and subsequent return to 1996 levels. A definitive analysis would provide decision makers with information to support the current process or recommend changes. Arizona’s criminal justice system will face several challenges in the coming years. The continued population increase over the next few years will not only impact the states’ crime rate, but will also place a greater workload on the criminal justice system. Arizona will have to explore new avenues for implementing more effective and efficient methods of addressing crime. It is also imperative that criminal justice agencies continue to coordinate resources and policy in order to have an effect on crime. Equally important is the need for additional criminal justice research, particularly in the areas of motor vehicle theft, investigating the effects of Proposition 102 and collecting prosecutorial information. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 9 The question of “Why crime rates have fallen so precipitously?” continues to be debated and will be debated even as or after the identified trends abate. No detailed attempt to determine the reasons why the aforementioned trends have evolved is proffered. The more commonly advanced reasons for the decrease in crime include population shifts, a strong economy, prison growth, policing initiatives, gun control policies, and the reduction in crack cocaine usage. If the reasons advanced above are in fact major reasons why the crime rate has fallen, one might wonder what will happen to crime at the local and national level as the economy turns down, demographic changes occur, prisoners are released in unprecedented numbers and the youth population begins to grow again. Decision makers are encouraged to utilize this Arizona Crime Trends report along with other available data when planning for these and other factors which will impact crime in the future. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 10 INTRODUCTION Arizona faces numerous challenges in the coming year in maintaining established levels of services and addressing the critical needs of the criminal justice system. The difficulties facing the state budget and the decisions associated with coping with a sluggish economy are not unique to Arizona. Arizona has experienced enormous population growth over the past 10 years placing a burden on all levels of government to fund operations to meet this demand. Moreover, the effort to maintain current levels of public safety is further strained by the trend of a growing population at a time when increased security is sought. Given the previously stated constraints it is incumbent upon all levels of government to seek opportunities that will “do more with less”. The need has never been greater for all those expending taxpayer dollars to conduct individual reviews in order to analyze current trends, future needs, and to seek areas for improved efficiencies. It is with this intent that a collaboration was formed to conduct a more comprehensive review of the criminal justice system than was provided in prior publications. This publication begins with a brief summary of Arizona population trends over the past 10 years. A comparative analysis is provided with national population trends for the same period. The outline of this paper follows the flow of a defendant or case proceeding through the criminal justice system. Therefore, the discussion on crime trends begins with reported crime and arrest information captured through the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) submitted by law enforcement agencies to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). This section first presents a comparative 10-year look at reported crime rates in Arizona based upon FBI adjusted data and portrays Arizona’s comparative rankings among the remaining states (not including the District of Columbia). This is followed by a discussion of specific elements of the Uniform Crime Report arrest data as it relates to demographic information and Part I offenses. Part I offenses consist of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson. Each offense type is defined in detail as it appears in this document. It is important to note that Arizona has no single agency from which to collect state prosecution information from county attorney offices. As such, information pertaining to the total number of filings for prosecution over the past 10 years was received from the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts. The number of cases filed was reviewed by each of the county attorney agencies within the state and summarized for this report. The Administrative Office of the Court (adult services) provided data for fiscal years 1996 through 2001 pertaining to probation services. The data highlighted specific service areas such as the number of probationers receiving services, number of probationers added during each fiscal year, community work service hours completed and the number of probationers revoked to the Department of Corrections (DOC). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 11 The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Court Services Division provided information on court statistics by fiscal year (July 1, 2000 – June 30, 2001). Information includes Superior, Justice and Municipal criminal case filings. Additional information includes the number of case filings by court level for FY2001, and the total filings by year for the past 10 years. The Department of Corrections (adult corrections) provided snapshot data on their committed population for a single day-June 30, 2002. The data explored commitments by facility, gender, sentence type, sentencing by county, race/ethnicity, age and the committing offense category of inmates. Data were also included regarding the impact of juvenile crime on the criminal justice system. First, the Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts provided data on the total number of juveniles referred for court services, the number of juveniles petitioned, the number of juveniles on probation and the number of juveniles referred or transferred to adult court. Second, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) contributed demographic data including the race, ethnicity and age of the juveniles committed to ADJC services. This section also includes the number of juveniles committed by county, type of offense committed, and a population breakout by secure facility and parole. Each agency provided information regarding their role and in several instances, their perspective of the criminal justice system. These sections provide a summary rather than a complete picture of any one component. Many of the agencies submit annual reports and/or provide statistical information via the World Wide Web. If available, contact information and websites are cited at the end of each section. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 12 BACKGROUND There are two main indicators of crime in the United States. One indicator is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). NCVS is “the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of approximately 50,000 households comprising nearly 100,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole and for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers and other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders” (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm). The second and most common indicator of crime is the Uniform Crime Report data reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. “The FBI's primary objective is to generate a reliable set of crime statistics for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management” (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm). To ensure consistency in reporting, the FBI provides participating law enforcement agencies with a detailed outline to follow when reporting crime. The outline includes specific definitions of the crimes reported. Seven main classifications of crime were chosen to gauge fluctuations in the overall volume and rate of crime. These seven classifications eventually became known as the Crime Index. Generalizations based solely on the data need to consider inherent UCR Program limitations. Limitations include the fact that until passage of Arizona state legislation in 1992 (ARS §41-1750), participation by law enforcement agencies in UCR data collection were voluntary. Moreover, the UCR Program accounts for only reported crimes. In that regard, the National Crime Victimization Survey – one of the largest ongoing household surveys administered by the federal government – estimates that only 50 percent of violent crimes in 2001 were reported to police. In addition, when several crimes occur in a single event, only the most serious is reported for UCR purposes. For example, report of a murder can cause a concurrent robbery to go uncounted. In Arizona, crimes reported to Native American law enforcement agencies are also not reflected in UCR statistics. Because of these and other limitations, the number of UCR offenses reported will always be less than what is actually occurring. Therefore, these portrayals of crime trend data for Arizona are by no means totally comprehensive or complete. A significant indicator and common expression of crime is the Crime Index, which is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in the overall volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. The offenses included are the violent Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 13 crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft. While the Crime Index total is a common measure used in many comparisons, it fails to consider other factors, which are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring such as population density and urbanization. Therefore, a crime rate reflecting the number of crimes per unit of population (per every 100,000 persons) is a better expression. For that reason, Rate is frequently used to make comparisons among population groups in this report. Population size is the only correlation of crime used in this report. Crime in the United States publications list many other factors known to impact crime including: composition of the population, particularly youth concentration; stability of the population; economic conditions; cultural factors; family cohesiveness; and law enforcement strength and effectiveness. While those and other factors are critical in understanding the causes and origins of crime, no attempt is made to relate them to the data presented. By way of illustration, several categories of Arizona crime experienced sharp rate increases in the mid-1990s that were not matched on the national level. A valid assessment of why this occurred is possible with careful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction, which is beyond the scope of this report. When looking at the downward trend of crime nationally and locally, a frequently asked question is, “Why is crime on a decline?” Alfred Blumstein, a respected researcher in the field of crime trending, has studied the fluctuation of crime and crime rates in the United States. Blumstein provides an analysis of the violent crime trends in America by focusing primarily on violent crime and robbery. According to Blumstein, there are a number of possible factors explaining both the rise in crime during the 1980s and the subsequent drop in the 1990s. In his most recent publication, The Crime Drop in America, Blumstein theorizes that this upward trend is, “attributed primarily to the movement of the baby-boom generation into and then out of the high crime ages of the late teens and early twenties; this is reflected in the general stability of violence rates within individual ages during that period. The rise following 1985 is attributed to the crack epidemic and the contagion of violence spawned by its markets.” (Blumstein, 2000). Blumstein also explains that the role of handguns further contributed significantly during this period. Reductions in the prevalence of this crime trend, such as placing more police officers on the street, community policing and the increase of prisons and prison inmates seem to have had a significant effect on crime. Blumstein further suggests that although these factors come into play, another important key that cannot be ignored is changing demographics such as age, gender and race. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 14 Additionally, the investigation in the declining trend should not exclude an examination of changes in politics, economics, the social environment and population. Armstrong and Armstrong, researchers at Arizona State University, published a report titled The Arizona Fact Book On Violent Crime (June, 2002), which looks at violent crime in Arizona. The report draws in part on Blumstein’s work and describes violent crime comparisons between Arizona and national data. The authors stated, “…the Fact Book’s intent is not to advocate for particular programs or political agendas, but to present data and other information that may be used as a basis for decision making.” The authors noted that “it is likely that the decrease in violence that occurred during the mid to late 1990’s were due to a confluence of several factors including the robust economy, the changing age structure of the population, changes in drug markets, community collective efficacy and family structure.” RESEARCH PURPOSE The Arizona Crime Trends publication was created to accomplish two primary objectives. The first objective is to provide an overview of crime trends in Arizona. The second, and equally challenging objective, is to provide the Governor, criminal justice stakeholders and the citizens of Arizona with a review of the criminal justice system in Arizona in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute §41-2405. Specifically, ARS §41-2405 mandates that the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission “facilitate information and data exchange among criminal justice agencies, establish and maintain criminal justice system information archives and prepare for the governor an annual criminal justice system review report.” RESEARCH METHODS In order to accomplish the goals of this report, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and Uniform Crime Report (UCR) were used to present information about crime activity in Arizona over the past 10 years. The crime data included in this publication were compiled from information reported to police and collected through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission also solicited the participation of key criminal justice stakeholders in a collaborative partnership. The partnership included the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Arizona Supreme Court including Court, Adult and Juvenile Services, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and Arizona Department of Corrections. The criminal justice system in Arizona is a very large and complex system with more than 480 agencies and related organizations. Available resources, the size and complexity of the criminal justice system and the legacy nature of data sources have influenced the scope of this report. In defer ence to these influences, the reporting of Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 15 crime trends is still in an embryonic stage that will continue to evolve with future reporting iterations. Readers are encouraged to review the numerous figures and tables presented. We invite interpretation and anticipate the data and information will elicit questions and discussion among key stakeholders. It is our belief the dialogue generated by questions and discussion may provide a foundation by which Arizona can develop responses to crime trend issues. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 16 POPULATION Arizona’s population grew more than three times faster than the rest of the nation from 1991 to 2001 growing at a rate of 41.5 percent compared to a 12.9 percent growth in the national population. From 2000 to 2001, Arizona’s population increased by 189,263. Table 1 displays past and current population rates for Arizona over the last 10-years. Table 1 POPULATION Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Arizona Population 3,762,394 3,867,333 3,993,390 4,147,561 4,306,908 4,432,308 4,552,207 4,667,277 4,778,332 5,130,632 5,319,895 National Population 252,153,092 255,029,699 257,782,608 260,327,021 262,803,276 265,228,572 267,783,607 270,248,003 272,690,813 281,421,906 284,796,887 Percent 41.5% 12.9% Change 1991-2001 Source: Crime in the United States, 2001 The smallest population increase in the past 10 years in Arizona was approximately a 2.3 percent growth in 1991. The smallest growth in the national population during the past 10 years was in 1995 with a .90 percent increase from 1994 to 1995. The greatest increase for both Arizona and national populations was in 1999. Arizona experienced a 7.4 percent increase compared to the 3.2 increase percent nationally from 1998 to 1999. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 17 Figure 1 Change In Population 8.00% 7.00% PercentageChange 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Arizona National The differences in growth between Arizona and the national population continued in 2001. Arizona’s population increased approximately 3.7 percent from 2000 to 2001 compared to the 1.2 percent change in population experienced at the national level. Arizona has maintained a 3 to 1 growth ratio during the past 10-years. Arizona has consistently maintained one of the highest population growth rates of any state during the past 10 years. In 2001, Arizona was second in population increase to the state of Nevada. The substantial population shift in Arizona during the past 10 years has placed an increased burden on all components of the criminal justice system especially at a time when increased security is sought and public safety resources are strained. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 18 NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY The most recent National Crime Victimization Survey revealed that there were 24.2 million criminal victimizations in 2001. This is a decrease from the 25.9 million reported in 2000. This is also the lowest reported number since 1973 (44 million victimizations) when the NCVS was first initiated. The only rate that demonstrated an increase comparable to the UCR Part I crime reports is the reporting rates associated with motor vehicle theft. Of the 5.7 million violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault), the decrease in violent victimization was caused primarily by a decrease in simple assaults. Declines in the other violent crime categories were not statistically significant (Justice Research, 2002). Table 2 provides data about the rate of criminal victimization per 100,000 for six offense areas. The data goes back to 1993, is through 2001, and provides a percentage difference view by offense group for the 2000-2001 periods. Note the marked difference in motor vehicle theft when looking at the 2000-2001 periods. Motor vehicle theft (seven percent) was the only offense group that increased. The largest decline was in robbery with a 12.5 percent decline from 2000-2001. Table 2 RATE OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION per 100,000 INHABITANTS Rape/Sexual Assault 230 200 170 140 140 150 170 120 110 Robbery Aggravated Assault 1,220 1,160 950 880 860 750 670 570 530 Simple Assault 3,080 3,110 2,990 2,660 2,490 2,350 2,080 1,780 1,590 Motor Vehicle Theft 1,970 1,750 1,690 1,350 1,380 1,080 1,000 860 920 Theft 1993 620 24,270 1994 610 23,570 1995 540 22,430 1996 520 20,570 1997 430 18,990 1998 400 16,810 1999 360 15,390 2000 320 13,770 2001 280 12,900 % Change -8.3% â -12.5% â -7.0% â -10.7% â 7.0% -6.3% â 2000-2001 Source: Bureau of J ustice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey Reports, 19932001 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 19 Table 3 Among the 5.7 million violent victimizations in 2001, most male victims were victimized Male Female by strangers, while Victims 3,027,400 2,716,420 most females faced Intimate 3% 20% Other Relative 4% 9% someone they knew. Friend/Acquaintance 37% 37% Table 3 outlines the Stranger 55% 32% type of victim offender Source: National Crime Victimization Survey Report, 2001 relationship by gender as reported in the 2001 NCVS. Females were much more likely to have an intimate relationship with their assailant (20 percent) than were males (three percent). At the same time males were much more likely not to know their assailant (55 percent) than were females (32 percent). VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP FOR VIOLENT CRIMES, 2001 Findings from the 2001 NCVS study indicate that only 50 percent of all violent crime is reported to the police. In 1993, only 35 percent of the crimes described by victims were reported to law enforcement authorities. Table 4 summarizes the reporting patterns by gender and ethnicity for violent crimes in 2001. In 2001, male victims reported violent crimes (45.9 percent) less often than female victims (53.3 percent). By contrast, in 1993 male victims reported violent crimes 39 percent of the time, while females reported violent crimes 47.9 percent of the time. Table 4 VIOLENT CRIMES REPORTED TO POLICE BY GENDER AND RACE, 2001 Male 45.9% White 44.8% Black 53.2% Other 43.2% Hispanic 55.2% Non-Hispanic 44.1% Female 53.3% White 52.7% Black 58.0% Other 39.6% Hispanic 52.9% Non-Hispanic 53.3% Source: Criminal Victimization 2001 (note that percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding and reporting methods) As previously stated, the UCR and NCVS are conducted for different purposes and their differences are important. Each report uses different collection methods; the UCR gathers data from monthly reports transmitted to the FBI from law enforcement agencies. The NCVS is a victimization survey conducted from a large sample of U.S. households. They have some overlapping data, but not identical offense categories and they cover different population sets. Because of the differences between the two reports, the reader is reminded that a smaller percentage of crimes is actually reported to law enforcement officials and as such is reflected in the UCR data. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Pursuant to legislation in 1968, the Arizona Department of Public Safety was established by the executive order of Governor Jack Williams on July 1, 1969. This mandate consolidated the functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway Patrol, the Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and the Narcotics Division of the State Department of Law. The mission of the Department of Public Safety is to enforce state laws, deter criminal activity, assure highway and public safety, and provide vital scientific, technical and operational support to other criminal justice agencies in furtherance of the protection of human life and property. In its 30-plus years of sustained progress and service, Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) has accepted many additional responsibilities and has become a multifaceted organization dedicated to protecting and providing state-level law enforcement services to the public, while developing and maintaining close partnerships with other agencies sharing similar missions. DPS consists of four divisions: Highway Patrol; Criminal Investigations; Agency Support and Criminal Justice Support. Together these four divisions provide an extensive range of scientific, technical, operational and regulatory services to Arizona residents and to the state's criminal justice community. One of these services is the collection and compilation of Uniform Crime Report data. In 1992, ARS §41-1750 D was amended to read, “The chief officers of law enforcement agencies of this state or its political subdivisions shall provide to the central state repository such information as necessary to operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program.” Since that time the number of law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR data project Crime in Arizona has increased. In 1991, 92 of the possible 102 law enforcements agencies voluntarily contributed (UCR) data to the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Note that of the 92 agencies that contributed data, not all of these agencies provided information for all 12 months. For example, in 1991 there were 88 of a possible 102 agencies that contributed UCR data to the Arizona Department of Public Safety with 10 agencies sending in no data and four agencies contributing partial data. In total there were 132 months of data that were not submitted in time to be included in the 1991 DPS publication Crime in Arizona. In comparison, the 2001 Crime in Arizona reflected the data of 98 law enforcement agencies (of a possible 103) with only 57 months not included for reporting purposes. This increase has resulted in making more complete data available for analysis. There are differences in reporting methodologies between the 2001 Crime in Arizona and the 2001 Crime in the United States. This primarily pertains to estimates made at the national level by extrapolating data from agencies that contribute incomplete Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 21 or partial data. Additionally, there are differences in population estimates used by the FBI and the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Therefore, the reader should be cognizant of the fact there will be subtle differences between the numbers contained within these two reports. NIBRS The National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is a national project that will enhance the current UCR program by providing more detailed information than was previously collected. Over the past five years, NIBRS reporting has more than doubled with the number of State certified programs increasing to 18. The Arizona Department of Public Safety is working towards implementing a statewide Incident Based Reporting System (IBRS) repository. IBRS is designed to collect data on each single crime occurrence and on each incident and arrest within that occurrence. One of the significant differences between IBRS and the traditional UCR summary system is the degree of detail in reporting. The UCR summary system collects information on only eight Part I crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). IBRS collects information on 22 crime categories made up of 46 specific crime offenses in Group A (arson, assault, bribery, burglary/breaking and entering, counterfeiting/forgery, destruction damage/vandalism of property, drug narcotics, embezzlement, extortion/blackmail, fraud, gambling, homicide, kidnapping/abduction, larceny/theft, pornography/obscene material, prostitution, robbery, forcible/nonforcible sex offenses, stolen property, and weapon law violations and 11 Group B offenses (bad checks, curfew loitering/vagrancy violations, disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, drunkenness, nonviolent family offenses, liquor law violations, peeping tom, runaway, trespass of real property, and all other offenses). In Group B offenses, only arrest data are reported. IBRS information will be forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and added to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) database. At present, two Arizona law enforcement agencies in addition to DPS are pursuing the initiation of IBRS with grant funding from ACJC. The Phoenix Police Department has selected a vendor for the development of IBRS reporting and the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office will be initiating IBRS within their Spillman system on February 1, 2003. There are other agencies such as the Benson Police Department that have purchased records management systems that have the capability to report crimes in IBRS. Through IBRS, sheriffs, police chiefs, agency directors, commissioners, legislators, municipal planners/administrators, academicians, penologists, sociologist, and the general public will have access to more detailed crime information than the UCR Summary System can provide. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 22 PART I CRIMES CRIME DISTRIBUTION Nationally, larceny-theft (59.7 percent) represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2001, followed by burglary (17.8 percent), motor vehicle theft (10.4 percent), aggravated assault (7.7 percent), robbery (3.6 percent), forcible rape (.8 percent) and murder (.1 percent). Figure 2 Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for National 2001 Murder, 0.1 Forcible Rape, 0.8 Robbery, 3.6 Aggravated Assault, 7.7 Motor Vehicle Theft, 10.4 Burglary, 17.8 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Larceny-Theft, 59.7 23 In Arizona, larceny-theft (57.9 percent) also represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2001, followed by burglary (17 percent), motor vehicle theft (16.2 percent), aggravated assault (5.5 percent), robbery (2.8 percent), forcible rape (sexual assault in Az. .5 percent) and murder (.1 percent). Figure 3 Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for Arizona 2001 Murder, 0.1 Forcible Rape, 0.5 Robbery, 2.8 Aggravated Assault, 5.5 Motor Vehicle Theft, 16.2 Burglary, 17.0 Larceny-Theft, 57.9 When comparing national and Arizona UCR patterns for 2001 several similarities exist. Larceny-theft represented the largest category of offenses for both national and state trends, followed by burglary and motor vehicle theft. As seen in figures 2 and 3, the percent distribution for murder was identical at the state and national level. These figures also illustrate the percent distribution for forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault were lower for Arizona than at the national level. Figure 4 provides a comparison of national and Arizona violent and property crimes for 2001. A closer look at that comparison shows that for property crimes, Arizona is slightly higher than national levels. The opposite is true for violent crime, where Arizona is slightly below national levels. Of particular note is that when comparing violent crime to property crime in 2001, property crime represented 88 percent of the total crime reported nationally and 90 percent of Arizona’s total crime rate. This suggests that Arizona’s number one ranking in property crime is a major factor in explaining Arizona’s number one ranking in total Crime Index. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 24 Figure 4 Violent and Property Crimes in 2001 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% National Arizona 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Property Violent For the past 10 years, the United States has seen decreases in the crime rate with an overall decrease of 30 percent from 1991 to 2000. During that period, there was a decrease every year in the total crime rate. After more than a decade, 2001 represented a shift in this trend with a 2.1 percent increase in total crime and approximately a one percent increase in the total crime rate. Table 5 NATIONAL CRIME INDEX (RATES) Year Murder 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.8 9.3 9.5 9.0 8.2 7.4 6.8 6.3 5.7 5.5 5.6 Forcible Rape 42.3 42.8 41.1 39.3 37.1 36.3 35.9 34.5 32.8 32.0 31.8 Robbery 272.7 263.7 256.0 237.8 220.9 201.9 186.2 165.5 150.1 145.0 148.5 Aggravated Assault 433.4 441.9 440.5 427.6 418.3 391.0 382.1 361.4 334.3 324.0 318.5 Burglary 1,252.1 1,168.4 1,099.7 1,042.1 987.0 945.0 918.8 863.2 770.4 728.8 740.8 Larceny Theft 3,229.1 3,103.6 3,033.9 3,026.9 3,043.2 2,980.3 2,891.8 2,729.5 2,550.7 2,477.3 2,484.6 Auto Theft 659.0 631.6 606.3 591.3 560.3 525.7 505.7 459.9 422.5 412.2 430.6 Total Crime 5,898.4 5,661.4 5,487.1 5,373.8 5,274.9 5,087.6 4,927.3 4,620.1 4,266.5 4,124. 8 4,160.5 Source: Crime in the United States, 2001 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 25 Compared to 2000, there was an increase in crime rates for most of the Uniform Crime Report Part I offenses in 2001. Murder increased 1.3 percent, changing from a rate of 5.5 to 5.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. The robbery rate increased from 145.0 to 148.5 with an increase of 2.4 percent. All property crimes and rates increased from 2000 to 2001 with burglary rates up 1.6 percent, larceny-theft up .3 percent, and motor vehicle theft experiencing the largest increase of any Part I category; increasing 4.5 percent. Despite these increases, the FBI noted that the crime rate continued to be well below the most recent 10-year UCR benchmarks (Crime Control Digest, 2002). Table 6 Note that the national incidence of murder (up 1.3 percent) climbed dramatically during the second half of Crime Index 4124.8 4160.5 0.9% 2001, after declining in the first half Violent Crime 506.5 504.4 -0.4% Murder 5.5 5.6 1.3% (The New York Times, 6/24/2002). Rape 32.0 31.8 -0.8% Criminologists have cautioned against Robbery 145.0 148.5 2.4% drawing sweeping conclusions about Aggravated Assault 324.0 318.5 -1.7% the country’s crime based on a oneProperty Crime 3618.3 3656.1 1.0% year change. In addition, one must Burglary 728.8 740.8 1.6% be careful in trying to attribute Larceny-Theft 2477.3 2484.6 0.3% reasons to both the increases and in Motor Vehicle Theft 412.2 430.6 4.5% Source: Crime in the United States, 2001 the case of aggravated assault, the decrease. Dr. Andrew Karmen, the author of New York Murder Mystery, which discusses the plunge in crime in New York City during the 1990’s, said that the factors contributing to a decline in crime were as varied and hard to figure as the factors contributing to an increase. There often is concern about the accuracy of crime reporting data, but Dr. Andrew Karmen and other experts have pointed out that the two categories of crime considered most reliable were homicide and car theft, because incident reporting is more accurate and more thorough than for the other crime categories. Table 6 reflects both murder and motor vehicle theft increasing in 2001. NATIONAL 2000 2001 PERCENT PART I CRIME RATE RATE CHANGE The following tables and figures provide a vivid picture of how Arizona compares to the rest of the nation. Of particular interest and concern is the overall crime rate, which shows that Arizona has moved from third highest in 1991 to the number one ranked state for highest overall crime rate in 2001. In the same 10-year period, Arizona has moved from 20th to seventh in the rate of murders per 100,000. Arizona moved down in ranking for rape, aggravated assault, burglary and larceny-theft, while moving up in murder, robbery and motor vehicle theft. A review shows that Arizona is the number one state in the nation for motor vehicle theft. As noted previously, the two categories, murder and motor vehicle theft, tend to be most Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 26 reliable in reporting accuracy and are two of the categories in which Arizona has shown a marked increase. Table 7 ARIZONA CRIME RATE RANKINGS PER 100,000 1991 AND 2001 Offense 1991 Rank 1991 Rate 2001 Rank Crime Rate 3 7405.6 1 Violent Crime 18 670.7 15 Murder 20 7.8 7 Rape 20 42.4 31 Robbery 21 165.7 10 Aggravated Assault 15 454.8 16 Property Crime 3 6734.9 1 Burglary 5 1607.5 7 Larceny-Theft 2 4266.3 3 Motor Vehicle Theft 6 861.1 1 Source: Crime in the United States 2001 and Crime State Rankings 1993 2001 Rate 6077.4 540.3 7.5 28.6 167.1 337.1 5537.1 1032.9 3520.6 983.6 Arizona has gone from 3rd to 1st in total crime ranking while at the same time the overall crime rate has decreased. Upon closer inspection, Arizona has experienced a decrease in the crime rate in all but two of the Part I crime categories, robbery and motor vehicle theft. CRIME INDEX Table 8 provides an overview of Arizona Part I crimes from 2000-2001 and summarizes the offense specific tables which follow. It is important to note from this table that Arizona is number one in the nation in total Crime Index, property crime and motor vehicle theft. Upon closer inspection, one can see that there is a clear relationship between the three categories. Arizona is in the unenviable position of having the highest Crime Index rating of any state. This in no small way is the result of the fact that Arizona ranked number one in property crime. The property crime rate is a major factor in determining the overall crime rate because it contains the highest incidences (90 percent) of crime as reflected by the 5537.1 rate in 2001. In turn, Arizona is also rated number seven in burglary, three in larceny-theft and one in motor vehicle theft, which accounts for the number one rate per 100,000 in property crime. Motor vehicle theft has a substantial impact on Arizona’s property crime rate because not only is the state number one in motor vehicle theft but it is number one by a large margin (40.9 percent) over second ranked Nevada. Stated another way, Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate is impacting property crime rates and property crime rates tend to be the largest factor in determining Crime Index ratings. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 27 Table 8 ARIZONA PART I CRIMES FROM 2000-2001 RATE PER 100,000 2000 Rank 2001 Rank Crime Index 5829.5 1 6077.4 1 Violent Crime 531.7 14 540.3 15 Murder 7.0 9 7.5 7 Rape 30.7 28 28.6 31 Robbery 146.3 15 167.1 10 Aggravated Assault 347.7 15 337.1 16 Property Crime 5297.8 1 5537.1 1 Burglary 1011.6 5 1032.9 7 Larceny-Theft 3444.1 2 3520.6 3 Motor Vehicle Theft 842.1 1 983.6 1 Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 andCrime in the United States 2001 Percent Change 4.3 1.6 7.1 -6.8 14.2 -3.0 4.5 2.1 2.2 16.8 VIOLENT CRIME According to the Uniform Crime Reporting definitions, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery and aggravated assault. All violent crimes involve force or threat of force. Both the national and state violent crime rate has decreased over the past 10-years. However, the national violent crime rate has decreased at a slightly higher rate than Arizona. As reflected in Table 9, Arizona has experienced a 1.6 percent increase in the violent crime rate over the past year. In 2000, the violent crime rate was 531.7, and currently Arizona ranks 15th in the nation with a rate of 540.3. Table 9 VIOLENT CRIME RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 State (2000 Rank) Florida Maryland New Mexico Tennessee South Carolina Louisiana Illinois California Delaware Alaska Arizona United States (1) (3) (4) (5) (2) (7) (8) (9) (6) (10) (14) 2000 Rate 812.0 786.6 757.9 707.2 804.9 681.1 656.8 621.6 684.4 566.9 531.7 506.5 2001 Rate 797.2 783.0 781.1 745.3 720.3 687.0 636.9 617.0 611.4 588.3 540.3 504.4 Percent Change (2000-2001) -1.8 -0.5 3.1 5.4 -10.5 0.9 -3.0 -0.7 -10.7 3.8 1.6á -0.4 Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 andCrime in the United States 2001 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 28 Figure 5 VIOLENT CRIME RATE 1991-2001 800 Rate Per 100,000 Population 700 600 500 Arizona National 400 300 200 100 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 29 MURDER As defined by the UCR Program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, “is the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.19). In comparison to other states, Arizona ranked ninth in 2000 with a murder rate of 7.0 per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2001, Arizona’s murder rate increased to 7.5 per 100,000 inhabitants moving the state to the seventh highest murder rate in the United States. Table 10 MURDER RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 State 2000 2001 Percent Change (2000 Rank) Rate Rate (2000-2001) Louisiana (1) 12.5 11.2 -10.4% Mississippi (2) 9.0 9.9 10.0% Alabama (5) 7.4 8.5 14.9% Nevada (12) 6.5 8.5 30.8% Maryland (3) 8.1 8.3 2.5% Illinois (7) 7.2 7.9 9.7% Arizona (9) 7.0 7.5 7.1% á Tennessee (7) 7.2 7.4 2.8% Georgia (4) 8.0 7.1 -11.3% Indiana (18) 5.8 6.8 17.2% United States 5.5 5.6 1.8% á Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 On a national level the murder rate has gradually declined from 1991 to 2000. In 2001, the national murder rate increased slightly from 5.5 to 5.6 or 1.8 percent. This increase marked the first rise in the national murder rate in 10 years. As reflected in Figure 6, the murder rate in Arizona has gradually increased from 1991 (7.8) to 1994 (10.3 percent). After this period, the murder rate experienced a steady decline until 2000. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 30 Figure 6 MURDER RATE 1991-2001 Rate Per 100,000 Population 12 10 8 Arizona National 6 4 2 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Table 11 Table 11 shows the change in arrest rates (per 100,000) for murder offenses in Arizona over the past 10 years by age group. The data presented in this table are not crime rates, but 1991 2001 Percent rather arrest rates. A review of this table Rate Rate Change Under shows that murder arrest rates for under 18 0.8 0.4 -50% 18 year olds in Arizona has dropped 50 percent 18 and 5.8 4.2 -28% over the past 10 years, while arrest rates for Older 18 and older have dropped 28 percent. As Total 6.6 4.6 -30% illustrated in Figure 6 during this same 10-year period the reported murder rate in Arizona has dropped from 7.8 to 7.5, or 3.8 percent. MURDER Percent Change in Arrests 1991-2001 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 31 FORCIBLE RAPE As defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, forcible rape, “is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.29). Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded. Table 12 FORCIBLE RAPE RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 31 State (2000 Rank) Alaska (1) Delaware (2) Michigan (4) New Mexico (3) South Dakota (12) Minnesota (6) Colorado (10) Washington (5) Oklahoma (10) Nevada (8) Arizona (28) United States Source: Crime State Rankings 2000 2001 Percent Change Rate Rate (2000-2001) 79.3 78.9 -0.5 54.1 52.8 -2.4 50.6 52.7 4.2 50.7 46.5 -8.3 40.4 46.4 14.9 45.5 45.0 -1.1 41.2 43.7 6.1 46.4 43.4 -6.5 41.2 42.9 4.1 43.0 41.9 -2.6 30.7 28.6 -6.8 â 32.0 31.8 -0.8 â 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 On a national level, forcible rape (known as sexual assault in Arizona) gradually declined from a rate of 42.3 in 1991 to 31.8 in 2001 (Figure 7). This is a 25 percent decrease over the past 10-years. Arizona currently ranks 31st in the nation with a rate of 28.6. In 2000, Arizona ranked 28th in the nation with a rate of 30.7, which marks a decrease of 6.8 percent in 2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 32 Figure 7 FORCIBLE RAPE RATE 1991-2001 45 Rate Per 100,000 Population 40 35 30 25 Arizona National 20 15 10 5 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Table 13 shows the change in arrest rates for forcible rape in Arizona over the past 10 years by age group. The data presented in this table are not crime rates, but rather arrest rates. Forcible rape arrest rates are down 71 percent for offenders under 18 and down 55 percent for offenders 18 and older. Total arrest rates for forcible rape are down 58 percent over the past 10 years while the crime rate for forcible rape has dropped from 42.4 to 28.6, which is a 32.5 percent decrease (Figure 7). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Table 13 FORCIBLE RAPE Percent Change in Arrest Rate 1991-2001 Under 18 18 and Older Total 1991 Rate 2001 Rate Percent Change 2.1 0.6 -71% 9.2 4.1 -55% 11.3 4.8 -58% 33 ROBBERY The Uniform Crime Reporting Program defines robbery as “the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.32). Nationally, over the past 10-years the robbery rate per 100,000 inhabitants has declined significantly. Table 14 ROBBERY RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 State 2000 2001 Percent Change (2000 Rank) Rate Rate (2000-2001) Maryland (1) 256.0 251.6 -1.7 Nevada (2) 227.3 234.2 3.0 Florida (5) 199.0 200.5 0.8 Illinois (4) 207.4 199.2 -4.0 New York (3) 213.6 192.3 -10.0 California (6) 177.9 187.1 5.2 Tennessee (9) 166.4 178.0 7.0 Louisiana (8) 168.5 176.1 4.5 Georgia (10) 161.9 171.8 6.1 Arizona (15) 146.3 167.1 14.2 á United States 145.0 148.5 2.4 á Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 As seen by Figure 8, the national robbery rate decreased from 272.7 in 1991 to 148.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2001. In 2001, Arizona moved up to the 10th highest rate in the nation (167.1), while in 2000, Arizona ranked 15th with a rate of 146.3. Over the past 10-years, Arizona has maintained a relatively constant robbery rate. In 1991, the robbery rate was 165.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, and in 2001 the robbery rate was 167.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. Although the rate did not fluctuate much, the highest recorded rate was in 1995 (168.1), and the lowest recorded robbery rate occurred in 1992 (151.7). From 2000 to 2001, the Arizona robbery rate increased 14.2 percent while the comparable national rate increased by only 2.4 percent.. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 34 Figure 8 ROBBERY RATE 1991-2001 Rate Per 100,000 Population 300 250 200 Arizona National 150 100 50 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Table 15 ROBBERY Percent Change in Arrest Rate 1991-2001 Under 18 18 and Older Total 1991 Rate 2001 Rate Percent Change 13 5.2 -60% 32.8 24.4 -26% 45.8 29.6 -35% 0.8 percent increase (Figure 8). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Table 15 shows the change in robbery arrest rates in Arizona for the past 10 years by age group. The data presented in this table are not crime rates, but rather arrest rates. Under 18 arrest rates for robbery are down 60 percent while 18 and older arrest rates are down 26 percent. The overall arrest rate for robbery is down 35 percent over the past 10 years. Of interest is the fact that while robbery arrest rates are down 35 percent, the crime rate for robbery has increased from 165.7 to 167.1, a 35 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, an aggravated assault is an “unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.37). This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assaults are included since it is not necessary that an injury result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed. As shown in Table 16 Arizona ranked 16th , in 2001 with a rate of 337.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. When compared to the 2000 rate (347.7), the number of aggravated assaults has declined 3.0 percent. Table 16 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 State 2000 2001 Percent Change (2000 Rank) Rate Rate (2000-2001) New Mexico (3) 562.4 581.9 3.5 Florida (2) 563.2 550.9 -2.2 South Carolina (1) 614.8 549.3 -10.7 Tennessee (4) 495.2 521.6 5.3 Maryland (5) 493.3 496.1 0.6 Louisiana (6) 466.6 468.3 0.4 Alaska (10) 405.1 422.3 4.2 Delaware (7) 449.2 410.6 -8.6 Illinois (8) 409.3 398.3 -2.7 California (9) 408.7 394.6 -3.4 Arizona (15) 347.7 337.1 -3.0 â United States 324.0 318.5 -1.7 â Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 On a national scale, aggravated assault has declined over the past 10 years. Arizona’s aggravated assault rate experienced a decline in 1996 and continued to drop until 2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 36 Figure 9 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT RATE 1991-2001 Rate Per 100,000 Population 600 500 400 Arizona National 300 200 100 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Table 17 Table 17 shows the change in aggravated assault arrest rates in Arizona over the past 10 years by age group. The data presented in this table are not crime rates but rather arrest rates. All age groups showed similar reductions with under 18 down 39 percent and 18 and older down 35 percent. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT Percent Change in Arrest Rate 1991-2001 Under 18 18 and Older Total Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 1991 Rate 2001 Rate Percent Change 40.5 24.9 -39% 163.2 106.7 -35% 203.6 131.5 -35% 37 PROPERTY CRIME In the UCR Program, “property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victim or victims. Arson is included in the property crime category since it involves the destruction of property, although its victims may be subjected to force. However, because of limited participation and varying collection procedures by local agencies, only limited data are available for arson. Arson statistics are included in trend, clearance, and arrest tables throughout FBI’s Crime in the United States, but they are not included in any estimated volume data.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.40). As seen in Table 18, in 2000 and 2001, Arizona ranked first in property crime in the United States with a rate of 5297.8 (2000) and 5537.1 (2001). On a national level, both the volume and rate per 100,000 inhabitants of all property crime offenses increased in 2001. The estimated property crime rate of 3,656.1 per 100,000 inhabitants was 1.0 percent higher than the previous year’s rate. Table 18 PROPERTY CRIME RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 State (2000 Rank) Arizona (1) 2000 Rate 5297.8 2001 Rate 5537.1 Percent Change (2000-2001) 4.5 á 2 Hawaii (2) 4955.1 5131.5 3.6 3 Washington (6) 4736.0 4796.8 1.3 4 Florida (3) 4882.7 4772.5 -2.3 5 Oregon (7) 4494.7 4737.4 5.4 6 Louisiana (5) 4741.7 4651.1 -1.9 7 Texas (10) 4410.4 4579.9 3.8 8 New Mexico (4) 4761.0 4542.8 -4.6 9 North Carolina (8) 4421.8 4443.7 0.5 10 Tennessee (13) 4183.0 4407.5 5.4 United States 3618.3 3656.1 1.0 á Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 The national property crime rate has decreased over the past 10 years, while the Arizona property crime rate has fluctuated over this same period. In Arizona, the property crime rate peaked in 1995 (7345.3). Additionally, the peak in motor vehicle theft in 1995 influenced this peak. The estimated dollar loss attributed to national property crime victimizations excluding arson was $16.6 billion, a 5.6 percent increase from the 2000 estimate (Crime Control Digest 2002). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 38 Figure 10 PROPERTY CRIME RATE 1991-2001 8,000 Rate Per 100,000 Population 7,000 6,000 5,000 Arizona National 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Figure 10 provides a summary of Arizona’s property crime rate over the past 10 years while Figure 11 is a summary of the property crime arrest rate for the same period. The property crime rate has decreased from 6734.9 to 5537.1 or 17.8 percent from 1991 to 2001. In Figure 11, the overall property crime arrest rate in Arizona has decreased from 1328.8 to 732.9 or 44.8 percent in the same period. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 39 Figure 11 Property Crime Arrest Rate 1,400 1,200 Rate 1,000 Under 18 18 and Over All Ages 800 600 400 200 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 40 BURGLARY The Uniform Crime Reporting Program defines burglary “as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. The use of force to gain entry is not required to classify an offense as burglary. Burglary is categorized into three sub-classifications: forcible entry; unlawful entry where no force is used and attempted forcible entry.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.44). As reflected in Table 19, in 2001, Arizona ranked 7th in burglary with a rate of 1,032.9 per 100,000 inhabitants. Table 19 BURGLARY RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 State (2000 Rank) North Carolina (1) 2000 Rate 1216.1 2001 Rate 1244.6 Percent Change (2000-2001) 2.3 2 Florida (3) 1081.8 1073.7 -0.7 3 New Mexico (2) 1173.1 1068.9 -8.9 4 Mississippi (8) 946.3 1043.4 10.3 5 Louisiana (4) 1035.8 1040.2 0.4 6 7 Tennessee Arizona (6) (5) 990.4 1011.6 1040.2 1032.9 5.0 2.1 8 Oklahoma (9) 917.5 999.2 8.9 Texas (12) 906.3 958.3 5.7 Hawaii (13) 880.3 911.6 3.6 United States 728.8 740.8 1.6 Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 á 9 10 á Similar to other UCR crimes, the national burglary trend has fallen. Nationally, in 1991, the burglary rate was 1,252.1, and in 2001, it was 740.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (Table 5). This marks an overall drop of 41 percent in the national burglary rate over the past 10-years. Arizona has fluctuated from a high of 1,602.2 in 1991 to a low of 1,011.6 in 2000. From 2000 to 2001, the burglary rate increased by 2.1 percent. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 41 Figure 12 BURGLARY RATE 1991-2001 1,800 Rate Per 100,000 Population 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 Arizona National 800 600 400 200 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Table 20 BURGLARY Percent Change in Arrest Rate 1991-2001 Under 18 18 and Older Total 1991 Rate 2001 Rate Percent Change 106.5 33.8 -68% 119.3 55.3 -54% 225.8 89.1 -61% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Table 20 shows the change in burglary arrests in Arizona over the past 10 years by age group. The data presented in this table are not crime rates, but rather arrest rates. Burglary arrests are down 68 and 54 percent respectively for under 18 and 18 and older. The overall rate has declined 61 percent from 1991 to 2001. 42 LARCENY-THEFT Larceny-theft “is the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. It includes crimes such as shoplifting, pocket-picking, purse-snatching, thefts from motor vehicles, thefts of motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycle thefts, etc., in which no use of force, violence, or fraud occurs. In the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, this crime category does not include embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, and worthless checks. Motor vehicle theft is also excluded from this category inasmuch as it is a separate Crime Index offense.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.48). In Table 21 Arizona ranks 3rd in 2001 with a rate of 3,520.6 for larceny-theft. This is an increase of 2.2 percent from the 2000 rate of 3,444.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. Table 21 LARCENY-THEFT RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 State (2000 Rank) Hawaii (1) 2000 Rate 3570.2 2001 Rate 3669.2 Percent Change (2000-2001) 2.8 2 3 Oregon Arizona (3) (2) 3338.7 3444.1 3542.7 3520.6 6.1 2.2 4 Washington (6) 3234.6 3258.7 0.7 5 Florida (5) 3242.9 3150.4 -2.9 6 Texas (10) 3057.4 3140.1 2.7 7 Louisiana (7) 3229.9 3125.2 -3.2 8 Utah (4) 3288.5 3113.8 -5.3 9 New Mexico (8) 3184.4 3083.7 -3.2 á 10 Nebraska (14) 2870.3 3076.8 7.2 á United States 2477.3 2484.6 0.3 Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 When comparing national trends over the past 10 years, the larceny-theft rate has declined 28 percent. Over the past 10 years, Arizona’s larceny-theft rate has been consistently above the national average. As reflected in Figure 13, the highest larceny-theft rate occurred in 1995 (4,823.9), and the lowest rate occurred in 2000 (3,444.1). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 43 Figure 13 LARCENY-THEFT RATE 1991-2001 Rate Per 100,000 Population 6,000 5,000 4,000 Arizona National 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Table 22 LARCENY-THEFT Percent Change in Arrest Rate 1991-2001 1991 Rate 2001 Rate Percent Change Under 18 345 164.2 -52% 18 and Older 676.1 382.5 -43% Total 1021 546.7 -46% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Table 22 shows the change in larceny-theft arrests in Arizona over the past 10 years by age group. The data presented in this table are not crime rates, but rather arrest rates. Under 18 larceny-theft arrests are down 52 percent over the past 10 years while 18 and older arrests are down 43 percent. Total larcenytheft arrests are down 46 percent over the same period. 44 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT Defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program as “the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle, this offense category includes the stealing of automobiles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, motor scooters, and snowmobiles. The definition excludes the taking of a motor vehicle for temporary use by those persons having lawful access.” (Crime in the United States, 2001, p.53). As reflected in Table 23, the motor vehicle theft rate for Arizona increased 16.8 percent from 2000 to 2001. Table 23 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT RATE PER 100,000 INHABITANTS 2001 Rank 1 State (2000 Rank) Arizona (1) 2000 Rate 842.1 2001 Rate 983.6 Percent Change (2000-2001) 16.8 á 2 Nevada (2) 659.2 698.1 3 Washington (3) 594.1 652.6 9.8 4 Maryland (6) 539.5 595.8 10.4 5 California (7) 537.4 591.4 10.0 6 Hawaii (8) 504.6 550.7 9.1 7 Florida (5) 558.0 548.4 -1.7 8 Michigan (4) 560.7 536.6 -4.3 9 Missouri (15) 441.4 497.6 12.7 5.9 10 Tennessee (9) 483.9 492.5 1.8 United States 412.2 430.6 4.5 á Source: Crime State Rankings 2002 and Crime in the U.S. 2001 Over the past 10 years, arrest rates for almost all Part I crimes have decreased. Figure 14 on the following page represents the percentage of increase or decrease of Part I crimes over this period in Arizona. Only three of the Part I crimes experienced an increase over this time period: murder; robbery; and motor vehicle theft. It is also quite noteworthy that the increases are driven by adults (18 and older). Specifically, there is no Part I crime that experienced an increase of juvenile crime (under 18) over the past 10 years. The greatest decreases were in the categories of forcible rape and burglary with the juvenile population providing the largest reductions. As noted previously, the increase in motor vehicle thefts is alarming. Figure 14 demonstrates the magnitude of the motor vehicle theft problem relative to the other Part I crimes. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 45 Figure 14 Arizona Part I Crime Percent Increase/Decrease 1991-2001 200% 150% 100% Under 18 18 and Over All Ages 50% 0% -50% -100% Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Nationally, the motor vehicle theft rate has gradually declined from 1991 (659.0) to 2001 (430.6). This change represents a 33 percent decline over the past 10 years. In contrast, Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate has experienced increases over the past 10-years. In 1995, this rate reached its peak (1133.8). A s Arizona has moved from the 6th highest rate of motor vehicle theft in 1991 to the number one ranked state in the nation in 2001, with a rate of 983.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. Figure 15 suggests a disturbing two-year trend in which Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate is separating itself from national motor vehicle theft rates. This becomes even more apparent when one considers that Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate is 40.9 percent higher than second ranked Nevada. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 46 Figure 15 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT RATE 1991-2001 Rate Per 100,000 Population 1,200 1,000 800 Arizona National 600 400 200 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Table 24 shows the change in motor vehicle arrests in Arizona over the past 10 years by age group. The data presented in this table are not crime rates, but rather arrest rates. The most dramatic difference between over and under 18 year old arrest rates is motor vehicle theft. The motor vehicle arrest rate decreased by 44 percent for under 18 year olds while increasing 119 percent for 18 and older. This is of particular interest and suggests cause for further study in light of Arizona’s number one ranking in motor vehicle theft. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Table 24 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT Percent Change in Arrest Rate 1991-2001 Under 18 18 and Older Total 1991 Rate 2001 Rate Percent Change 50 27.8 -44% 32 70.1 119% 82 97.1 18% 47 Figure 16 Motor Vehicle Theft Arrest Rate 120 100 Rate 80 Under 18 18 and Over All Ages 60 40 20 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year PART II CRIMES The scope of this document called for a review of Part I Crimes. Because of the divergence between criminal justice system workloads and Part I Crime rates a decision was made to exam several Part II Crimes to determine their influence on increased criminal justice system workloads. The examination was limited to drug use and substance abuse offenses and included Driving Under the Influence, Drug Sales and Manufacturing, Drug Use and Possession, Dangerous Non-narcotic Drug Sales and Manufacturing, and Dangerous Non-narcotic Drug Use and Possession. The following tables compare the change in arrest rates from 1991, 2000 and 2001 with 10-year and one year percentage changes by age group. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 48 Table 25 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE Percent Change in Arrests from 1991-2001 1991 Rate Under 18 2000 Rate 2001 Rate 10 Year Percent Change 1 Year Percent Change 7.1 10.1 9.6 35.1% -4.2% 18 and Older 788.3 675.1 643.7 -18.3% -4.6% Total 795.5 685.1 653.3 -17.9% -4.6% Driving Under the Influence for under 18 year olds has increased 35.1 percent from 1991 to 2000 while the 18 and older group has declined by 18.3% over the same period. Both age groups have shown a decrease in DUI when comparing 2000 results with 2001. Table 26 Drug Sales and Manufacturing has been DRUG SALES AND MANUFACTURE predominately associated Percent Change in Arrests from 1991-2001 with the 18 and older 10 Year 1 Year 1991 2000 2001 population. However, the Percent Percent Rate Rate Rate Change Change percentage change over the Under 10-year period studied 6.1 9.8 9.6 57.1% -1.1% suggest an increase in Drug 18 and Sales and Manufacturing for 18 91.8 90.3 85.7 -6.6% -5.1% Older under 18 year olds (57.1 97.9 100.0 95.4 -2.6% -4.7% percent). Both age groups Total have shown a decline in Drug Sales and Manufacturing from 2000 to 2001 with the largest decline occurring in the 18 and older group (5.1 percent). Table 27 Drug Use and Possession by those under 18 has increased dramatically over the 10-year period up 221 percent. 10 Year 1 Year 1991 2000 2001 Percent Percent During the same period the Rate Rate Rate Change Change 18 and older group has Under 30.2 95.4 96.9 221.0% 1.7% shown an increase of 42.9 18 percent with a combined 18 263.7 412.7 376.8 42.9% -8.7% increase of 61.2 percent. and One year comparisons show Older a slight increase of 1.7 Total 293.9 508.0 473.7 61.2% -6.8% percent for the under 18 age group and a decrease of 8.7 percent for 18 and older. Prior research conducted also found evidence of increased substance abuse in Arizona. DRUG USE AND POSSESSION Percent Change in Arrests from 1991-2001 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 49 Table 28 Dangerous Non-narcotic Drug DANGEROUS NON-NARCOTIC DRUG SALES Sales and Manufacture has AND MANUFACTURE had the largest percentage Percent Change in Arrests from 1991-2001 increase of the Part II Crimes examined. Dangerous Non10 Year 1 Year 1991 2000 2001 narcotic Drug Sales and Percent Percent Rate Rate Rate Manufacturing by under 18 Change Change year olds increased 257.2 Under 0.53 1.66 1.90 257.2% 14% percent from 1991 to 2001 18 and 14 percent from 2000 to 18 and 12.01 29.79 27.95 132.7% -6.2% 2001. During the same 10- Older 12.54 31.46 29.85 138.0% -5.1% year period the 18 and older Total group increased 132.7 percent while decreasing 6.2 percent from 2000 to 2001. Table 29 DANGEROUS NON-NARCOTIC DRUG USE AND POSSESSION Percent Change in Arrests from 1991-2001 1991 Rate 2000 Rate 2001 Rate 10 Year Percent Change 1 Year Percent Change Under 18 5.34 13.70 13.89 160.1% 1.4% 18 and Older 31.3 72.21 69.49 122.0% -3.8% Total 36.64 85.90 83.39 127.6% -2.9% 18 up 1.4 percent and 18 and older down 3.8 percent. The category of Dangerous Non-narcotic Drug Use and Possession increased substantially between 1991 and 2001. Under 18 Dangerous Non-narcotic Drug Use and Possession is up 160.1 percent for under 18 and 122 percent for 18 and older. One year differences suggest the growth stalled between 2000 and 2001 with under A review of the tables and figures provided in this section will assist the reader in making comparisons of national and Arizona data as reported to law enforcement agencies. Upon review of the data, there is reason for concern. As reflected by the Crime Index rate, Arizona is ranked number one nationally. Over the past 10 years data suggest that as Arizona’s population has grown, rankings for murder, robbery and motor vehicle theft have increased, while rankings for rape, aggravated assault, burglary and larceny-theft have gone down. Arizona leads the nation in motor vehicle theft which has an influence on property crime rates, which in turn has a dramatic impact on Crime Index ranking. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 50 PROSECUTION There are numerous challenges in retrieving reliable statistical information pertaining to the prosecution of criminals within Arizona. First, there is not a central agency or organization that tracks prosecution information for the entire state. Therefore, this information must be solicited from each individual county attorney. Second, there are substantial differences in the terminology associated with key reporting measures for individual counties. Closely related and third, there is not an established reporting format for counties to submit prosecution data on a statewide basis. Finally, there are limitations presented by several of the county attorney offices in regards to the reporting capabilities of their current case management systems. As a result, reliable comparisons between counties are not possible at this time. Currently, there is no state agency receiving prosecution data from individual counties on an annual basis. For the most part, county attorney’s in Arizona function as independent entities; however, there are two organizations that operate as coordinating bodies within the state. Both the Arizona County Attorney and Sheriff’s Association (ACASA) and the Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (APAAC), meet on a regular basis to discuss issues affecting their departments collectively. In speaking with these organizations, neither receives data from individual counties pertaining to the processing of cases. All 15 county attorney offices in the state were contacted and requested to either affirm information provided through the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts or provide data regarding each agency for the past 10 years. Most agencies were unable to provide data pursuant to this request for the entire time period. A majority of the agencies indicated that their current case management system would be able to answer future questions regarding the number of case filings and processing in regard to future requests. Over the past five years, 11 of the 15 county attorney offices have instituted new case management systems. Unfortunately, the newness of the systems severely hampers the ability to retrieve historical information relative to trends in prosecution. Additionally, there are two offices that are still in need of a case management system to allow for any automated reporting capabilities. Another challenge preventing prosecution data collection at the state level is the difference in reporting mechanisms between individual counties. Common terms or the jargon in describing elements of the prosecution may have a different connotation contingent upon that jurisdiction. For example, one county may refer to the number of cases received from law enforcement for charging consideration as “submissions”, whereas another county may refer to the same process as cases “presented” for prosecution. Even if the data were readily available for all counties Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 51 there would be concern regarding the consistency of terms and the structure of the data. Due to the difficulties in retrieving consistent data over the time period being analyzed, (1991 to 2001) a suitable proxy was sought to allow a determination of trends as they relate to prosecution. Data were requested and obtained from the Administrative Office of the Courts regarding the filing of cases in Superior Court. The following table provides information regarding county attorney felony filings submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts as processed through the Superior Court. Table 30 indicates that felonies filed by prosecutors from 1991 to 2001 have increased each year with the exception of 1993 and 1999. The number of felony cases filed has increased by more than 17,000 over the last 10 years with 26,140 in 1991 compared to 43,462 in 2001. This is an overall increase of 66.3 percent in the number of felony filings. The rate of felonies per 100,000 inhabitants demonstrates a growth of 17.6 percent over this time period. In addition to prosecuting felony cases in Superior Court, each County Attorney’s Office is responsible for prosecuting both felony and misdemeanor cases in each of the 84 Justice Court precincts located throughout the state. Table 30 ARIZONA COUNTY ATTORNEY FIL INGS Categories Felonies Filed* Felony Filing Rate 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 26,140 27,677 26,496 28,522 30,372 30,817 34,649 39,515 38,281 40,317 43,462 694.6 717.2 669.3 700.5 718.2 690.6 753.2 829.4 777.4 799.1 817.0 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) *Totals Include Filings by the Attorney General Office It is important to caution against making detailed comparisons between information provided through the Administrative Office of the Courts as it relates to prosecution. The differences in terminology and number of cases reported preclude analysis at the county level and for individual categories. For the purpose of this evaluation and due to the data limitations previously stated, it is believed that this information provides the best available proxy regarding general trends in the number of cases being filed in Arizona. It is evident that the number of felony filings has risen considerably over the past 10 years. This is particularly noteworthy given that the rate of arrests has decreased during the same period. Although some data were provided from each county attorney office, it was deemed premature to either use or report this information without additional research. Therefore, it is recommended that future efforts look at standardizing data elements for reporting and analysis purposes. A potential venue for this discussion is the Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (APAAC). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 52 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, COURT SERVICES The judicial system in Arizona is both large and complex. It consists of a series of courts and an array of support services, which assist the court in the timely processing of cases. Arizona has two appellate courts: the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort and the Court of Appeals with two divisions, which is the intermediate appellate court. In this review we have not included workload information regarding the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals because the processing of cases tracked by both the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report are not initiated in the appellate courts. Although no appellate court workload information is incorporated, we direct the reader to the Arizona Supreme Court website at www.supreme.state.az.us for more detailed information. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the state and has administrative supervision over all the courts in Arizona. Its primary duties are to review appeals and to provide rules of procedure for all the courts in Arizona. Five justices serve on the Supreme Court for a regular term of six years. Fellow justices select one justice to serve as Chief Justice for a five-year term. In addition to casework, the Chief Justice supervises the administrative work of the court. Table 31 The Court of Appeals was established in 1965 as an intermediate appellate court and Court Number of Cases Filed consists of two divisions: Division Supreme Court 1,248 Court of Appeals 3,462 One in Phoenix with sixteen judges, Division One 2,414 and Division Two in Tucson with six Division Two 1,048 judges. The Court of Appeals has Source: Administrative Office of the Courts jurisdiction in all matters and (Court Services) reviews all decisions properly appealed from Superior Court. Table 31 lists the case filings by appellate court for FY2001. FY 2001 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL SUPERIOR COURT The Superior Court, which has a division in all 15 counties in Arizona, is the state’s only general jurisdiction court. Superior Court judges hear all types of cases except small claims, minor offenses, or violations of city codes and ordinances. In addition, the Superior Court acts as an appellate court to hear appeals from decisions made in the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts. In counties with more than one Superior Court judge, a specialized juvenile court is established. The court will assign one or more Superior Court judges to hear juvenile cases regarding delinquency, incorrigibility and dependency. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 53 Probation departments are also the responsibility of the courts and fall under the auspices of the Superior Court. Each Superior Court has either a separate or combined adult and juvenile probation department, and each probation officer is considered an employee of the court. Local and state crime trends have a direct and often-immediate impact on Superior Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and probation department workloads. Table 32 FY 2001 SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Filings Apache 883 Cochise 3,675 Coconino 3,416 Gila 2,098 Graham 1,325 Greenlee 349 La Paz 768 Maricopa 111,057 Mohave 5,581 Navajo 3,128 Pima 26,509 Pinal 6,683 Santa Cruz 1,504 Yavapai 6,291 Yuma 5,203 Totals 178,470 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) Statewide, as of 2001, there were 147 Superior Court Judges. In FY2001, those judges handled 178,470 criminal and non-criminal filings. Maricopa County received 111,057 cases, which represented 62.2 percent of the total cases filed statewide. The following tables provide a look at criminal case filings through the Superior Court for the period from 1991-2001 by county. A review of the total criminal cases filed for the state shows, with two exceptions, 1993 and 1999, that total criminal case filings have grown each year. Total Superior Court criminal case filings have grown from 28,757 in 1991 to 47,380 in 2001. The two largest increases occurred in 1998 and 2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 54 Table 33 TOTAL SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL FILINGS BY YEAR AND COUNTY County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1991 146 652 1,024 512 150 62 233 16,914 1,302 770 4,250 776 241 634 1,091 28,757 1992 201 820 857 365 179 54 163 17,259 1,366 779 4,812 1,092 359 842 1,225 30,373 1993 191 732 888 422 177 38 187 16,210 1,300 481 4,439 1,136 440 741 1,360 28,742 1994 237 850 973 542 209 47 227 17,130 1,482 548 4,829 1,066 364 907 1,437 30,848 1995 220 846 1,207 857 221 92 234 17,860 1,592 670 4,534 1,239 311 1,380 1,331 32,594 1996 262 597 1,238 954 232 143 242 18,610 1,664 723 4,254 1,304 358 1,228 1,579 33,388 1997 174 578 1,025 868 225 74 283 21,882 1,902 915 4,677 1,446 244 1,320 1,444 37,057 1998 191 713 905 892 330 81 422 25,641 1,876 748 5,381 1,859 230 1,499 1,656 42,424 1999 261 606 992 794 338 46 256 25,756 1,518 866 5,182 1,212 302 1,397 1,284 40,810 2000 262 712 953 1,049 399 73 303 27,385 1,512 930 4,840 1,282 166 1,483 1,339 42,688 2001 271 836 1,048 731 384 116 402 30,616 1,708 953 5,512 1,458 255 1,726 1,364 47,380 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) Table 34 SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS 1991 TO 2001 10 Year 1 Year Percent Change Percent Change Apache 85.6 3.4 Cochise 28.2 17.4 Coconino 2.3 10.0 Gila 42.8 -30.3 Graham 156.0 -3.8 Greenlee 87.1 58.9 La Paz 72.5 32.7 Maricopa 81.0 11.8 Mohave 31.2 13.0 Navajo 23.8 2.5 Pima 29.7 13.9 Pinal 87.9 13.7 Santa Cruz 5.8 53.6 Yavapai 172.2 16.4 Yuma 25.0 1.9 Total 64.8% 11.0% Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) County As reflected in Table 34, the 10-year increase for criminal case filings statewide was 64.8 percent. Coconino showed the smallest increase over a 10-year period with a 2.3 percent change. The largest increase was in Yavapai County with an increase of 172.2 percent. In the most recent year, two counties had decreases, Graham and Gila. The statewide increase from FY2000 to 2001 was 11 percent. Overall, more than 2.4 million cases were filed in Arizona courts during FY2001. As reported by the Administrative Office of the Courts the cost of processing a case in 2001 was $119.05. There were 60,800 individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation departments at the end of FY2001, up 5.9 percent for FY2000. The number of juveniles on probation was up 2.4 percent to 9,625 at the end of 2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 55 Table 35 TOTAL FILINGS IN SUPERIOR COURT 2000 / 2001 2000 2001 Difference 177,722 178,470 748 0.4% Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) Table 35 represents the total number of filings in Superior Court over the past year. The Arizona Superior Court experienced a 0.4 percent increase in the number of total cases filed between FY2000 and 2001. Criminal case filings increased 11.0 percent from 42,688 in FY2000 to 47,380 in FY2001. JUSTICE COURTS Table 36 FY 2001 JUSTICE CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Justice Apache 9,754 Cochise 51,243 Coconino 32,042 Gila 16,166 Graham 5,953 Greenlee 2,660 La Paz 16,516 Maricopa 335,016 Mohave 39,504 Navajo 25,177 Pima 199,951 Pinal 47,226 Santa Cruz 12,528 Yavapai 46,591 Yuma 22,597 Totals 862,924 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) As of 2001, there are a total of 84 precincts with 81 Justices of the Peace judges serving 4-year terms. Statewide there were 862,924 cases filed at the Justice Court level. Uncharacteristically, Maricopa County did not represent more than half of the statewide Justice Court workload. Maricopa County had the most filings with 335,016 of the 862,924 statewide. That represents approximately 38.9 percent of the total Justice Court filings. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 56 Table 37 JUSTICE COURT FILINGS BY YEAR AND TYPE Non- Traffic Felonies Misdemeanors 1992 80,124 25,852 1993 81,237 25,268 1994 95,012 29,418 1995 100,557 37,368 1996 111,981 38,385 1997 110,268 43,693 1998 124,884 46,638 1999 120,905 41,022 2000 124,451 41,540 2001 116,371 39,852 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) Year Of the 862,924 total cases filed in 2001, there were 116,371 non-traffic misdemeanors and 39,852 felonies. Table 37 reflects a reduction from 124,451 misdemeanors in 2000 to 116,371 in 2001. Felonies also declined from 41,540 in 2000 to 39,852 in 2001. MUNICIPAL COURTS Table 38 The Municipal Courts are comprised of 153 full and part-time judges that serve in 84 cities throughout Arizona. A number of paid, full and part-time judges pro tempore and hearing officers assist in the processing of Municipal Court cases. There were 1,394,866 cases filed in the various Municipal Courts within Arizona in FY2001. Maricopa County with 886,627 was the largest with approximately 63.6 percent of the Municipal Court filings and Gila County was the smallest with 684 (or less than one percent of total filings). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review FY 2001 MUNICIPAL CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Municipal Apache 1,987 Cochise 14,617 Coconino 27,462 Gila 6,811 Graham 3,859 Greenlee 684 La Paz 2,926 Maricopa 886,627 Mohave 31,322 Navajo 8,310 Pima 305,213 Pinal 30,573 Santa Cruz 13,093 Yavapai 37,863 Yuma 23,519 Totals 1,394,866 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) 57 Table 39 MUNICIPAL COURT NON-TRAFFIC CRIMINAL FILINGS BY YEAR Non- Traffic Misdemeanors 1992 205,893 1993 207,688 1994 243,419 1995 270,116 1996 243,253 1997 241,016 1998 222,611 1999 230,792 2000 212,518 2001 224,703 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services) Year Municipal Court non-traffic criminal misdemeanor case filings increased 5.7 percent from 212,518 in FY2000 to 224,703 in FY2001. While an increase, the 2001 misdemeanor filings were lower in five of the past 10-year totals (Municipal Courts do not process felony cases). During fiscal year 2001, there was a change in the way civil cases can be filed. For civil cases and forcible detainer cases, legislative changes allowed concurrent jurisdiction between the Superior Court and Justice Court for cases where the dollar amount for damages falls between $5,000 and $10,000. Of the 2.4 million filings in FY2001, almost 1.6 million of those filings were for criminal traffic and civil traffic violations, all handled by the limited jurisdiction courts in the state (Justice and Municipal Courts). Local and state crime trends have a direct and often-immediate impact on Superior Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and probation department workloads. In spite of the fact crime rates have been on the decline for most of the past 10-year period, court workloads have with the exception of Justice Courts, continued to increase. The 10-year increase for Superior criminal case filings statewide was 64.8 percent. In FY2001 adult (5.9 percent) and juvenile (2.4 percent) probation caseloads increased, Justice Court felonies and misdemeanors declined and Municipal Court non-traffic misdemeanor case filings increased 5.7 percent. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 58 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF COURTS, ADULT PROBATION SERVICES DIVISION The Adult Probation Services Division (APSD) of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) oversees the statewide administration of adult probation programs and services in accordance with statutory and administrative guidelines. This division interacts with the courts, probation departments, and a variety of non-court agencies and organizations throughout Arizona. The division administers several major program funds: Adult Intensive Probation Services (AIPS), Adult Probation Supervision Fees Fund (PSF), Community Punishment Program (CPP), Drug Enforcement Account (DEA), Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF), State Aid Enhancement (SAE) and Interstate Compact Program (ISC). These funds are distributed to the counties and used, in conjunction with federal and county monies, to operate the local probation departments and provide supervision and treatment services. Of particular interest in this report are State Aid Enhancement that primarily funds standard probation and adult intensive probation supervision. Data presented in this section come from the monthly statistical reports submitted to the APSD. The data represent a portion of the information obtained from the probation departments each year and focuses on total number of probationers receiving standard and intensive probation, the number of probationers added to standard and intensive probation, the total number of community work service hours performed and the number of probationers who were revoked to the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). ADULT STANDARD PROBATION The primary goal of standard probation is the protection of the community. Standard probation is a less restrictive form of probation and those placed on this type of supervision are deemed to be at less risk to re-offend. An officer of a standard caseload may only be required to contact probationers once or twice a month, as opposed to intensive officers whose contacts range from four to 16 times per month. All probation officers are required to maintain a complete record of supervision, serve warrants, make arrests, and investigate cases referred by the Court to assist in sentencing decisions. Officers also keep identification records on all probationers assigned to them, obtain and assemble information concerning conduct while on probation and the probationers' compliance with the conditions and regulations, and return defaulting probationers to Court for violations. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, adult probation officers shall supervise no more than an average of 60 probationers. There are three levels of standard probation; maximum, medium, and minimum. It is the officer's responsibility to ensure that probationers receive services in accordance with their individual Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 59 risks/needs, and with the safety of the community in mind. Examples of these services are substance abuse counseling, education, literacy classes and financial counseling. From FY1996 to FY2001, the number of adults receiving standard probation services during the year increased by 45 percent from 41,876 to 60,825, while the number of probationers added to standard probation increased by 68 percent from 16,628 to 28,016. Over that same period, probationers on standard probation increased the number of community work service hours performed by 119 percent (347,181 in 1996 to 759,643 in 2001). The number of probationers revoked to ADC increased by 51 percent from FY1996 to FY2001. ADULT INTENSIVE PROBATION Adult Intensive Probation Supervision is a sentencing alternative that provides control, intervention and surveillance to probationers who would otherwise have been incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections. A two-person team comprised of a probation officer and a surveillance officer, a three-person team of one probation officer and two surveillance officers, or one probation officer, provides supervision. Pursuant to statute, a two-person team can supervise no more than 25 probationers, a three person team no more than 40, and a single probation officer, no more than 15. Intensive Probation requires supervision teams to have face-to-face contact with probationers at a minimum of four to 16 times per month, depending on which phase of the program the probationer is in. Probationers on Intensive Probation Services (IPS) are also required to maintain employment, complete 40 hours of community service per month and submit their paychecks to the probation department to pay restitution to victims of crimes, fines and probation fees. IPS may require probationers to participate and remain in drug treatment and/or education services. From FY1996 to FY2001, the number of adults receiving intensive probation services at some point during the year increased by 59 percent from 5,963 to 9,477 while the number of probationers added to intensive probation increased by 54 percent from 3,972 to 6,098. Over that same period, probationers on intensive probation increased the number of community work service hours performed by 21 percent (766,101 in 1996 to 927,563 in 2001). The number of probationers revoked to ADC increased by 91 percent from FY1996 to FY2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 60 Table 40 PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR IPS Standard TOTALS 1996 5,963 41,876 47,839 1997 6,466 50,494 56,960 1998 7,522 46,900 54,422 1999 8,387 50,607 58,994 2000 9,298 52,574 61,872 2001 9,477 60,825 70,302 2000 5,897 19,658 25,555 2001 6,098 28,016 34,114 2000 997,423 743,738 1,741,161 2001 927,563 759,643 1,687,206 Table 41 PROBATIONERS ADDED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR IPS Standard TOTALS 1996 3,972 16,628 20,600 1997 3,767 22,454 26,221 1998 4,973 19,821 24,794 1999 5,271 20,008 25,279 Table 42 COMMUNITY WORK SERVICE HOURS COMPLETED IPS Standard TOTALS 1996 766,101 347,181 1,113,282 1997 816,139 400,243 1,216,382 1998 859,682 374,726 1,234,408 1999 993,655 488,695 1,482,350 Table 43 PROBATIONERS REVOKED TO DOC 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 IPS 887 880 1,005 1,422 1,533 1,692 Standard 1,822 1,373 1,054 2,816 2,409 2,429 TOTALS 2,709 2,253 2,059 4,238 3,942 4,121 Source: The Arizona Courts Data Reports, 1996-2001 as reported by the 15 county probation departments in the monthly statistical reports submitted to the Adult Probation Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 61 JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM America’s juvenile justice system is significantly different from the adult criminal justice system. In 1899, the Illinois Legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, creating the first separate juvenile court. By 1925, 46 states, 3 territories and the District of Columbia passed similar legislation. These legislative acts introduced significant differences into America’s juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts begin with the presumption that juveniles are developmentally different from adults, and are therefore amenable to treatment. The result is a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution, and individualized justice rather than the same time for the same crime. There is a much greater emphasis on research and social science methods in the juvenile than the adult systems. The juvenile court has traditionally discouraged institutionalization in favor of keeping juveniles with their families in the community. Institutionalization is reserved for serious juvenile offenders who pose a threat to public safety. Juvenile court procedures are considerably different from adult procedures in that the juvenile system uses a non-adversarial method to arrive at the truth. A treatment team approach is common, and it consists of professional staff meeting to decide what is best for the juvenile. The result is adjudication, which is qualitatively different from a conviction. The 1960s saw the addition of some procedural safeguards for the juvenile court system including those associated with in re Gault, which was based on a famous Arizona case. In 1979, the federal government passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to solidify the federal government’s involvement in protecting the juvenile justice model. While the juvenile justice model, first established in 1899, may be firmly entrenched in America, some would like to make it more like the adult model. Indeed, the 1990s witnessed numerous states making modifications to the basic juvenile justice model including the passage of Arizona Proposition 102 mandating juveniles accused of violent offenses be direct filed into an adult court, thereby precluding the juvenile from the treatment approach provided in Arizona’s juvenile justice system. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, JUVENILES JUSTICE SERVICES DIVISION The Juvenile Justice Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, in coordination with the 15 county juvenile courts, is responsible for the effective administration of juvenile justice programs for delinquent and incorrigible youth. Activities are consistent with constitutional, statutory, and administrative requirements, which focus on accountability, treatment and rehabilitation as well as protection of the community and youth. The following data represent the demographic and offense characteristics of juveniles in the juvenile court system from FY1996 to FY2001. The data are broken Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 62 into four categories: referrals, petitions, probation and transfers to adult court. This does not capture all of the paths that a juvenile may take within Juvenile Court. Rather, the most significant events are illustrated below. REFERRALS Police, parents, school officials, probation officers or other agencies or individuals requesting that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over the juvenile’s conduct can make referrals. Referrals can be "paper referrals" issued as citations or police reports or "physical referrals" in which the juvenile is physically brought to Juvenile Court. A juvenile can be referred more than once in a given year. The data that follow reflects an unduplicated count of juveniles within each year, but because a juvenile could be referred in subsequent years, the totals cannot be summed across the years. From FY1996 to FY2001, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court increased by one percent. Over the six years, between 48 percent and 51 percent of the referrals came from Maricopa County, 19-20 percent came from Pima County and the remaining 30-32 percent came from the rural counties. The demographic characteristics of the juveniles referred to juvenile court did not change significantly over the five years. For example, between 67 percent and 68 percent of the juveniles were male in each of the five years and nearly one-fourth were age 17. The percentage of Anglo juveniles declined from 54 percent in FY1996 to 50 percent in FY2001 while the percentage of Hispanic youth referred to juvenile court increased from 33 percent in FY1996 to 36 percent in FY2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 63 Table 441 JUVENILES REFERRED Age 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown TOTAL FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 234 449 800 1,374 2,544 4,920 7,755 9,957 10,766 11,566 455 50,820 241 423 732 1,315 2,564 4,705 7,333 9,600 10,955 11,850 492 50,210 312 472 826 1,369 2,644 4,844 7,285 9,455 11,051 12,100 651 51,009 264 455 787 1,228 2,571 4,651 6,747 8,968 10,461 11,533 581 48,246 252 485 790 1,333 2,414 4,596 7,264 9,038 10,031 11,797 534 48,534 284 561 838 1,429 2,805 4,997 7,400 9,602 10,452 12,422 484 51,274 34,610 16,204 6 50,820 34,182 16,022 6 50,210 34,406 16,598 5 51,009 32,609 15,636 1 48,246 32,372 16,160 2 48,534 34,224 17,050 51,274 16,709 3,321 26,822 2,823 17,343 3,291 26,503 3,034 16,790 3,149 24,767 2,736 17,335 3,070 24,468 2,829 18,510 3,298 25,792 2,777 249 242 239 301 288 132 249 318 154 347 247 50,210 51,009 48,246 the Courts (Juvenile Services) 172 359 48,534 229 380 51,274 Gender Male Female Unknown TOTAL Race Hispanic 16,882 African American 3,450 Anglo 27,260 Native American 2,609 Asian/Pacific 234 Islander Other 187 Unknown 198 TOTAL 50,820 Source: Administrative Office of Juveniles referred for public peace crimes (including, but not limited to, aggravated DUI, under age alcohol consumption, disorderly conduct, weapons charges, reckless driving, and traffic offenses) showed the greatest increase from FY1996 to FY2001 (87 percent). At the same time, juveniles referred for felony property crimes (including burglary, shoplifting and criminal damage) declined by 31 percent from FY1996 to FY2001. Juveniles referred for felony crimes against person (including aggravated assault, homicide, sexual assault and kidnapping) declined by 25 percent. Juveniles referred for misdemeanor crimes against persons actually increased slightly (three percent) while juveniles referred for misdemeanor crimes against property declined (29 percent). Juveniles referred for obstruction of justice, including but not 1 Data are published in Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System FY1996 to FY2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 64 limited to probation violations, increased by 30 percent while juveniles referred for status offenses declined by 13 percent. Table 45 MOST SERIOUS OFFENSES FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 Felony Against Person 3,297 3,039 2,861 2,484 2,491 2,478 Felony Against Property 7,944 7,504 7,233 5,900 5,727 5,513 Obstruction of Justice 3,613 3,702 4,221 4,288 4,376 4,679 Misdemeanor Against Person 4,372 4,573 4,408 4,276 4,483 4,490 Drugs 4,416 4,940 5,097 4,800 4,459 4,900 Public Peace 6,919 7,476 8,687 9,912 10,861 12,960 Misdemeanor Against Property 9,365 8,885 8,654 7,530 7,313 6,667 10,732 9,893 9,648 8,850 8,591 9,340 162 198 200 206 233 247 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 Status Offenses Citations/Admin istrative TOTAL Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Services) PETITIONS A "petition" is a legal document filed in the juvenile court alleging that a juvenile is a delinquent, incorrigible, or a dependent child and requesting that the court assume jurisdiction over the youth. The petition initiates the formal court hearing process of the juvenile court. The county attorney, who determines what charges to bring against the juvenile, prepares the delinquent or incorrigibility petition. Similar to referrals, a juvenile could have more than one petition filed in a given year. The data presented is an unduplicated count of juveniles with at least one petition filed during the fiscal year. Because a juvenile could have a petition filed in multiple years, summing the totals across the years does not produce a valid accounting of juveniles with petitions filed. From FY1996 to FY2001, the number of juveniles with a petition filed increased by 22 percent although there was only a one percent increase in number of juveniles referred. Juveniles petitioned in Maricopa County increased by 36 percent, while juveniles petitioned in Pima County increased by 20 percent and by four percent in the rural counties overall. Maricopa County accounts for over half of all of the juveniles petitioned in Arizona. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 65 Table 461 JUVENILES PETITIONED BY COUNTY County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma TOTAL FY96 154 518 429 371 233 103 52 7,890 610 449 2,828 867 240 615 1,025 16,384 FY97 166 455 540 386 263 61 94 9,110 547 382 3,313 892 280 528 716 17,733 FY98 156 464 604 371 277 68 71 9,838 621 391 3,063 795 296 597 884 18,496 FY99 124 430 538 374 285 44 77 9,214 553 431 2,994 949 466 704 1,003 18,186 FY00 142 420 536 367 266 49 36 10,921 568 445 3,193 1,106 515 716 924 20,204 FY01 156 435 533 334 264 63 50 10,719 560 448 3,394 947 383 679 1,018 19,983 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Services) The number of juveniles petitioned for felony crimes against persons and property declined from FY1996 to FY2001 (41 percent and 28 percent respectively), while the number of juveniles petitioned for misdemeanor crimes against persons and property increased over the six years (74 percent and 12 percent respectively). In addition, juveniles petitioned for drug crimes increased by 67 percent. The greatest percentage increases in juveniles petitioned came under status offenses (211 percent or 1,030 juveniles) and public peace crimes (97 percent or 1,408 juveniles). 1 Data are published in Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System FY1996 to FY2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 66 Table 471 JUVENILES PETITIONED Most Serious Offense FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 Felony Against Person 2,248 2,214 1,650 1,448 Felony Against Property 5,103 4,899 4,735 3,924 Obstruction of Justice 3,170 3,640 4,057 4,031 Misdemeanor Against 1,171 1,506 1,734 1,963 Person Drugs 1,494 1,834 1,967 2,239 Public Peace 1,446 1,590 1,870 2,316 Misdemeanor Against 1,252 1,437 1,783 1,592 Property Status Offenses 488 607 692 648 Citations/Administrative 5 5 8 25 Unknown 7 1 TOTAL 16,384 17,733 18,496 18,186 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Services) FY00 1,435 3,939 4,172 FY01 1,336 3,696 4,599 2,190 2,035 2,148 3,055 2,492 2,854 1,664 1,405 1,572 29 20,204 1,518 48 19,983 JUVENILES IN STANDARD AND INTENSIVE PROBATION Probation is defined as conditional freedom granted by the juvenile court to an adjudicated juvenile on the condition of continued good behavior and regular reporting to a probation officer. The core tenets of juvenile probation are: protection of the community, the belief that youth can make positive changes in their behavior, fostering law-abiding behavior, restitution to victims and society for the wrongs committed against them, preservation of the best interest of the child, and stability of the family unit. Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) is a disposition consequence used by the juvenile court judges for those youth who are in need of a higher level of supervision and a highly structured program. Disposition or placement on JIPS is usually reserved for certain situations. Specifically, only juveniles who are adjudicated for delinquent acts or for violations of probation originating from a delinquent act are eligible for JIPS. The first type of youth placed in the program is one who would otherwise have been recommended for placement in an out-of-home institutional or residential setting. The second type of youth is one who, when considering the nature of the offense, their prior delinquent history, or risk to the community, have demonstrated a need for a highly structured, closely supervised program of probation emphasizing surveillance, education, work, and home detention. A third category of youth placed on JIPS is those adjudicated for a second felony offense. In these cases, the Juvenile Court is limited to the three choices cited 1 Data are published in Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System FY1996 to FY2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 67 in A.R.S. § 8-341. These options are JIPS, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections or prosecution as an adult. Both standard and intensive probation have seen growth over the last few years. The number of juveniles placed on standard probation increased by 35 percent from 8,197 in FY1996 to 11,039 in FY2001. The number of juveniles placed on intensive probation increased by 18 percent from 2,154 in FY1996 to 2,549 in FY2001. Table 48 PROBATIONERS ON STANDARD AND JIPS DURING THE FISCAL YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 JIPS 2,154 2,408 2,718 2,572 2,552 Standard 8,197 8,989 9,436 9,199 10,830 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Services) 2001 2,549 11,039 JUVENILES DIRECT FILED IN AND TRANSFERRED TO ADULT COURT Statutory provisions specify circumstances for handling juveniles as if they were adults in criminal court. Juveniles may be either direct filed in or transferred to adult court. In the data presented, a juvenile could be represented more than once in a given year if s/he was direct filed into adult court on one case and transferred on another. Pathways to Adult Court: ♦ Mandatory: Juveniles ages 15, 16, or 17 who commit a specified violent crime must be filed in adult court. ♦ Mandatory Prior: Juveniles previously convicted in adult court must be returned to adult court for any subsequent crimes or violations of probation. ♦ Chronic: Juveniles ages 15, 16, or 17 who have two prior felony adjudications in juvenile court and are arrested for a third felony must go to adult court. ♦ Discretion of County Attorney: Juveniles who are 14 and are a chronic offender or are 14 or older and commit one of a list of specified offenses may be filed in adult court. ♦ Transfer: Juveniles who do not meet the above criteria may still be transferred by the juvenile court depending on a number of factors such as the type and severity of the offense and the juvenile’s record and previous history. The county attorney may request an order of the juvenile court, transferring jurisdiction to the criminal Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 68 division of the Superior Court for prosecution of any juvenile charged with a felony. The number of juveniles direct filed and transferred to adult court increased by 0.8 percent from FY1996 to FY2001. Prior to 1997, juveniles were transferred to adult court rather than direct filed. In the initial implementation of the constitutional amendment in 1997, only murder, armed robbery and sexual assault offenses could be filed directly into adult court. In 1998, the enabling legislation was implemented making FY1998 the first year that the pathways to adult court were completely defined. Therefore, valid comparisons of direct file data are only possible for data from FY1998 to FY2001. The number of juveniles transferred to adult court declined by 87 percent from 663 in FY1996 to 85 in FY2001. Corresponding to these changes are the changes in the pathways to adult court. In FY1996, all of the juveniles sent to adult court were judicially transferred. In FY2001, transfers had decreased to 13 percent, while direct filings made up 87 percent of all juveniles in adult court. Table 491 DIRECT FILED County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total FY96 - FY97 - - - FY98 2 - FY99 2 3 15 9 16 6 16 11 5 11 52 6 2 1 2 2 67 4 481 17 5 152 37 3 12 15 774 FY00 - FY01 1 7 11 12 11 2 475 16 15 170 32 3 16 24 799 9 11 5 11 - 2 410 8 9 117 32 3 12 6 640 2 365 8 8 122 11 8 8 14 583 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Services) 1 Data are the most current data for juveniles in adult court as of FY2001.These data are typically rerun every year so that each Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System represents the most up to date data for juveniles in adult court. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 69 Table 501 TRANSFERRED County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total FY96 4 11 12 12 1 0 0 408 43 17 105 26 7 1 16 FY97 - FY98 1 8 6 15 7 - 663 4 7 FY99 - - FY00 1 1 5 2 - 2 421 33 13 86 21 5 9 18 1 238 15 7 53 4 1 5 9 644 345 2 65 2 4 27 - FY01 2 - 8 3 - 4 2 1 - 81 8 4 20 8 41 3 2 18 9 1 2 2 4 7 5 113 146 85 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Services) Table 512 3 JUVENILE TO ADULT COURT DESCRIPTION FY96 Mandatory Prior Chronic Discretionary Transfer Total 663 663 FY97 67 644 711 FY98 357 16 84 309 351 1,117 FY99 327 43 110 318 120 918 FY00 262 46 81 281 141 811 FY01 251 41 65 225 89 671 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Services) 1 Data are the most current data for juveniles in adult court as of FY2001.These data are typically rerun every year so that each Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System represents the most up to date data for juveniles in adult court. 2 It is possible for a juvenile to be in more than one pathway within a fiscal year, in which case the juvenile would be counted in more than one pathway. The total number of juveniles in adult court, therefore, is a duplicated count. 3 Historical data in this section are as previously reported in Juveniles Processed with the exception of adult court data. Data for juveniles direct filed in and transferred to adult court are dynamic and therefore represent the most current data available. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 70 From FY1996 to FY2001, there was a one percent increase in juveniles referred to Juvenile Court while there was a one percent increase in juveniles transferred or direct filed in adult court. Between FY1996 and FY1998, the first full year of implementation of the Proposition 102 enabling legislation, juveniles in adult court increased by 68 percent. The increase was largely driven by mandatory and discretionary direct files. During this same time period, juveniles transferred to adult court decreased by 47 percent. From FY1998 to FY2001, there was an overall decline (40 percent) in juveniles in adult court. Specifically, juveniles direct filed in adult court declined by 24 percent, while juveniles transferred to adult court declined by 75 percent. It is possible that part of the decline could be related to the ability to capture all of the data on juveniles who are direct filed especially for those juveniles who have prior convictions, however it is likely that this accounts for only a small part of the variance. Research will be needed for a definitive analysis. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 71 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) operates and maintains secure facilities for the custody, treatment and education of committed juveniles to the Department by a county juvenile court. Each juvenile placed in a secure facility receives rehabilitative services; including education, individual and group counseling, psychological services, health care and recreation. ADJC also provides community supervision services (Parole) for many of the juveniles released from an ADJC secure facility. Approximately 60 days following a juvenile’s arrival at ADJC, a multi-disciplinary team reviews classification and assessment information in order to develop an Individual Development Plan (IDP). The IDP is integrated with a general treatment program in which all juveniles participate. Staff conducts therapeutic groups, which focus on the development of new cognitive skills. The primary counseling curricula within the secure facilities are Limit and Lead and Thinking for a Change. The Limit and Lead group counseling program confronts the use of exploitative delinquent behavior. A fundamental focus of this group effort is to interrupt the juvenile’s offense cycle and corresponding delinquent urges. The program emphasizes the best treatment perspective to influence teen; peer group influence. It teaches effective group conflict resolution skills while staff and youth model productive social interactions. The Thinking for a Change curriculum is a problem-solving program embellished by both cognitive restructuring and social skills interventions. Youth are taught how to change their thinking patterns and behaviors by learning cognitive skills methods. ADJC is in the process of implementing a new Classification system to improve the identification of criminogenic and protective factors associated with delinquency. This will be used to generate a Continuous Case Plan that improves the identification and deployment of services for the juvenile starting at secure care and extending all the way through community supervision up to discharge. Current plans are to have a working model in place by July 2003. The following data represent the demographic characteristics of the juveniles committed to ADJC for the first time (new commitments) for the last six fiscal years (FY): additional information on ADJC can be obtained by contacting the Research and Development Division at (602) 542-2053 or johnv@dj.state.az.us or by going to the ADJC website at http://ADJC.AZ.GOV and clicking on Support Services and then Research and Development. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 72 GENDER There were 6,319 juveniles committed to ADJC from FY1996 through FY2001. While the vast majority (88.2 percent) of juveniles committed to ADJC was male, 11.8 percent were female, increasing from 9.6 percent in FY1996 to 11.6 percent in FY2001. Table 52 COMMITMENTS BY GENDER Gender FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 861 1,027 1,170 868 Male 90.4% 90.4% 87.7% 86.4% 91 109 164 137 Female 9.6% 9.6% 12.3% 13.6% 952 1,136 1,334 1,005 Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Arizona De partment of Juvenile Corrections FY2000 847 85.8% 140 14.2% 987 100% FY2001 800 88.4% 105 11.6% 905 100% RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic juveniles accounted for 42.4 percent of the new commitments in FY2001, increasing slightly from 41.5 percent in FY1996. The number of Caucasian juveniles has remained relatively stable throughout the six years. The numbers of Native American juveniles have been increasing throughout the six years from 4.3 percent in FY1996 to 4.5 percent in FY2001, while the numbers of Mexican National juveniles have decreased from 5.3 percent in FY1996 to 4.5 percent in FY2001. Table 53 COMMITMENTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY Race FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 395 502 597 421 41.5% 44.2% 44.8% 41.9% 360 412 480 381 Caucasian 37.8% 36.3% 36.0% 37.9% African 98 124 138 103 American 10.3% 10.9% 10.3% 10.2% Native 41 53 62 52 American 4.3% 4.7% 4.6% 5.2% Mexican 50 30 36 37 National 5.3% 2.6% 2.7% 3.7% 5 4 12 7 Asian 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 0.7% 3 11 9 4 Other 0.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 952 1136 1334 1005 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Hispanic Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review FY2000 433 43.9% 369 37.4% 90 9.1% 62 6.3% 26 2.6% 6 0.6% 1 0.1% 987 100% FY2001 384 42.4% 351 38.8% 83 9.2% 41 4.5% 41 4.5% 2 0.2% 3 0.3% 905 100% 73 AGE Over one-half (61.3 percent) of the new commitments to ADJC were 16 or 17 years old in FY2001, increasing from 53.1 percent in FY1996. Fifteen-year-old juveniles have remained relatively stable throughout the six years, representing 21.3 percent of the total in FY2001. Juveniles 14 and younger decreased from 21.0 percent in FY1996 to 17.3 percent in FY2001. Table 54 COMMITMENTS BY AGE Age FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 4 -02 2 11 and younger 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 5 7 17 7 12 years old 0.5% 0.6% 1.3% 0.7% 51 48 54 58 13 years old 5.4% 4.2% 4.0% 5.8% 140 161 181 121 14 years old 14.7% 14.2% 13.6% 12.0% 246 271 318 231 15 years old 25.8% 23.9% 23.8% 23.0% 265 389 393 290 16 years old 27.8% 34.2% 29.5% 28.8% 241 260 369 293 17 years old 25.3% 22.9% 27.7% 29.5% 952 1,136 1,334 1,005 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections FY2000 -013 1.3% 52 5.3% 123 12.5% 240 24.3% 279 28.3% 280 28.4% 987 100% FY2001 -03 0.3% 46 5.1% 108 11.9% 193 21.3% 258 28.5% 297 32.8% 905 100% Juveniles committed to ADJC from Maricopa County have decreased from 57.8 percent in FY1996 to 44.5 percent in FY2001, while juveniles committed from Pima County have increased from 18.8 percent in FY1996 to 24.4 percent in FY2001. Pinal, Yuma, Mohave, Yavapai, Navajo, Santa Cruz, and Apache County commitments have increased slightly throughout the six years, while the remaining counties have decreased. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 74 Table 55 COMMITMENTS BY COUNTY County FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 1 2 7 Apache 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 41 30 42 Cochise 4.3% 2.6% 3.1% 18 26 26 Coconino 1.9% 2.3% 1.9% 22 19 22 Gila 2.3% 1.7% 1.6% 3 4 22 Graham 0.3% 0.4% 1.6% 1 -0-0Greenlee 0.1% 4 1 4 La Paz 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 550 587 670 Maricopa 57.8% 51.7% 50.2% 32 40 54 Mohave 3.4% 3.5% 4.0% 12 13 13 Navajo 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 179 271 310 Pima 18.8% 23.9% 23.2% 33 62 76 Pinal 3.5% 5.5% 5.7% 9 10 10 Santa Cruz 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 18 24 25 Yavapai 1.9% 2.1% 1.9% 29 47 53 Yuma 3.0% 4.1% 4.0% 952 1,136 1,334 Total 100% 100% 100% Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections FY1999 3 0.3% 28 2.8% 12 1.2% 26 2.6% 15 1.5% -02 0.2% 448 44.5% 39 3.9% 12 1.2% 283 28.2% 50 5.0% 10 1.0% 24 2.4% 53 5.3% 1,005 100% FY2000 12 1.2% 39 4.0% 10 1.0% 13 1.3% 6 0.6% -03 0.3% 412 41.7% 41 4.2% 19 1.9% 271 27.5% 74 7.5% 15 1.5% 24 2.4% 48 4.9% 987 100% FY2001 3 0.3% 23 2.6% 15 1.7% 11 1.2% 7 0.8% -02 0.2% 403 44.5% 40 4.4% 14 1.6% 221 24.4% 72 8.0 12 1.3% 33 3.7% 49 5.4% 905 100% MOST SERIOUS COMMITTING OFFENSE (NEW COMMITMENTS IN ADJC CUSTODY) Property Offenses, including burglary, theft, shoplifting, and criminal damage accounted for half (50.4 percent) of the juveniles committed to ADJC throughout the six year period, decreasing from 52.3 percent in FY1996 to 49.2 percent in FY2001. Crimes Against Persons, including homicide, assault, sexual assault and kidnapping, also decreased from 23.2 percent in FY1996 to 17.6 percent in FY2001. Drug Offenses and Public Order Offenses increased from FY1996 (12.8 percent and 7.2 percent) to FY 2001 (16.7 percent and 9.7 percent). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 75 Table 56 COMMITMENTS BY OFFENSE Committing Offense Property Offenses Crime Against Person FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 498 595 677 52.3% 52.4% 50.7% 221 246 256 23.2% 21.7% 19.2% 122 156 197 Drug Offenses 12.8% 13.7% 14.8% Public Order 69 84 135 Offenses 7.2% 7.4% 10.1% Weapons 28 27 39 Offenses 2.9% 2.4% 2.9% All Other 14 28 30 Offenses 1.5% 2.5% 2.2% 952 1,136 1,334 Totals 100% 100% 100% Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections FY2000 489 48.7% 182 18.1% 170 16.9% 116 11.5% 20 2.0% 28 2.8% 1,005 100% FY2001 471 47.7% 190 19.3% 160 16.2% 106 10.7% 30 3.0% 30 3.0% 987 100% 445 49.2% 159 17.6% 151 16.7% 88 9.7% 24 2.7% 38 4.2% 905 100% TOTAL NUMBER OF JUVENILES IN ADJC CUSTODY In 1998, juveniles were temporarily placed at Rincon due to overpopulation at ADJC facilities. The Encanto facility was integrated with Adobe Mountain in 1999. SWRJCC opened in 1999; Sunrise Mountain stopped accepting new commitments in 2000. The juvenile corrections population has grown from an average 751 in 1997 to 923 in 2001 while capacity has grown from 758 in 1997 to 1168 in 2001. Table 57 JUVENILE CORRECTIONS POPULATION (1997-2001) Year Adobe Mountain Avg Cap Catalina Mountain Avg Cap Black Canyon Avg Cap Southwest Regional Avg Cap Encanto Avg Cap 1997 406 408 128 124 191 192 0 0 26 34 1998 538 408 151 124 213 192 0 0 29 34 1999 464 408 150 124 174 192 92 200 30 34 2000 471 420 146 146 155 168 135 300 0 34 2001 407 470 142 146 111 118 232 400 31 34 Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections *Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles. The number of juveniles in ADJC custody on parole remained stable until the end of FY 1999 when the parole population decreased from 1,302 at the end of FY1998 to 1,203 in FY1999, continuing to decrease to 910 at the end of FY2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 76 Table 58 TOTAL NUMBER OF JUVENILES ON PAROLE Population Parole Interstate Parole Interstate Probation Pending ISC Parole Pending ISC Probation Totals As of 6/30/1996 As of 6/30/1997 As of 6/30/1998 As of 6/30/1999 As of 6/30/2000 As of 6/30/2001 1047 945 1036 973 800 709 38 51 24 37 42 24 179 202 167 132 151 120 3 8 9 7 16 10 40 104 66 54 69 47 1,307 1,310 1,302 1,203 1,078 910 Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 77 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) houses adult offenders convicted of felonies in Arizona and sentenced to a period of state-level confinement. This includes approximately 400 adult felons convicted of driving under the influence who were sentenced to the Department (usually for four months) as a condition of probation. The ADC maintains segregated prison facilities for juveniles sentenced in adult court in Arizona. As of June 30, 2002, the total population of 29,273 offenders committed to the DOC was distributed among prison facilities as follows: Table 59 LOCATION OF COMMITTED POPULATION, JUNE 30, 2002 Facility ASPC*- Douglas ASPC- Eyman ASPC- Florence ASPC- Lewis ASPC- Perryville ASPC- Phoenix ASPC-Safford ASPC- Tucson ASPC- Winslow ASPC-Yuma Private Prisons County Jails Pending Transfer to ADC** Total Source: Arizona Department of Corrections *Arizona State Prison Complex **No fixed capacity for pending transfer. Population 2,154 4,577 3,891 4,058 2,165 940 1,797 3,874 1,824 2,159 1,664 Capacity 1,815 4,120 3,266 3,800 2,278 802 1,453 3,520 1,626 1,850 1,450 170 - 29,273 23,280 The following shows the gender and sentence type of inmates active on June 30, 2002: Table 60 GENDER AND SENTENCE TYPE OF COMMITTED POPULATION, JUNE 30, 2002 Sentence Type Male Death Sentence 120 Life Sentence 1,061 Term of Years 25,731 TOTAL 26,912 Source: Arizona Department of Corrections Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Female 2 45 2,314 2,361 Total 122 1,106 28,045 28,273 78 PRISON POPULATION GROWTH TREND The three figures that follow track the growth in the Arizona prison population over the period from December 31, 1991 to December 31, 2001. Over this 10-year period, prison population increased from 15,464 to 28,059 or by 81.5 percent. Growth over this period averaged 1,259.5 per year or 105.0 per month. This compares to average monthly growth of 87.2 over the previous 10-years. Figure 17 ENDING ADULT COMMITTED POPULATION 1991-2001 40,000 35,000 30,000 28,059 26,003 1998 1999 26,747 23,866 25,000 21,663 Inmates 25,712 22,697 19,864 20,000 17,968 16,572 15,464 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 79 Figure 18 PERCENTAGE PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1991-2001 12.0% 10.6% 10.0% 9.1% 8.4% Yearly Percentage Growth 8.0% 8.0% 7.7% 7.2% 6.0% 5.2% 4.9% 4.8% 4.0% 2.9% 2.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 80 Figure 19 MONTHLY PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1991-2001 240 220 200 Avg. Monthly Population Growth 180 158 160 154 150 140 116 120 109 96 100 97 92 86 80 62 60 40 24 20 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year The highest growth occurred in 1994 (158 per month) and 1998 (154 per month), while the lowest growth occurred in 1999 (24 per month) and 2000 (62 per month). The lower levels of growth in 1999-2000 were shown to be associated with a backlog in criminal case activity in Maricopa County. Average monthly population growth dropped from 122.4 over the period 1991-1995 to 88.7 over the period 1996-2001. Based in large part on a recovery in court activity in Maricopa County, average monthly growth is up to 189.6 during 2002 (through July). In terms of the percentage growth during any given year, the highest levels of growth occurred in the early half of the decade, peaking at 10.6 percent in 1994. Average yearly percentage growth dropped from 8.7 percent during 1991-1995 to 4.4 percent during 1996-2001. Factors believed to associate with growth in the Arizona prison population over the period 1991-2001 include state general population growth, mandatory sentencing, an increased level of methamphetamine drug use, increased drug enforcement activity (the drug war), increased street gang activity in the state, a stiffening of penalties for driving under the influence, and harsher penalties for Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 81 dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth-in Sentencing. Normally you would expect a drop in crime to lead to a drop in the overall incarceration rates. However, the previously stated factors have had the opposite effect. INCARCERATION RATE TREND The figure “Arizona Incarceration Rate,” shown below tracks the trend in the Arizona incarceration rate over the period 1991-2001. The incarceration rate is calculated as the number of inmates per 100,000 general population of the state, and is useful as it factors out the portion of prison population growth, which is due to growth in the state general population. The incarceration rate increased steadily from 411.0 in 1991 to 550.9 in 1998, but then has fallen back to 521.7 in 2001, primarily due to the lag in court commitments from Maricopa County. Figure 20 ARIZONA INCARCERATION RATE 1991-2001 800.0 700.0 Inmates Per 100,000 Population 600.0 550.9 503.0 512.1 1995 1996 524.3 544.2 521.3 521.7 2000 2001 478.9 500.0 411.0 428.5 449.9 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1997 1998 1999 Calendar Year The figure “Incarceration Rate Comparison” shown below compares trends in incarceration rates between Arizona and the United States as a whole (state-level Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 82 prisoners only). As indicated, Arizona has had a higher incarceration rate than the nation as a whole throughout the decade, but the difference has diminished over the last three years. The percent excess of the Arizona rate over the national rate has dropped from 38 percent in 1991 to 20 percent in 2001. In general, however, the two trends are quite similar over the past 10-years. Figure 21 INCARCERATION RATE COMPARISON Arizona vs. United States, 1991-2001 800.0 700.0 Inmates Per 100,000 Population 600.0 550.9 503.0 512.1 544.2 524.3 521.3 521.7 439.4 436.3 478.9 500.0 449.9 411.0 428.5 390.4 406.4 421.7 435.7 450.5 Arizona 368.8 400.0 United States 341.7 298.4 315.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year PRISON ADMISSIONS, RELEASES, AND TIME SERVED The two major factors driving changes in prison population are the fluctuating levels of prison admissions and prison releases. When admissions rise, prison population tends to increase, while as releases rise, prison population tends to decrease. However, as admissions rise, releases tend to rise as well, as the additional admitted inmates reach the end of their prison terms. In any case, the growth in prison Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 83 population during any given period equates to the excess of admissions over releases during the period. Admissions include commitments from the court in addition to returns to custody of release violators. Releases include both the discretionary and the non-discretionary variety. In recent years, following the implementation of Truthin-Sentencing in 1994, the vast majority of releases has been non-discretionary. The figure “Adult Prison Admissions and Releases” seen below, tracks the level of Arizona prison admissions and releases over the period 1991-2001. As shown, both admissions and releases have risen over the course of the decade. The exception is that admissions dropped significantly in 1999, because of the aforementioned lag in commitments from Maricopa County. Because of the drop in admissions in 1999, the growth in releases lagged somewhat during 2000 and 2001. Figure 22 ADULT PRISON ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES 1991-2001 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,961 14,448 14,000 Admissions/Releases 14,198 13,507 12,697 11,807 11,223 12,000 11,600 9,977 10,000 13,216 13,454 13,649 12,602 11,528 8,889 Admissions 10,566 8,256 Releases 10,008 9,327 8,000 8,581 7,781 6,000 7,105 4,000 2,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Another way to look at prison population growth is as a function of two factors, the level of admissions and average time served in prison. Independent of the trend in admissions, as time served decreases; releases tend to increase, while population tends to decrease. On the other hand, as time served increases, releases tend to decrease, while population tends to increase. The figure “Average Time Served for Prison Releases” below, tracks average time served prior to release for inmates released over the period 1991-2001. As indicated, time served has gradually increased over the past 10-years, primarily because of harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth-in-Sentencing. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 84 Figure 23 AVERAGE TIME SERVED FOR PRISON RELEASES 1991-2001 50 45 Average Time Served (Months) 40 35 28 30 28 27 32 32 32 1997 1998 1999 33 34 29 25 24 25 20 15 10 5 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 2000 2001 Calendar Year PRISON POPULATION FORECASTING One of the responsibilities of the Research Unit in the Arizona Department of Corrections is to maintain a current viable inmate population forecast. This forecast forms the basis each year for the Department’s appropriation request and for the 5Year Bed Plan. The use of regression analysis assists in projecting future inmate population in various categories based on the currently observed variation in the longer-term population trend. This often involves estimates of the impact of new legislation and of new departmental policies that may affect population growth. These estimates are calculated from determinations of impact on admission levels and time served. The most recent forecast revision reflected estimates of the timing of the recovery in criminal case processing in Maricopa County. OFFENDERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION The figure “Offenders under Community Supervision” below, tracks the number of offenders under community supervision following release from ADC custody over the Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 85 period 1991-2001. This does not include those released to probation supervision by county authorities. While the number of offenders released to community supervision has increased as total releases have increased, and although a higher percentage of released offenders have been subject to supervision under Truth-in-Sentencing laws, nonetheless the number under supervision has been on the decline since 1995. This is because the length of community supervision, typically one-seventh of the term imposed by the court, is significantly shorter under Truth-in-Sentencing (1994 to the present) than under the former criminal code (1978-1993). Figure 24 OFFENDERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 1991-2001 8,000 7,000 5,679 6,000 5,468 Supervised Population 5,208 5,000 4,657 4,289 4,098 4,033 3,801 4,000 3,715 3,351 3,536 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year STAFFING AND EXPENDITURES As the inmate population has continued to increase, so has the number of authorized full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the Department of Corrections. The figure “ADC Full-Time Equivalent Positions” tracks FTE positions over the period FY1991 – FY2001. The figure shows an increase proportionate to the increase in the inmate Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 86 population. To wit, over this period the ratio of ending inmate population to authorized FTE positions has fallen slightly from 2.65 in FY1991 to 2.63 in FY2001. Figure 25 ADC FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS FY 1991 - FY 2001 16,000.0 14,000.0 12,000.0 10,673.4 10,677.4 2000 2001 9,959.4 FTE Positions 10,000.0 8,624.4 9,020.4 7,944.4 8,000.0 7,313.4 5,829.2 6,062.4 6,457.4 6,812.4 6,000.0 4,000.0 2,000.0 0.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year Due primarily to inflation, and as indicated in the figure below titled “ADC Agency Expenditures,” total ADC expenditures have risen at a somewhat higher rate than authorized staff positions, from $240 million in 1991 to $575 million in FY2001. This is a 140 percent increase in comparison to an 81 percent increase in inmates and an 83 percent increase in staff positions. Accordingly, as shown on the figure titled “ADC Cost per Inmate Day,” the ADC inmate cost per day of incarceration has increased by 30 percent, from $45.09 in FY1991 to $58.51 in FY2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 87 Figure 26 ADC AGENCY EXPENDITURES FY 1991 - FY 2001 $800 $700 $575 $600 $552 Expenditures (Millions) $523 $476 $500 $428 $402 $400 $348 $295 $300 $240 $251 1991 1992 $267 $200 $100 $0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 88 Figure 27 ADC COST PER INMATE DAY FY 1991 - FY 2001 $80.00 $70.00 $56.66 $60.00 $58.51 Cost Per Day (Dollars) $52.81 $50.00 $48.29 $45.09 $43.66 $43.21 $43.89 1992 1993 1994 $44.79 1995 $50.25 $45.62 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.00 1991 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal Year INMATE POPULATION PROFILE The following four figures show changes over the period FY1991 – FY2001 in the distribution of the inmate population according to four variables, including sentencing county, race/ethnicity, committing offense category (most serious) and age. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 89 Figure 28 SENTENCING COUNTY OF COMMITTED ADULTS FY 1991 - FY 2001 100% 80% 60% Rural Pima Maricopa 40% 20% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 90 Figure 29 RACE/ETHNICITY OF COMMITTED ADULTS FY 1991 - FY 2001 100% 80% Other Latino Native American African American Caucasian 60% 40% 20% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 91 Figure 30 OFFENSE CATEGORY OF COMMITTED ADULTS FY 1991 - FY 2001 100% 80% Misc. Offenses DUI Drug Offenses 60% Against Property Against Persons 40% 20% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 92 Figure 31 AGE OF COMMITTED ADULTS FY 1991 - FY 2001 100% 80% 55+ 45-54 60% 35-44 25-34 0-24 40% 20% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Calendar Year The results from the four tables show significant increases in the percent of Latino and Native American inmates, and in the percent of inmates age 35 or over. There has also been a significant decrease in the percent of inmates committed for crimes against property, coupled with moderate increases in the percent committed for each of four other types of crimes, including crimes against persons, drug offenses, DUI, and miscellaneous offenses. Within the category of crimes against persons, the percent of inmates committed for aggravated assault has increased by 62% from 1991 to 2001. Within the category of drug offenses, the increase is only in the category of drug trafficking, as the percent of inmates committed for drug possession has dropped steadily since the passage of Proposition 200 in the 1996 election. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 93 FINDINGS The data presented in this report suggest that there are a number of crime trends which policy and decision makers must be cognizant of when creating or modifying existing policies or programs. The most salient of those trends include: POPULATION • Arizona population has been increasing each year since 1991. Since 1991, the population has nearly doubled, increasing 41.5 percent in contrast to a 12.9 percent national average. Arizona’s population grew more than three times faster than the rest of the nation from 1991 to 2001. • The substantial population shift in Arizona during the past 10-years has placed an increased burden on all components of the criminal justice system. This burden has been compounded by trying to maintain established levels of service. CRIME • Arizona has maintained a high crime ranking over the past 10-years. In 1991, Arizona’s overall crime rate ranked third in the United States. In 2001, Arizona’s ranking increased to number one in the nation. • In 2000 and 2001, Arizona ranked number one in property crime rate in the United States. • Arizona moved from the sixth highest rate of motor vehicle theft in 1991 to the number one ranked state in the nation in 2001. Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate is 40.9 percent greater than the 2nd ranked state and is separating itself from national motor vehicle theft rates. • Two categories, murder and motor vehicle theft, tend to be most reliable in reporting accuracy and are two of the categories in which Arizona has shown a marked increase. • Arizona placed in the top 10 during 2001 for murder (7), robbery (10), burglary (7), larceny-theft (3) and motor vehicle theft (1). • The national property crime rate has decreased 28.9 percent over the past 10 years, while the Arizona property crime rate has fluctuated over this same time period and is down 18.8 percent from 1991 to 2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 94 • When comparing national and Arizona UCR trends for 2001 several similarities occurred. Larceny-theft represented the largest category of offenses for both national and state trends, followed by burglary and motor vehicle theft. • Arizona has gone from 3rd to 1st in total crime ranking while at the same time the overall crime rate has decreased. Upon closer inspection, Arizona has experienced a decrease in the crime rate in all but two of the Part I crime categories, robbery and motor vehicle theft. VICTIMIZATION • The trend of annually declining violent crime rates began after 1993. According to the NCVS report, the annual national violent crime rate has decreased about 50 percent since that time. • Of the 5.7 million violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault), the decrease in violent victimization was attributed to a decrease in simple assaults. Declines in the other violent crime categories were not statistically significant. • Since 1992, males and females were victims of simple assault at similar rates. In previous years, males suffered more simple assault than females. ARREST • Arrests (defined as each separate occasion in which an individual is taken into custody, notified to appear, or cited for an offense) for Part I crimes in Arizona are down from 1991 to 2001 with the exception of motor vehicle theft which is up 44.7 percent. • The most dramatic difference between over and under 18 year old arrest rates is motor vehicle theft. Motor vehicle arrests decreased by 44 percent for under 18 year olds while increasing 119 percent for 18 and older year olds. • The property crime rate in Arizona has decreased from 6,734.9 to 5,537.1 or 17.8 percent from 1991 to 2001. The overall property crime arrest rate has decreased from 1,328.8 to 732.9 or 44.8 percent in the same period. COURTS • The number of felonies filed by prosecutors in Superior Court from 1991 to 2001 has increased each year with the exception of 1993 and 1999. The number of felony cases filed has increased by more than 17,000 over the last Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 95 10 years. The difference in the number of felonies filed in Superior Court is 26,140 in 1991 to 43,462 in 2001. As such, the number of convictions and dismissals has also increased over the same period. • The courts in Arizona processed more than 2.4 million filings in fiscal year 2001. Of the 2.4 million filings, almost 1.6 million were for criminal traffic and civil traffic violations, all handled by the limited jurisdiction courts in the state (Justice and Municipal Courts). • From FY1996 to FY2001, the number of juveniles with a petition filed increased by 22 percent although there was only a one percent increase in the number of referrals. • Juveniles petitioned in Maricopa County increased by 36 percent, while juveniles petitioned in Pima County increased by 20 percent and by 4 percent in the rural counties overall. • The number of juveniles petitioned for felony crimes against persons and property declined from FY1996 to FY2001 (41 percent and 28 percent respectively), while the number of juveniles petitioned for misdemeanor crimes against persons and property increased over the six years (74 percent and 12 percent respectively). In addition, juveniles petitioned for drug crimes increased by 67 percent. • From FY1996 to FY2001, there was a one percent increase in juveniles referred to Juvenile Court while there was a one percent increase in juveniles transferred or direct filed in adult court. PROBATION • The number of adult individuals on probation in Arizona is increasing. Over, the past five years adults on probation have increased from 47,839 in 1996 to 61,872 in 2000. The number of individuals on Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS), the type of probation reserved for the more serious offenders has increased 36 percent from 1996. • The number of juveniles on probation was up 2.4 percent to 9,625 at the end of FY2001. CORRECTIONS • Males represented 88.2 percent of juveniles committed to ADJC, 11.8 percent were female, increasing from 9.6 percent in 1996 to 14.2 percent in 2000. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 96 • The adult corrections population has increased substantially over the past 10 years. The prison population in Arizona increased from 15,464 to 28,059 (81.5 percent). • Males made up more than 95 percent of the adult total corrections population. • The time served by inmates has gradually increased over the past 10-years, primarily because of harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under the Truth-in-Sentencing mandate. • As the inmate population has continued to increase, so has the number of authorized full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the Department of Corrections. • There has been a significant increase in the percent of Latino and Native American inmates and in the percent of inmates age 35 or over. There has also been a significant decrease in the percent of inmates committed for crimes against property, coupled with moderate increases in the percent committed for each of four other types of crimes, including crimes against persons, drug offenses, DUI and miscellaneous offenses. • The two largest counties in Arizona, Maricopa and Pima, have experienced different trend patterns in regard to juveniles committed to ADJC. Juveniles committed to ADJC from Maricopa County have decreased from 57.8 percent in FY1996 to 41.7 percent in FY2000, while juveniles committed from Pima County have increased from 18.8 percent in FY1996 to 27.5 percent in FY2000. • Property Offenses, including burglary, theft, shoplifting, and criminal damage accounted for 47.7 percent of the juveniles committed in FY2000. Crimes Against Persons, including homicide, assault, sexual assault and kidnapping, accounted for 19.3 percent of juveniles committed in FY2000. Drug Offenses accounted for 7.2 percent and public order offenses accounted for 10.7 percent. • Over one-half (56.5 percent) of the new commitments to ADJC were 16 or 17 years old in FY2000. • ADJC population has grown from 725 in 1997 to 1,292 in 2001, while capacity has grown from 750 in 1997 to 1,435 in 2001. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 97 CONCLUSION This report has two primary objectives, the first is to provide an overview of crime trends in Arizona, the second and equally challenging objective is to provide the Governor, criminal justice stakeholders, and the citizens of Arizona with a review of the criminal justice system. To accomplish both objectives the ACJC solicited the participation of key criminal justice stakeholders in a collaborative partnership. This partnership is noteworthy because it is a first time attempt to display crime trend information utilizing a systemic approach. The result of that collaboration is this Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review publication. Readers are encouraged to review the numbers and figures in the tables presented. Interpretation is invited with the expectation that the data and information presented will elicit questions and discussion. There were two main indicators used in this document for comparison of crime. One indicator is the National Crime Victimization Survey, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The NCVS is the nation’s primary source of information on criminal victimization. The second and most common indicator of crime is the Uniform Crime Report data. These data are reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. No matter which indicator one uses, whether the National Crime Victimization Survey or the Uniform Crime Reports, crime declined from 1991 to 2000. Moreover, regardless of how one analyzes the data, the one consistent factor is that crime, or at least crime rates, were down until 2001. Through the year 2000, available data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports showed that all categories of crime continued a downward trend (FBI 2000). According to a UCR report released by the FBI, “the measure of serious crime, the Crime Index total, had decreased 0.2 percent to an estimated 11.6 million offenses in 2000. This marked the lowest measure in the United States since 1972.” (F.B.I 2000). Furthermore, the rate of crime per 100,000 inhabitants fell 3.3 percent from the 1999 rate, 18.9 percent from the 1996 rate, and 30.1 percent from the 1991 rate (F.B.I 2000). After more than a decade of progressively lower crime rates, 2001 represented a shift with a 2.1 percent increase in total crime and approximately a one percent increase in the total crime rate. In 2001, there was an increase over the 2000 national crime rate for the majority of UCR Part I types of crime. Murder was up, the robbery rate increased, all property crimes and rates increased with motor vehicle theft experiencing the largest increase of any Part I category. Criminologists have cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions about Arizona and or the country’s crime based on a one-year change. Upon close inspection, Arizona’s number one ranking in total Crime Index can be explained in part by the fact that Arizona is also ranked number one in property crime and motor vehicle theft. Motor vehicle theft is a contributing factor in property Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 98 crime rates and in turn, property crime rates are the largest contributing factor in total Crime Index rankings. Overall, more than 2.4 million cases were filed in all Arizona courts in FY2001. Felonies filed by prosecutors from 1991 to 2001 in Superior Court have increased each year with the exception of 1993 and 1999. As reported by the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts, the number of felony cases filed has increased by more than 17,000 over the last 10 years from 26,140 in 1991 to 43,462 in 2001. This represents an overall increase of 66.3 percent in the number of felony filings. There were 60,800 individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation departments at the end of FY2001, up 5.9 percent for FY2000. The number of juveniles on probation was up 2.4 percent to 9,625 at the end of FY2001. Within the past five years, the number of adults and juveniles placed on probation has risen by 32.0 percent and 23.8 percent, respectively. During the same time period, both adult and juvenile arrests declined. Between FY1996 and FY1998, the first full year of implementation of the Proposition 102 enabling legislation, juveniles in adult court increased by 68 percent. From FY1998 to FY2001, there was an overall decline (40 percent) in juveniles in adult court. Between 1996 (663 juveniles) and 2001 (671 juveniles) the total number of juveniles in adult court has only increased by eight. Research is needed to determine what caused the initial increase and then the return to near 1996 levels. A definitive analysis would provide decision makers with information to support the current process or recommend changes. Certain demographic statistics provide useful information about the types of individuals entering the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. Of significance is the increase in the juvenile corrections population. Currently, the largest portion of juveniles is males between the ages of 16 and 17. This information may provide decision makers valuable insights when targeting and developing programs within ADJC and may suggest the need for additional resources in order to maintain current service levels. Over the period from 1991 to 2001, the Arizona prison population increased from 15,464 to 28,059 or 81.5 percent. Factors believed to contribute to this growth include state general population growth, mandatory sentencing, an increased level of methamphetamine drug use, increased drug enforcement activity (the drug war), increased street gang activity in the state, a stiffening of penalties for driving under the influence, and harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth-in-Sentencing. Normally one would expect a decline in crime to lead to a decrease in the overall incarceration rates. However, the previously stated factors have had the opposite effect. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 99 Throughout the Arizona criminal justice system there is strong evidence that all components of the system are holding offenders more accountable. This is consistent with several criminal justice philosophies advocating strong accountability of the offender as a response by the criminal justice system. For example, models that incorporate the principals of a Restorative Justice/Balanced Approach advocate for this as an integral component of a comprehensive strategy in addressing both criminal and juvenile crime (Bazemore, 1998). As reflected in this Arizona Crime Trends document, crime and arrests have gone down in Arizona until 2001, while workloads of each of the criminal justice system components have grown dramatically. Over the past 10-years, criminal filings submitted by prosecution and processed through the court system have increased noticeably. Additionally, the number of juveniles and adults placed on probation has risen notably during the past five years. Finally, both juvenile and adult populations at the Juvenile and Adult Department of Corrections has risen considerably during this time period. Much of the evidence presented suggests that substantially stronger measures are being taken to hold the offender accountable by the Arizona criminal justice system. Over the past 10 years, notable improvements have been made by criminal justice agencies in providing data relative to their individual jurisdictions. Substantial improvements have been made in the capabilities of information systems and the reporting structures of criminal justice information for data analysis purposes. Data submitted to the Arizona Department of Public Safety have improved remarkably with more agencies submitting data in 2001. This is particularly relevant due to the extensive use of UCR data at both the local and national levels for a variety of purposes ranging from writing grants to decisions regarding prevention and intervention strategies. In spite of the aforementioned notable efforts, there is more that needs to be accomplished. Currently, there are limitations regarding the tracking of prosecution trends across local jurisdictions. Although numerous departments have upgraded their case management systems for this purpose, there remain barriers surrounding terminology and definitions for reporting. All stakeholders are encouraged to redouble their efforts in the constant effort to standardize, compile, report and interpret data which will facilitate crime trends analysis. Several questions were identified during the development of the Arizona Crime Trends publication. One question of particular interest to Arizona is what can be done to address the motor vehicle theft problem in Arizona. Certainly, given the fact that Arizona has a motor vehicle theft rate that is number one in the nation and 40.9 percent above second ranked Nevada is reason for concern. Additional resources Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 100 dedicated to analyzing the problem may provide opportunities to impact future intervention strategies. Possibly even more significant is the question, what factors are contributing to Arizona’s number one Crime Index ranking. While no single factor can explain away Arizona’s number one Crime Index ranking, there are several factors which are clear contributors. They include but are not limited to, the tremendous population growth which Arizona has undergone (growing 41.5 percent from 1991 to 2001), and the large increase in property crime within the state. Arizona ranked first in property crime with a rate of 5,537.1 in 2001. Over 80 percent of the total Crime Index ranking is composed of property crime, therefore a state which ranks number one in property crime stands a good chance to also have the unenviable position of being number one in total Crime Index ranking. Finally, the question of, “Why crime rates have fallen so precipitously?” continues to be debated and will be debated even as-or after-the identified trends abate. No detailed attempt to determine the reasons why the aforementioned trends have evolved is offered. The more commonly advanced reasons for the decrease in crime include population shifts, a strong economy, prison growth, policing initiatives, gun control policies and the reduction in crack cocaine usage. If indeed the reasons listed above are in fact major reasons why the crime rate has fallen, one might wonder what will happen to crime at the local and national level as the economy turns down, demographic changes occur, prisoners are released in unprecedented numbers and the youth population begins to grow again. Decision makers are encouraged to utilize this Arizona Crime Trends report along with other available data when planning for these and other factors which will influence crime in the future. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (2002). State of Arizona Youth Survey 2002. Phoenix: Arizona Statistical Analysis Center. Armstrong, T. and Armstrong, G. The Arizona Fact Book On Violent Crime. (June, 2002) Available on line at http://www.west.asu.edu/chs/partdev/violence.htm Bazemore, Gordon & Umbreit, M.S. 1998. Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Blumstein, A & Wallman, J (2000) Crime Drop in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Crime and Victims Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Statistics [online] September 2, 2002 Available online at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm Crime Control Digest. Theft, Murder, Fewer Arrests Boost Crime Rate for First Time in 10 Years. (2002, November 1) Vol. 36, No. 44 Crime in the United States, 2001 Uniform Crime Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigations U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C. Crime State Rankings, Crime in the 50 United States. (1999-2002) Lawrence, Kansas: Morgan Quitno Corporation. Criminal Justice Research Reports. Exploring National Crime Trends: How Much Has Crime Declined and Why National Crime Rates Continue to Decline. July/August 2002 Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States Uniform Crime Reports, 2000. Available on line at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/contents.pdf 10/02/02 Kershaw, S. (2002, June 24). Report Shows Serious Crime Rose in 2001. The New York Times. National Criminal Justice Association Bulletin Highlights. Nation’s Crime Rate Continues to Decline, According to the BJS., September, 2002. National Crime Victimization Survey Reports. Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, (1993-2001). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 102 Population estimates. U.S. Census Bureau September 10, 2002 available online at: http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/populartables/table01.php Population Statistics. Arizona Department of Economic Security [online] August 7, 2002 Available online at: http://www.de.state.az.us/tp/portal.asp Rand, M & Rennison, C (2001) Window on Washington True Crime Stories? Accounting for Differences in Out National Crime Indicators Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Rennison, C. Ph.D. Criminal Victimization 2001 Changes 2000-02 with Trends 19932001 Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Uniform Crime Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigations [online] September 4, 2002 Available online at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 103