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 R e v i e w July 2005 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Chairperson Vice-Chairperson J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DUANE BELCHER Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff TERRY GODDARD Attorney General BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney ROD MARQUARDT Mohave County Chief Probation Officer TOMMIE CLINE MARTIN Gila County Supervisor RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff DORA SCHRIRO Department of Corrections Director LINDA SCOTT Former Judge ANDREW P. THOMAS Maricopa County Attorney ROGER VANDERPOOL Department of Public Safety Director RICHARD YOST El Mirage Police Department Chief JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director STEVE BALLANCE Statistical Analysis Center Director MITCH HALFPENNY Senior Research Analyst JOY LITZENBERGER Research Analyst JANICE SIMPSON Research Analyst Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank the law enforcement, probation, correctional agencies and court services personnel who contributed to this report. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Michelle Anderson, Arizona Supreme Court Lynn Allmann, Department of Public Safety Bobbie Chinsky, Arizona Supreme Court Elizabeth Eells, Ph.D., Arizona Supreme Court Joyce Dehnert, Department of Public Safety Daryl Fischer, Ph.D., Department of Corrections Steve Gendler, Department of Public Safety Mark J. McDermott, Arizona Supreme Court John Vivian, Ph.D., Department of Juvenile Corrections Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction Research Purpose Research Methods Population National Crime Victimization Survey Arizona Department of Public Safety UCR Submissions Part I Crimes - Crime Distribution Crime Index – Rates Violent Crime Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Firearm Use in Violent Crime Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Services Superior Court Justice courts Municipal courts Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Probation Services Division Juvenile Justice System Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Services Justice Division Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Department of Corrections Special Topics Gender in the Juvenile Justice System Gender in the Adult Prison Population AIBRS/NIBRS Fill the Gap Findings Conclusion Bibliography Appendix A Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review i 1 3 3 4 5 7 8 9 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 30 30 33 35 37 41 41 45 51 60 61 63 65 67 69 73 76 77 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past 10 years, Arizona has had a considerably higher crime rate than the rest of the nation. Between 1993 and 2003, Part I crime rates decreased 17.3 percent in Arizona. During this same time period crime rates nationally decreased 24.9 percent. Part I crime rates indicate the Index Crime Rate 1993-2003 frequency of Part I crimes per 100,000 residents. While crime rates in Arizona have also decreased, the workload for the criminal justice system has not decreased. The population in Arizona increased 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003, compared to a 12.8 percent increase during the same time period nationwide. 9000 8000 Number of Crimes Reported 7000 6000 5000 National Arizona 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm The population increase has caused an increase in reported Part I crimes in Arizona even though the crime rate was falling. Population increases also fuel higher levels of traffic violations and misdemeanors that, while not taken into account in Part I crime rates, increase the workload of police, prosecutors, the courts, and jails. Criminal justice agencies in Arizona have seen an increase in workloads tied to the 41.8 percent increase in population over the last decade. However, there has not been a corresponding increase in funding or positions. This strain is seen throughout the criminal justice system through overcrowded prisons, overloaded courts and a lack of an adequate number of police officers for patrol and other functions. The continuing increase in the prison population and the accompanying increases in costs per inmate and agency expenditures highlight the need for a solid data infrastructure in Arizona from which to analyze trends and provide information to policymakers. Additional research on recidivism rates for violent and non-violent offenders should be conducted in order to determine the likelihood of reoffending. The current sentencing structure in relation to individual statutes could then be evaluated based on risk and recidivism information for offenders of various crime types. The rising prisoner population, while an urgent issue currently, is only one example of a place where an improved data infrastructure can assist researchers in providing data based recommendations to policymakers in order to improve the criminal justice system. Based upon the findings of this research, effective policies could be implemented with an appropriate balance between lowering administrative costs while assuring for community safety. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review i In 2003, Arizona had the highest crime rate in the nation, fueled largely by the high property crime rate. In addition, Arizona was ranked 13th in violent crimes. The total violent crime rate is fueled by the property crime rate because the vast majority of Part I crimes reported are property crimes. Arizona has the highest motor vehicle theft rate in the nation, and the second highest larceny-theft rate. Proximity to the border, a high percentage of youth in Arizona’s population, and drug-related crimes are reasons that are often cited for the high property crime rate in Arizona. The increase in crimes committed in Arizona has caused an increase in the number of suspects arrested and a related increase in prosecution and court workloads. The number of felony cases filed has increased by more than 27,000 over the last 10 years with 28,522 in FY1994 compared to 54,420 in FY2004, a 35.4 percent increase. When all criminal case filings are considered, there was a statewide increase of 81.8 percent during this time period. In the last year that information was available, FY2004, nearly 2.4 million cases were filed in Arizona courts. Increases in felony filings, misdemeanors, traffic violations and civil filings have increased the burden on prosecutors and the courts. This increase fuels an increase in prisoners both at the state and county level, and increases the number of probationers as well. 20 04 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 Inmate Population The prison population increased 74.0 percent between 1993 and 2003. Changes in sentencing structure, as well as an increase in the population in Arizona have contributed to this increase. In 1994, Truth in Sentencing laws Ending Adult Committed Population were implemented. These laws 35,000 mandated that prisoners serve a 30,000 larger portion of their sentence 25,000 than was previously being 20,000 served. In FY1994, the average 15,000 prisoner was incarcerated for 25 10,000 months. In FY2004, the average 5,000 prisoner served 33 months. The 0 increase in prisoner sentences, combined with the longer time prisoners are serving, has caused significant overcrowding in the prisons. New prison space has not kept pace with prisoner population growth. The only area in the criminal justice system that has not seen a significant increase in actual numbers is the juvenile justice system. Between FY1996 and FY2004, referrals into the juvenile justice system decreased 1.9 percent. This is despite soaring numbers of juveniles in Arizona. The total number of youth held in the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections has decreased, although the number of girls has increased. This increase in females in the juvenile justice system is considered significant, as it follows a nationwide trend of female youth being more involved in criminal activity. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review ii This third edition of the Crime Trends in Arizona report was the result of the collaborative efforts of researchers from several agencies within the criminal justice system in Arizona. Information sharing among criminal justice agencies and an increased focus on the further development of the current data infrastructure will allow criminal justice policy and decision makers in Arizona to have the information necessary for evaluating policy and program decisions. Scarce resources and increased workloads have created an environment where it is more important than ever to improve data sharing directed toward evaluating effectiveness. Policymakers at every point in the system must be given accurate data so that they understand the total picture of crime in Arizona and the problems that criminal justice stakeholders are facing. Although crime rates in Arizona have, for the most part, decreased in the past ten years, the dramatic rise in population has led to a greater number of people entering the system. Increased workloads resulting from the population increase have affected the criminal justice system at all stages: police, prosecution, courts, probation, and prison. The need to expand capacities, coupled with limited resources, means that changes in the system must be efficient and effective. An enhanced data infrastructure will allow research strategies and recommendations that can provide direction for policy changes where they will have the most impact, without compromising justice or public safety. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review iii INTRODUCTION Along with the population growth in Arizona has come an increased number of crimes and more arrests. This higher number of arrests creates a domino effect throughout the criminal justice system, increasing workloads. This has created a strain on the criminal justice system because the increases in total crime and caseloads have not been accompanied by a similar increase in funding. Coupled with higher operating costs, strained city, county, and state budgets, and increased demands due to the ongoing threat of terrorism, the criminal justice system is tasked with doing more with less. At the same time that the criminal justice system in Arizona is facing increased workloads, federal funding to states for criminal justice activities has decreased nationwide. Agencies throughout the criminal justice system are being tasked with demonstrating effectiveness, or risk losing state and federal funding. While an important goal, proving effectiveness requires that data be collected and disseminated, further increasing the burden on already strained resources. Federal funding has increasingly required performance based strategies with built-in performance measures to gauge effectiveness, a trend that seems to be increasing. A data infrastructure throughout the criminal justice system to collect the information needed to measure performance of new and current systems will allow the criminal justice system and policymakers to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness. Gauging how well criminal justice systems meet preset performance measures will allow agencies and policymakers to replicate best practices and improve struggling systems. Arizona has followed a nationwide trend over the past 10 years in which the overall crime rate has decreased. However, the rate of decrease has slowed over the past few years, with some index crimes increasing in Arizona. During this decrease in overall crime rate (rate of crime per 100,000 residents), the population in Arizona grew 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003. As the population increased, the number of crimes reported to police rose. The crime rate indicates the likelihood for state residents to be the victim of a crime, while the number of crimes committed and cases processed indicate workload levels. Trends in violent and property crime rates over the past 10 years show that Arizona is a safer place to live for the average resident compared to previous years. Many factors played into the decreasing crime rate including a growing economy in the 1990s, tough crime laws, and a growing intolerance for crime among the general public. Information from Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data will show the trends over the past 10 years, and Arizona’s crime ranking for each Part I crime as compared to other states. As more cases were processed through the courts, the number of inmates housed by the Department of Corrections increased to the point that there was a deficit of nearly 2,000 beds. The juvenile justice system saw a decrease at all stages of the juvenile justice system. Despite a surging juvenile population in the state, the number of Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 1 referrals into the system, as well as the number of youths held in secure facilities decreased. However, while there was a decrease of males entering secure facilities, there was an increase of females. A new section on special topics has been added to this report over previous editions. The special topics section will focus on issues facing the criminal justice system today. Of particular focus will be gender in the juvenile and adult correctional populations. Males make up the vast majority of inmates in both the juvenile and adult systems. However, at both levels, the proportion of females in the justice system is increasing. This trend mirrors what is being seen at the national level. Also covered in this report is the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) that will eventually be used for data analysis along with the UCR system because it collects more detailed information regarding crime. The Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) has been implemented and is currently being tested in three agencies in Arizona. A broad spectrum of criminal justice professionals in Arizona worked together to produce this report. Through this partnership, a larger overview of the criminal justice system is presented from various perspectives throughout the system. The Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Juvenile Corrections contributed sections to this report. Several units within the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts provided sections regarding their activities including Court Services, Adult Probation Services Division and Juvenile Services Justice Division. 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. This report is an update to the 2003 Crime Trends in Arizona: A System Review. It is not intended to be a comprehensive source, but rather an overview of the criminal justice system in Arizona. 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 2 RESEARCH PURPOSE Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review publication was created to accomplish three primary objectives. The first objective was to provide an overview of crime trends in Arizona and an update to the 2003 Arizona Crime Trends report. The second was 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.” The third objective was to provide the criminal justice system with a presentation of selected topics of particular relevance to the criminal justice system in Arizona today. RESEARCH METHODS National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and Uniform Crime Report (UCR) information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation database were used to present information about criminal activity in Arizona over the past 10 years to set a foundation for this report. Crime data included in this report 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). In order to create a system wide review, the Statistical Analysis Center solicited the participation of key criminal justice stakeholders in a collaborative partnership. The partnership included the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Arizona Supreme Court including Court, Adult and Juvenile Services, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and Arizona Department of Corrections. The information included in the 2005 Crime Trends was based upon the most recent data that was available by that agency. Information on selected topics was solicited from various agencies and resources in order to present an overview of those topics. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 3 POPULATION Table 1 Arizona’s population grew more than three times faster than the rest of the nation from 1993 to 2003, growing at a rate of 41.8 percent, compared to a 12.8 percent growth in the national population. From 2002 to 2003, Arizona’s population increased by 2.3 percent. Table 1 displays past and current population rates for Arizona and the United States over the last 10 years. (Crime in the United States reports 1993-2003) Between 2000 and 2004, Arizona was the second fastest growing state, behind Nevada (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank02. html). POPULATION Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change 1993-2003 Arizona Population 3,936,000 4,075,000 4,218,000 4,428,000 4,555,000 4,669,000 4,778,000 5,130,632 5,307,331 5,456,453 5,580,811 41.8% National Population 257,908,000 260,341,000 262,755,000 265,284,000 267,637,000 270,296,000 272,691,000 281,421,906 284,796,887 288,368,698 290,809,777 12.8% Source: Crime in the United States, 2003 The smallest population increase in the past 10 years in Arizona was approximately 2.3 percent in 2003. During the same time period, the smallest growth in the national population was 0.8 percent. The greatest increase for both Arizona and national populations was in 2000. Arizona experienced a 7.4 percent increase compared to the 3.2 percent increase nationally from 1999 to 2000. The continuous population growth in Arizona results in a strain on law enforcement resources, even at a time when crime rates are falling. Figure 1 Percent Change in Population from Previous Year 1993 - 2003 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% Arizona National 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Source: Crime in the United States, 2003 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 4 NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY The most recent National Crime Victimization Survey revealed that there were 24.2 million criminal victimizations in 2003. These criminal victimizations included an estimated 18.6 million property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft), 5.4 million violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), and 185,000 personal thefts (pocket picking and purse snatching). This is a decrease from the 25.9 million reported in 2000 and comparable to the 24.2 million criminal victimizations in 2002. This is also the lowest reported number since 1973 (44 million victimizations) when the NCVS was first initiated (Criminal Victimization, 2003, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv03.txt). Table 2 provides data about the rate of criminal victimization per 100,000 for six offense areas. The data covers 1993 to 2003 and provides a percentage difference view by offense group for the 2002-2003 periods. Rape/sexual assault and simple assault were the only offenses that decreased. The largest decline was for rape with a 27.3 percent decline from 2002-2003. Table 2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change 2002-2003 RATE OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION per 100,000 INHABITANTS Rape/Sexual Robbery Aggravated Simple Motor Vehicle Assault Assault Assault Theft 230 620 1,220 3,080 1,970 200 610 1,160 3,110 1,750 170 540 950 2,990 1,690 140 520 880 2,660 1,350 140 430 860 2,490 1,380 150 400 750 2,350 1,080 170 360 670 2,080 1,000 120 320 570 1,780 860 110 280 530 1,590 920 110 220 430 1550 900 80 250 460 1460 900 -27.3% 13.6% 7.0% -5.8% 0.0% Theft 24,270 23,570 22,430 20,570 18,990 16,810 15,390 13,770 12,900 12,230 12,440 1.7% Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey Reports, 1993-2003 Table 3 Among the 5.4 million violent victimizations in 2003, most male victims were victimized by Male Female strangers, while most females Victims 3,056,160 2,345,550 Intimate 3% 19% were victimized by someone they Other Relative 5% 10% knew. Table 3 outlines the type of Friend/Acquaintance 35% 38% victim-offender relationship by Stranger 54% 32% gender as reported in the 2003 Source: National Crime Victimization Survey Report, 2003 NCVS. Females were much more likely to have an intimate relationship with their assailant (19 percent) than were males VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP for VIOLENT CRIMES 2003 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 5 (three percent). At the same time, males were much more likely not to know their assailant (54 percent) than were females (32 percent). The 2003 NCVS study results indicated that less than 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 2003. During 2003, 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, 2003 Male Race White Black Other Hispanic Origin Hispanic Non-Hispanic Female Race White Black Other Hispanic Origin Hispanic Non-Hispanic 45.9% 44.8% 53.2% 43.2% 55.2% 44.1% 53.3% 52.7% 58.0% 39.6% 52.9% 53.3% Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the Source: Criminal Victimization 2003 (percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding and National Criminal Victimization Survey reporting methods) (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 with 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 reported crime data. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY The Arizona Department of Public Safety was created in 1969 as a consolidation of three state law enforcement agencies. This newly formed agency took over 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 Department of Public Safety’s mission 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. The Arizona Department of Public Safety is a multi-faceted organization dedicated to protecting and providing state-level law enforcement services to the public. During the nearly 35 years it has existed, the agency has worked to develop and maintain close partnerships with other agencies sharing similar missions. The Department of Public Safety consists of four divisions: Highway Patrol; Criminal Investigations; Agency Support and Criminal Justice Support. These four divisions work together to provide a wide 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 subsection 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, resulting in more accurate and thorough reporting. There are differing methods of reporting crime data between the Crime in Arizona report produced by the Department of Public Safety and the Crime in the United States report published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). FBI data was used in order to make the data comparable with other states for analyses. The data used for both agencies is the same, but the FBI uses estimates to account for non-responding agencies, providing a slight variation in reporting. This primarily pertains to estimates made at the national level by extrapolating data from agencies that contribute incomplete 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. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 7 UCR SUBMISSIONS Percent Submitting All Reports Percent Similar to the findings of the last Figure 2 Crime Trends in Arizona report, Arizona UCR Submissions Percent Months Returned 1994 - 2003 agency submissions increased over 100.0% the ten-year period between 1994 90.0% and 2003. As shown in Table 5, 89.7 80.0% percent of monthly uniform crime 70.0% reports were received from agencies 60.0% and 76.0 percent of agencies 50.0% submitted all 12 monthly reports in 40.0% 1994. In 2003, submissions 30.0% 20.0% increased to 91.8 percent of monthly 10.0% uniform crime reports and 81.6 0.0% percent of agencies submitting all 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 monthly reports. However, this was Source: FBI Database a decrease from 2001, the highest participation year, where 94.9 percent of monthly uniform crime reports were submitted and 89.2 percent of agencies submitted all 12 monthly reports. The fact that the submissions were so high in 2001 shows that the data infrastructure has improved since the original implementation of UCR. Figure 3 As this data is used both at the state Arizona UCR Submissions Percent of Agencies Submitting All Monthly Reports 1994 - 2003 and national level for many 100.0% purposes, including federal grant 90.0% funding, this decrease is cause for 80.0% concern. Several issues can affect 70.0% failure to report including 60.0% technological problems and changes 50.0% in how data is collected internally. 40.0% 30.0% While there has been an overall 20.0% increase in UCR submissions, there 10.0% has been a decrease in reporting 0.0% over the past two years. (See 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Appendix A for more information regarding UCR submissions.) Source: FBI Database Table 5 Agencies Percent Months Returned Agencies Submitting all Reports 1994 100 1995 100 UCR Agency Submissions 1999 – 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 100 100 102 102 89.7% 87.9% 84.4% 87.3% 89.9% 93.9% 93.9% 94.9% 89.0% 91.8% 76.0% 76 74.0% 74 68.0% 68 66.0% 66 68.6% 70 87.3% 89 85.3% 87 89.2% 91 78.4% 80 81.6% 84 *Two agencies submitted data with another agency for six months each. Source: FBI Database Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2000 102 2001 102 2002 102 2003* 103 8 It is important to note that the vast majority of agencies filed all monthly reports (81.6 percent in 2003), including all large agencies. Three agencies are state certified and submitting Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) data. As the AIBRS data collection strategy is expanded with more agencies being certified, its usefulness at the local level, as well as the state and national level will increase. This system gives criminal justice and law enforcement professionals the tools necessary to better identify and study crime trends. This gives the criminal justice system and policymakers greater ability to identify when, where, and how crime is taking place, as well as identifying victim characteristics. For a more detailed description of AIBRS/NIBRS, please see the AIBRS/NIBRS section starting on page 65. The difference in the level of detail collected by UCR and NIBRS is evident by the type of information collected. Uniform Crime Reports collect limited offense and arrest information about the most serious offenses and general characteristics of persons arrested. In addition to collecting the type of information collected by UCR, NIBRS collects more detailed offense and arrest information and victim information about each count. NIBRS allows for accurate information to be collected on victim based crimes such as domestic violence. Similar to the UCR program, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) collects data for the FBI NIBRS program in the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) repository. This repository is designed to collect data on each crime occurrence as well as each incident and arrest within that occurrence and will allow the state to report information to the FBI for NIBRS. PART I CRIMES CRIME DISTRIBUTION Nationally, larceny-theft (59.4 percent) represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2003, followed by burglary (18.2 percent), motor vehicle theft (10.7 percent), aggravated assault (7.3 percent), robbery (3.5 percent), forcible rape (0.8 percent) and murder (0.1 percent). Figure 4 Figure 5 National Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for 2003 Arizona Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for 2003 Murder, 0.1% Murder, 0.1% Forcible Rape, 0.5% Forcible Rape, 0.8% Motor Vehicle Theft, 10.7% Robbery, 2.2% Robbery, 3.5% Aggravated Assault, 7.3% Motor Vehicle Theft, 16.6% Aggravated Assault, 5.5% Burglary, 17.1% Burglary, 18.2% Larceny-Theft, 59.4% Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Larceny-Theft, 57.9% Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm 9 In Arizona, larceny-theft (57.9 percent) also represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2003, followed by burglary (17.1 percent), motor vehicle theft (16.6 percent), aggravated assault (5.5 percent), robbery (2.2 percent), forcible rape (sexual assault in Arizona, 0.5 percent) and murder (0.1 percent). When comparing national and Arizona UCR patterns for 2003 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 4 and 5, the percent distribution for murder was identical at the state and national levels. These figures also illustrate that the percent distribution for forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault was lower for Arizona than at the national level. Figure 6 Violent and Property Crime Distribution in 2003 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% Arizona National 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Property Crimes Violent Crimes Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Figure 6 provides a comparison of the national and Arizona proportion of violent and property crimes for 2003. A closer look at that comparison shows that for property crimes, Arizona is slightly higher than the national level. The opposite is true for the proportion of violent crime, where Arizona is slightly below national levels. Property crime represented 88.3 percent of the total crime reported nationally in 2003 and 91.3 percent of Arizona’s total crime rate. Arizona has the highest overall crime rate in the nation even though Arizona has the thirteenth highest violent crime rate in the nation. When the property crime rate and the violent crime rate are added together, the total crime rate in Arizona is higher than any other state. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 10 There was an overall decrease of 24.9 percent in the total crime rate in the United States from 1993 to 2003. During that period, there was a decrease in every index crime. After more than a decade, 2003 continued this trend with a one percent decrease in the total crime rate. Table 6 Year Murder 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 9.5 9.0 8.2 7.4 6.8 6.3 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 Forcible Rape 41.1 39.3 37.1 36.3 35.9 34.5 32.8 32.0 31.8 33.1 32.1 NATIONAL CRIME INDEX (RATES) Aggravated LarcenyRobbery Burglary Assault Theft 256.0 440.5 1,099.7 3,033.9 237.8 427.6 1,042.1 3,026.9 220.9 418.3 987.0 3,043.2 201.9 391.0 945.0 2,980.3 186.2 382.1 918.8 2,891.8 165.5 361.4 863.2 2,729.5 150.1 334.3 770.4 2,550.7 145.0 324.0 728.8 2,477.3 148.5 318.5 740.8 2,484.6 146.1 309.5 747.0 2,450.7 142.2 295.0 740.5 2,414.5 Auto Theft 606.3 591.3 560.3 525.7 505.7 459.9 422.5 412.2 430.6 432.9 433.4 Total Crime 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 4,160.5 4,118.8 Source: Crime in the United States, 2003 Table 7 NATIONAL PART I CRIME Crime Index Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft 2002 RATE 4,118.8 494.6 5.6 33.0 145.9 310.1 3,624.1 746.2 2,445.8 432.1 2003 RATE 4,063.4 475.0 5.7 32.1 142.2 295.0 3,588.4 740.5 2,414.5 433.4 Source: Crime in the United States, 2002 and 2003 PERCENT CHANGE -1.4% -4.0% 1.8% -2.7% -2.5% -4.9% -1.0% -0.8% -1.3% 0.3% Compared to 2002, there was a decrease in crime rates for most of the Uniform Crime Report Part I offenses in 2003. Murder increased 1.8 percent, changing from a rate of 5.6 to 5.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. All property crimes and rates except motor vehicle theft decreased from 2002 to 2003 with burglary rates down 0.8 percent, larceny-theft down 1.3 percent, and motor vehicle theft increasing 0.3 percent. The following tables and figures illustrate how Arizona compares to the rest of the nation in each of the index crime categories. As crime rates are calculated by the number of crimes per 100,000 residents, rates present a clearer picture of whether crime has increased or decreased than do number of crimes reported. In Arizona, the number of actual crimes has gone up due to the growing population. However, the crime rate has decreased over the past 10 years. Arizona moved up in ranking for murder and rape, while moving down in ranking in robbery and aggravated assault, with the other index crimes remaining at the same rank during 2002 and 2003. Arizona has the highest rate in the nation for motor vehicle theft, which contributes to the state’s number one ranking in property crime. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 11 Table 8 Part I Crime 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate 2002-2003 1 Arizona 6,145.6 1 6,386.3 -3.8% 2 Hawaii 5,507.9 2 6,043.7 -8.9% 3 South Carolina 5,270.6 4 5,297.3 -0.5% 4 Florida 5,182.2 3 5,420.6 -4.4% 5 Texas 5,147.8 5 5,189.6 -0.8% 6 Washington 5,101.9 6 5,106.8 -0.1% 7 Oregon 5,077.8 10 4,868.4 4.3% 8 Tennessee 5,067.2 9 5,018.9 1.0% 9 Louisiana 4,995.8 7 5,098.1 -2.0% 10 Nevada 4,902.6 16 4,497.5 9.0% National Rate 4,063.4 4,118.8 -1.4% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 CRIME INDEX – RATES Table 9 provides an overview of Arizona Part I crimes from 2002-2003 and summarizes the offense specific tables which follow. It is important to note from this table that Arizona is highest in the nation in total Crime Index, property crime and motor vehicle theft. Arizona ranks high in all property crimes, especially motor vehicle theft and larceny-theft. In addition, Arizona ranks number four in the country in burglaries. As property crime makes up 91.3 percent of all Part I crimes reported in Arizona, Arizona also has the highest overall crime rate. Hawaii, with the second highest crime rate, likewise has a very high property crime rate when compared to the rest of the nation. The property crime rate is a major factor in determining the overall crime rate because it contains the highest incidences (91.6 percent) of crime as reflected by the 5632.4 rate in 2003. In turn, Arizona was also ranked number four in burglary, number two in larceny-theft and first in motor vehicle theft, which accounts for Arizona having the highest property crime rate per Table 9 ARIZONA PART I CRIMES FROM 2002-2003 RATE PER 100,000 Rank 2002 Rank 6,145.6 513.2 7.9 33.3 136.5 1 13 5 24 17 6,386.3 552.9 7.1 29.5 146.6 1 13 9 30 14 Percent Change -3.8% -7.2% 11.3% 12.9% -6.9% 335.5 14 369.8 12 -9.3% 5,632.4 1 5,833.4 1 -3.5% 1,050.3 3,560.9 4 2 1,082.9 3,693.6 2 2 -3.0% -3.6% 1,021.3 1 1,056.9 1 -3.4% 2003 Crime Index Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 12 100,000 residents. Motor vehicle theft has a substantial impact on Arizona’s property crime rate because the state was not only number one in motor vehicle theft, but it was number one by a large margin over other states. Table 10 Year Murder 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 8.6 10.5 10.4 8.5 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.9 Forcible Rape 37.8 36.0 33.6 31.2 32.8 31.1 28.9 30.7 28.6 29.5 33.3 ARIZONA CRIME INDEX (RATES) Aggravated LarcenyRobbery Burglary Assault Theft 162.9 505.7 1,465.5 4,387.4 162.0 494.7 1,476.2 4,678.5 173.8 495.7 1,416.8 4,925.6 167.8 424.0 1,256.3 4,252.5 165.7 417.1 1,318.9 4,282.0 165.2 373.6 1,209.5 3,922.4 152.5 361.6 1,034.4 3,510.5 146.3 347.7 1,011.6 3,444.1 167.1 337.1 1,032.9 3,520.6 146.6 369.8 1,082.9 3,693.6 136.5 335.5 1,050.3 3,560.9 Auto Theft 863.8 1,066.7 1,157.7 926.7 970.4 865.1 800.5 842.1 983.6 1,056.9 1,021.3 Total Crime 7,431.7 7,924.6 8,213.6 7,067.0 7,195.1 6,575.0 5,896.4 5,829.5 6,077.4 6,386.4 6,145.6 Sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data Arizona’s index crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson) remained substantially higher than the national rate between 1993 through 2003. This rate includes both property and violent crimes, although the majority of crimes included are property crimes. The total index crime rate in Arizona fell 17.3 percent from 7431.7 to 6145.6 between 1993 and 2003. While this represented a large drop in crime, the national index crime rate decreased from 5487.1 in 1993 to 4118.8 in 2003, a decline of 24.9 percent. Figure 7 Index Crime Rate 1993-2003 9000 Number of Crimes Reported 8000 7000 6000 5000 National Arizona 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 13 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 rates have decreased over the past 10 years. However, the national violent crime rate has decreased at a slightly higher rate than that of Arizona. As reflected in Table 11, Arizona’s rate of total violent crime decreased by 7.2 percent from 2002 to 2003. In both 2002 and 2003 Arizona ranked 13th for violent crime in the nation. Most states in the top 10 rankings for violent crime had at least a slight decrease in the rate of violent crime from 2002 to 2003. However, Arizona’s rate of violent crime decreased at a higher rate than most other top 10 ranked states. Table 11 Violent Crime 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 South Carolina 793.5 1 822.0 -3.5% 2 Florida 730.2 2 770.2 -5.2% 3 Maryland 703.9 3 769.8 -8.6% 4 Tennessee 687.8 5 716.9 -4.1% 5 New Mexico 665.2 4 739.5 -10.0% 6 Delaware 658.0 9 599.0 9.9% 7 Louisiana 646.3 6 662.3 -2.4% 8 Nevada 614.2 7 637.5 -3.7% 9 Alaska 593.4 12 563.4 5.3% 10 California 579.3 10 593.4 -2.4% 13 Arizona 513.2 13 552.9 -7.2% National Rate 475.0 494.6 -4.0% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 8 Violent Crime Rate 1993-2003 800.0 Rate per 100,000 Population 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 Arizona National 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Calendar Year Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 14 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, 2003, p.15). The murder rate in Arizona increased by 11.3 percent from the year 2002 to 2003. In 2002, Arizona was ranked 9th in the nation for its murder rate per 100,000 residents. In 2003, Arizona rose from ranking of 9 in 2002 to a ranking 5 in 2003. Table 12 Murder 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Louisiana 13.0 1 13.2 -1.5% 2 Maryland 9.5 2 9.4 1.1% 3 Mississippi 9.3 3 9.2 1.1% 4 Nevada 8.8 4 8.3 6.0% 5 Arizona 7.9 9 7.1 11.3% 6 Georgia 7.6 9 7.1 7.0% 7 South Carolina 7.2 7 7.3 -1.4% 8 Illinois 7.1 6 7.5 -5.3% 9 California 6.8 11 6.8 0.0% 9 Tennessee 6.8 8 7.2 -5.6% National Rate 5.7 5.6 1.8% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 9 Rate per 100,000 Population On a national level, the Murder Rate murder rate has gradually 1993-2003 declined from 1993 to 2003. 12.0 As reflected in Figure 9, the 10.0 murder rate in Arizona increased from 1993 to 8.0 1994, and then experienced 6.0 a steady decline until 2000. Arizona National The murder rate increased 4.0 overall in Arizona between 2000 and 2003 rising from 2.0 7.0 to 7.9 murders per 0.0 100,000 residents. While 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 both Arizona and the nation experienced an overall decrease in murder between 1993 and 2003, the decrease nationally was larger and more consistent. Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 15 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, 2003, p. 27). 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. Sexual attacks on males are classified as assaults or sexual offenses. The incidents of rape per 100,000 residents in Arizona increased by 12.9 percent from the year 2002 to 2003. Arizona ranked 30th in 2002 and then rose to rank 24 in 2003. Table 13 Rape 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Alaska 92.5 1 79.4 16.5% 2 Michigan 54.1 3 53.4 1.3% 3 New Mexico 50.0 2 55.4 -9.8% 4 Rhode Island 46.9 21 36.9 27.1% 5 Washington 46.7 8 45.0 3.8% 6 South Dakota 46.3 5 47.4 -2.3% 7 South Carolina 44.4 4 47.7 -6.9% 8 Delaware 43.2 10 44.3 -2.5% 9 Oklahoma 42.7 8 45.0 -5.1% 10 Colorado 41.6 6 45.8 -9.2% 24 Arizona 33.3 30 29.5 12.9% National Rate 32.1 33.0 -2.7% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 10 Forcible Rape Rate 1993-2003 45.0 40.0 Rate per 100,000 Population On a national level, forcible rape (known as sexual assault in Arizona) gradually declined from 1993 until 2001 when it started to increase until 2003. Arizona ranked 24th in the nation with a rate of 33.3 in 2003. In 2002, Arizona ranked 30th in the nation with a rate of 29.5. 35.0 30.0 25.0 Arizona National 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 16 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, 2003, p. 32). Maryland was number one in 2003 with a robbery rate of 241.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. Arizona’s rate of robbery decreased by 6.9 percent from the year 2002 to 2003, dropping from 14 to 17 in the national ranking among states. Table 14 Robbery 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Maryland 241.5 1 245.8 -1.8% 2 Nevada 230.3 2 235.5 -2.2% 3 Illinois 188.2 3 200.6 -6.2% 4 New York 186.3 5 191.3 -2.6% 5 Florida 185.2 4 194.9 -5.0% 6 California 179.7 6 185.0 -2.9% 7 Delaware 169.9 15 142.9 18.9% 8 Texas 167.4 7 172.5 -3.0% 9 Georgia 161.8 11 156.9 3.1% 10 Tennessee 160.4 8 162.4 -1.2% 17 Arizona 136.5 14 146.6 -6.9% National Rate 142.2 145.9 -2.5% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 11 Robbery Rate 1993-2003 300.0 250.0 Rate per 100,000 Population As seen by Figure 11, the national robbery rate decreased markedly from 1993 until 1999, and has remained stable through 2003. In Arizona, the robbery rate stayed relatively constant during the 10-year period. From 2001 to 2003, there was a decrease in the robbery rate in Arizona dropping from 167.1 to 136.5 robberies per 100,000 residents. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 200.0 150.0 Arizona National 100.0 50.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm 17 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, 2003, 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 15 Arizona ranked 14th in 2003 with a rate of 335.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. When compared to the 2002 rate (369.8), the number of aggravated assaults has decreased 9.3 percent in 2003. P P Table 15 Aggravated Assault 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 South Carolina 605.1 1 626.5 -3.4% 2 New Mexico 505.2 2 557.1 -9.3% 3 Florida 500.1 3 529.4 -5.5% 4 Tennessee 484.9 4 507.8 -4.5% 5 Delaware 442.0 7 408.5 8.2% 6 Louisiana 435.0 6 456.1 -4.6% 7 Maryland 428.3 5 489.5 -12.5% 8 Alaska 426.5 8 402.9 5.9% 9 Oklahoma 365.3 13 368.8 -1.0% 10 California 364.6 11 372.6 -2.1% 14 Arizona 335.5 12 369.8 -9.3% National Rate 295.0 310.1 -4.9% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 12 Aggravated Assault Rate 1993-2003 600.0 500.0 Rate per 100,000 Population 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. There was a slight increase in 2002, followed by a decrease in 2003. 400.0 300.0 Arizona National 200.0 100.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2001 2002 2003 18 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 Table 16 Property Crime there is no force or 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population threat of force against 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change the victim or victims. State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) Arson is included in the 1 Arizona 5,632.4 1 5,833.4 -3.5% property crime category 2 Hawaii 5,237.5 2 5,781.7 -9.4% since it involves the 3 Oregon 4,782.3 6 4,576.0 4.5% destruction of property, 4 Washington 4,754.9 3 4,761.4 -0.1% although its victims may 5 Texas 4,595.3 5 4,611.0 -0.3% be subjected to force. South 6 Carolina 4,477.1 7 4,475.3 0.0% However, because of 7 Florida 4,452.0 4 4,650.4 -4.3% limited participation and 8 Tennessee 4,379.4 10 4,302.0 1.8% varying collection 9 Louisiana 4,349.5 8 4,435.7 -1.9% procedures by local 10 Oklahoma 4,306.0 12 4,239.8 1.6% agencies, only limited National Rate 3,588.4 3,624.1 -1.0% data are available for Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 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, 2003, p. 41). As seen in Table 16, in 2002 and 2003, Arizona ranked first in property crime in the United States with a rate of 5,833.4 (2002) and 5632.4 (2003). Arizona has had the highest property crime rate in the United States since 2000. Hawaii, ranked number two in property crime, has a property crime rate that was 7.5 percent lower than Arizona. Figure 13 Property Crime Rate 1993-2003 8000.0 7000.0 Rate per 100,000 Population 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). Arizona experienced a 3.4 percent decrease in the property crime between 2002 and 2003. 6000.0 5000.0 4000.0 Arizona National 3000.0 2000.0 1000.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 19 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, 2003, p. 45). As reflected in Table 17, in 2003, Arizona ranked 4th in burglary with a rate of 1,050.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. Table 17 Burglary 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 North Carolina 1,197.6 1 1,196.3 0.1% 2 Tennessee 1,082.0 6 1,056.5 2.4% 3 South Carolina 1,050.9 3 1,065.1 -1.3% 4 Arizona 1,050.3 2 1,082.9 -3.0% 5 Mississippi 1,035.6 7 1,030.5 0.5% 6 New Mexico 1,025.2 5 1,058.4 -3.1% 7 Florida 1,002.7 4 1,060.5 -5.5% 8 Louisiana 998.1 9 1,011.7 -1.3% 9 Texas 993.7 11 976.1 1.8% 10 Oklahoma 992.3 10 1,006.7 -1.4% National Rate 740.5 746.2 -0.8% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 14 Burglary Rate 1993-2003 1600.0 1400.0 Rate per 100,000 Population Similar to other UCR crimes, the national trend for burglary has fallen. Arizona experienced an increase in 1997 and a slight rise in 2001 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2003, the burglary rate in Arizona decreased 3.0 percent. 1200.0 1000.0 800.0 Arizona National 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 20 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, 2003, p.49). Table 18 shows that Arizona ranked 2nd in 2003 with a rate of 3,560.9 for larceny-theft. This is a decrease of 3.6 percent from the 2002 rate of 3,693.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. P P Table 18 Larceny-Theft 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Hawaii 3,562.9 1 3,963.7 -10.1% 2 Arizona 3,560.9 2 3,693.6 -3.6% 3 Oregon 3,444.6 3 3,377.1 2.0% 4 Utah 3,182.2 4 3,229.1 -1.5% 5 Texas 3,157.7 6 3,163.4 -0.2% 6 Washington 3,142.1 5 3,188.8 -1.5% 7 South Carolina 3,046.1 8 2,999.5 1.6% 8 Florida 2,970.1 7 3,060.3 -2.9% 9 Oklahoma 2,944.7 12 2,867.6 2.7% 10 Louisiana 2,909.3 10 2,973.7 -2.2% National Rate 2,414.5 2,445.8 -1.3% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 15 Larceny-Theft Rate 1993-2003 6000.0 5000.0 Rate per 100,000 population When comparing national trends over the past 10 years, the larceny-theft rate has declined. Over the past 10 years, Arizona’s larceny-theft rate has been consistently above the national average. As reflected in Figure 15, the highest larceny-theft rate occurred in 1995 (4,823.9), and the lowest rate occurred in 2000 (3,444.1). 4000.0 3000.0 Arizona National 2000.0 1000.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 21 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, 2003, p. 55). As reflected in Table 19, the motor vehicle theft rate for Arizona decreased 3.4 percent from 2002 to 2003. Table 19 Motor Vehicle Theft 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate 2002-2003 1 Arizona 1,021.3 1 1,056.9 -3.4% 2 Nevada 929.8 2 804.5 15.6% 3 Hawaii 767.4 3 796.0 -3.6% 4 California 680.1 5 633.2 7.4% 5 Washington 662.5 4 667.2 -0.7% 6 Maryland 660.8 6 623.3 6.0% 7 Oregon 533.5 12 469.2 13.7% 8 Michigan 533.1 9 494.7 7.8% 9 Missouri 502.4 10 491.5 2.2% 10 Georgia 499.4 16 444.3 12.4% National Rate 433.4 432.1 0.3% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 16 Nationally, the motor vehicle Motor Vehicle Theft Rate 1993-2003 theft rate showed an overall 1400.0 decrease between 1993 and 2003. Arizona has moved 1200.0 from having the 6th highest 1000.0 rate of motor vehicle theft in the nation in 1991 to the 800.0 Arizona number one ranked state in 600.0 National the nation in 1994. Arizona 400.0 has maintained that ranking with a rate of 1,021.3 motor 200.0 vehicle thefts per 100,000 0.0 inhabitants in 2003. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 However, in 2003, Arizona also experienced the first decline in the motor vehicle theft rate since 1999. A more complete evaluation of Motor Vehicle Theft in Arizona can be found in the Arizona Auto Theft Study, conducted in 2004 by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. P Rate per 100,000 Population P Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 22 Firearm Use in Violent Crime Even though violent crime rates have decreased over the past 10 years, a high percentage of homicides can be attributed to firearm related injuries. In 2003, 70.9 percent of all homicides in the United States were the result of firearm inflicted injuries (Crime in the United States 2003, 2004). In Arizona, in 2003, there were 440 homicides, 70.7 percent of which involved the use of a firearm (Crime in Arizona, 2003). An analysis of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program master files was conducted to determine gun use during violent crimes, including murder, robbery and aggravated assault at a national and state level. The numbers used for this analysis vary slightly from published FBI reports such as Crime in the United States because the FBI accounts for non-reporting or partially reporting agencies by estimating crimes occurring in those jurisdictions with missing data. The figures used for the purpose of this evaluation looked only at uniform crime reports submitted by agencies. The comparison being made for this analysis was the total number of robberies and aggravated assault reported compared to the number of robberies with a firearm and aggravated assaults with a firearm. National percentages for crimes committed with a firearm were taken from Crime in the United States publications. These publications take into account nonreporting or partially reporting agencies to extrapolate the correct numbers of crime occurrences. In Arizona, all urban agencies report UCR data to the FBI. However, this is not the case nationwide. For this reason, it was determined that while actual counts were the most accurate reflection of Arizona data, the extrapolated figures were the most accurate reflection at the national level. Murder Figure 17 Percent of Murders Involving a Firearm Percent The majority of homicides in 100.0% the United States and 90.0% Arizona involve the use of a 80.0% firearm. The inclusion of a 70.0% firearm in any crime is of 60.0% concern, chiefly because of 50.0% the risk that a crime could 40.0% escalate to murder. As the 30.0% chart to the right shows, 20.0% 10.0% approximately two-thirds 0.0% (66.9 percent in 2003) of all 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 murders in the United States Year involve the use of a firearm. Arizona United States Source: Crime in Arizona reports, Crime in the United States reports This chart portrays the percent of murders in Arizona and the United States that involved a firearm between 1994 and 2003. As is shown in Table 20 on the following page, Arizona had a higher percentage of murders with a firearm than the nation during this time period. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 23 Table 20 Arizona United States 1994 72.8% 65.2% 1995 75.7% 68.0% Murder with a Firearm 1994 – 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 74.3% 70.9% 73.8% 71.1% 67.8% 67.8% 64.9% 65.2% 2000 70.8% 65.6% 2001 71.4% 63.4% 2002 75.8% 66.7% 2003 70.7% 66.9% Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports Robbery The number of total robberies in Arizona increased 16.3 percent from 1994 – 2003, while robberies with a firearm increased 39.5 percent during that same time period. In 1994, 40.2 percent of all robberies in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. This percentage increased to 48.3 percent in 2003. The percent of robberies with a firearm in 2003 was higher in Arizona (48.3 percent) than nationally (41.8 percent). Since 2001, Arizona has had increasingly higher rates of firearm usage during robberies than the rest of the nation. Table 21 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Arizona Robberies with a Firearm 1994 – 2003 Robberies with Total Arizona a Firearm Robberies Percent 2,606 6,480 40.2% 2,983 7,119 41.9% 2,871 7,296 39.4% 2,958 7,264 40.7% 3,082 7,537 40.9% 3,150 7,260 43.4% 3,116 7,472 41.7% 4,084 8,760 46.6% 3,722 7,907 47.1% 3,636 7,533 48.3% Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports National Percent 41.6% 41.0% 40.7% 39.7% 38.2% 39.9% 40.9% 42.0% 42.1% 41.8% The number of robberies with or without a firearm increased in Arizona between 1994 and 2003, while the number of robberies fell nationally during the same time period. However, robberies between 2001 and 2003 decreased at a higher percentage in Arizona than nationally. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 24 Figure 18 Arizona Robberies with a Firearm 10,000 9,000 8,000 Robberies 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003. Figures 18 and 19 show that a larger percentage of robberies in Arizona involve the use of a firearm than nationally. Figure 19 National Robberies with a Firearm 700,000 600,000 Robberies 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003. Robberies involving a firearm increased 39.5 percent in Arizona between 1994 and 2003. Apache, Cochise, Gila, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties had a decrease in robberies with a firearm, while Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Yuma counties experienced an increase in robberies with a firearm between 1994 and Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 25 2003. Graham and Greenlee counties reported no robberies with a firearm during this time period. In 2003, 77.7 percent of robberies with a firearm were committed in Maricopa County and 18.6 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 22 shows the number of robberies with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003. Table 22 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma AZ 1994 4 16 12 3 0 0 4 2,072 38 7 390 19 23 16 2 2,606 1995 2 12 17 1 0 0 3 2,406 48 7 451 10 9 12 5 2,983 Robberies with a Firearm By County 1994 - 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 1 2 1 0 13 20 16 22 18 13 15 23 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2,319 2,306 2,445 2,599 25 23 23 15 7 10 5 3 448 535 540 444 12 30 22 22 10 6 6 4 11 5 9 9 6 4 0 7 2,871 2,958 3,082 3,150 2000 1 26 28 0 0 0 0 2,528 13 6 447 43 0 8 16 3,116 2001 0 13 16 1 0 0 2 3,474 24 7 493 31 1 16 6 4,084 2002 1 9 4 1 0 0 1 3,247 13 1 390 26 4 9 16 3,722 2003 0 11 24 0 0 0 3 2,826 17 2 675 39 3 8 28 3,636 Source: FBI database, 1994 – 2003 Aggravated Assault In 2003, 27.0 percent of all aggravated assaults in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. This is considerably higher than the 19.1 percent seen nationwide in 2003. While all assaults with a firearm are considered aggravated assaults, all assaults, including simple assaults, have the potential of escalating to the point that serious injury or death to the victims occurs. When a firearm is added to the assault, the potential for injury or death is higher, as can be seen by the fact that 70.9 percent of homicides in Arizona in 2003 involved the use of a firearm. Table 23 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Assaults with a Firearm 7,019 7,117 5,989 5,471 4,646 4,407 4,248 4,230 4,637 4,950 Aggravated Assaults 19,690 20,245 18,023 18,175 16,881 16,915 17,774 17,664 19,900 18,343 Arizona Assaults 1994 - 2003 Total Arizona Percent with Assaults Firearm 68,732 35.7% 74,017 35.2% 69,045 33.2% 69,559 30.1% 69,048 27.6% 66,689 26.1% 69,192 23.9% 71,177 24.0% 74,424 23.3% 71,102 27.0% National Percent with Firearm 24.0% 22.9% 22.0% 20.0% 18.8% 18.0% 18.1% 18.3% 19.0% 19.1% Sources: FBI database, 1994 – 2003, Crime in the United States reports Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 26 The charts below show the proportions of total assaults (simple and aggravated) that involve the use of a firearm. Figure 20 Arizona Assaults with a Firearm 80,000 70,000 60,000 Assaults 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Total Assaults Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003. As seen in Figures 20 and 21, while the percentage of assaults that are aggravated assaults is roughly the same in Arizona and the United States, Arizona has a much higher percentage of aggravated assaults committed with a firearm than the national level. Since 1994, Arizona’s rate of firearm use in aggravated assaults has generally been around 10 percentage points higher than the national rate. Figure 21 National Assaults with a Firearm 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 Assaults 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Total Assaults Total Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 27 Between 1994 and 2003, the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm in Arizona decreased 29.5 percent, while the total number of aggravated assaults in Arizona decreased 6.8 percent. Apache, Cochise, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima and Yuma counties had increases in the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm, while Coconino, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties had decreases in aggravated assaults with a firearm between 1994 and 2003. In 2003, 63.2 percent of aggravated assaults with a firearm were committed in Maricopa County and 27.4 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 24 shows the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003. Table 24 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona 1994 3 35 61 24 9 0 26 5,179 96 21 1,272 192 16 67 18 7,019 1995 10 25 45 31 10 0 7 5,131 86 49 1,405 185 10 108 15 7,117 Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003 Aggravated Assault with a Firearm By County 1994 - 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 9 1 9 6 5 26 29 27 54 28 33 26 39 21 32 14 25 25 8 15 2 9 1 5 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 6 4 4,373 3,757 3,350 3,114 3,056 60 66 55 46 52 22 16 15 20 15 1,195 1,313 965 924 835 170 131 90 114 58 10 7 4 7 2 56 75 52 47 39 19 15 9 34 103 5,989 5,471 4,646 4,407 4,248 2001 13 44 34 5 1 0 1 2,972 63 8 871 79 0 47 92 4,230 2002 9 41 29 18 2 1 2 3,354 67 14 861 64 2 44 129 4,637 2003 7 45 60 11 1 1 5 3,128 56 23 1,358 102 1 58 94 4,950 Firearm Use in Violent Crime Arizona consistently had a higher rate of firearm use in Part I violent crime (murder, robbery and aggravated assault) between 1994 and 2003. The chart below shows Arizona’s and United States’ percentage of crimes involving a firearm for murder, robbery and aggravated assault between 1994 and 2003. With the exception of robbery in 1994 and 1996, Arizona had higher firearm usage in all crime categories for each year examined. Both nationally and in Arizona, murder was the violent crime most likely to involve a firearm, followed by robbery and aggravated assault. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 28 Figure 22 Violent Crime Involving a Firearm 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% Percent 50.0% AZ Murder US Murder AZ Robbery 40.0% US Robbery AZ Aggravated Assault US Aggravated Assault 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003. Project Safe Neighborhoods is a gun violence reduction initiative being coordinated by the US Attorney’s across the country. While reducing crimes involving a firearm has become a nationwide focus, it is even more necessary in Arizona, where a higher percentage of violent crimes involve the use of a firearm. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 29 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 Court of Appeals with two divisions, which is the intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort. In this review we have not included workload information regarding the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court 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 web site at www.supreme.state.az.us for more detailed information. T T 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 Arizona courts. 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. The Court of Appeals was established in 1965 as an intermediate appellate FY2004 CASE FILINGS court and consists of two divisions: BY COURT LEVEL Division One in Phoenix with sixteen Court Number of Cases Filed judges, and Division Two in Tucson Supreme Court 1,170 with six judges. The Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 3,457 has jurisdiction in all matters and Division One 2,596 reviews all decisions properly appealed Division Two 861 from Superior Court. Table 25 lists the Source: Administrative Office of the Courts, (Court Services Division) case filings by appellate court for FY2004. Division One in Phoenix processed more than two-thirds of all appeals from lower courts in FY2004, reviewing more than 2600 cases. Tucson’s Division Two Appellate Court reviewed 861. More than 1100 cases in FY2004 were filed in Arizona’s Supreme Court. Table 25 SUPERIOR COURT The Superior Court, which has a division in each of the 15 counties in Arizona, is the state’s only general jurisdiction court. Superior Court judges hear all types of cases except civil actions when the award is less than $5,000.00, small claims, minor offenses including civil traffic violations, or violations of city codes and ordinances. In addition, the Superior Court acts as an appellate court to hear appeals from decisions made in Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 30 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. 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 26 FY2004 SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Filings Apache 1,065 Cochise 4,448 Coconino 3,851 Gila 2,358 Graham 1,352 Greenlee 321 La Paz 951 Maricopa 128,876 Mohave 5,113 Navajo 3,204 Pima 30,165 Pinal 7,801 Santa Cruz 1,728 Yavapai 7,235 Yuma 6,213 Total 204,681 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Div.) Statewide, as of FY2004, there were 163 full-time Superior Court Judges (this figure does not include Superior Court commissioners). In FY2004, those judges handled 204,681 criminal and non-criminal filings. Maricopa County received 128,876 cases, which represented 62.9 percent of the total cases filed statewide. Table 27 indicates that felonies filed in the Superior Court from FY1993 to FY2004 have increased each year with the exception of FY1999. The number of felony cases filed has increased by more than 27,000 over the last 10 years with 28,522 in FY1994 compared to 54,420 in FY2004. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 31 Table 27 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Felony Filings by Fiscal Year FY1993 – FY2004 Felony Filings* Felony Filing Rate 26,496 673.2 28,522 699.9 30,372 720.1 30,817 696.0 34,649 760.7 39,515 846.3 38,281 801.2 40,317 785.8 43,462 818.9 45,322 830.6 50,884 911.8 54,420 ** Source of felony filings: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) *Totals Include Filings by the Attorney General Office **Rate not available for 2004 The following tables provide a look at criminal case filings through the Superior Court for the period from FY1994-FY2004 by county. A review of the total criminal cases filed for the state shows, with the exception of FY1999, total criminal case filings rose each year. Total Superior Court criminal case filings have grown from 30,848 in FY1994 to 56,078 in 2004. Table 28 TOTAL SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR AND COUNTY County FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 Apache 237 220 262 174 191 261 262 271 Cochise 850 846 597 578 713 606 712 836 Coconino 973 1,207 1,238 1,025 905 992 953 1,048 Gila 542 857 954 868 892 794 1,049 731 Graham 209 221 232 225 330 338 399 384 Greenlee 47 92 143 74 81 46 73 116 La Paz 227 234 242 283 422 256 303 402 Maricopa 17,130 17,860 18,610 21,882 25,641 25,756 27,385 30,616 Mohave 1,482 1,592 1,664 1,902 1,876 1,518 1,512 1,708 Navajo 548 670 723 915 748 866 930 953 Pima 4,829 4,534 4,254 4,677 5,381 5,182 4,840 5,512 Pinal 1,066 1,239 1,304 1,446 1,859 1,212 1,282 1,458 Santa Cruz 364 311 358 244 230 302 166 255 Yavapai 907 1,380 1,228 1,320 1,499 1,397 1,483 1,726 Yuma 1,437 1,331 1,579 1,444 1,656 1,284 1,339 1,364 Total 30,848 32,594 33,388 37,057 42,424 40,810 42,688 47,380 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review FY2002 223 953 1,051 831 390 94 463 31,079 1,618 811 4,816 1,741 253 2,056 1,425 47,804 FY2003 274 1,128 1,038 830 314 70 469 35,612 1,734 975 4,986 1,879 316 2,216 1,357 53,198 32 FY2004 373 946 1,339 658 337 88 525 37,166 1,680 1,192 5,513 1,815 253 2,490 1,703 56,078 Table 29 SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS FY1994 TO FY2004 10-year 1-year County Percent Change Percent Change Apache 57.4 36.1 Cochise 11.3 (16.1) Coconino 37.6 29.0 Gila 21.4 (20.7) Graham 61.2 7.3 Greenlee 87.2 25.7 La Paz 131.3 12.0 Maricopa 117.0 4.4 Mohave 13.4 (3.1) Navajo 117.5 22.3 Pima 14.2 10.6 Pinal 70.3 (3.4) Santa Cruz (30.5) (20.0) Yavapai 174.5 12.4 Yuma 18.5 25.5 Total 81.8% 5.4% Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) As reflected in Table 29, the 10-year increase for criminal case filings statewide was 81.8 percent. Cochise showed the smallest increase over a 10year period with an 11.3 percent change. The largest increase was in Yavapai County with an increase of 174.5 percent. In the most recent year, five counties had decreases: Cochise, Gila, Mohave, Pinal and Santa Cruz. The statewide increase from FY2003 to FY2004 was 5.4 percent. Overall, nearly 2.5 million cases were filed in Arizona courts during FY2004. As reported by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the cost of processing a case in FY2003 was $124.36. There were 66,642 individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation Table 30 departments at the end of FY2004, up TOTAL FILINGS IN SUPERIOR COURT 4.5 percent from FY2003. The number FY2003 - FY2004 of juveniles on probation was up 2.7 2003 2004 Difference percent to 9,115 at the end of FY2004. 192,129 204,681 12,552 6.5% Table 30 represents the total number Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) of filings in Superior Court from FY2003 to FY2004. The Arizona Superior Court experienced a 6.5 percent increase in the number of total cases filed between FY2003 and FY2004. Criminal case filings increased 5.4 percent from 53,198 in FY2003 to 56,078 in FY2004. JUSTICE COURTS 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. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 33 Table 31 FY2004 JUSTICE COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Justice Court Apache 9,559 Cochise 46,150 Coconino 28,771 Gila 15,186 Graham 5,819 Greenlee 1,584 La Paz 16,945 Maricopa 348,040 Mohave 49,008 Navajo 24,526 Pima 189,106 Pinal 44,475 Santa Cruz 10,496 Yavapai 36,914 Yuma 22,142 Total 848,721 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) In Arizona, in FY2004, there were a total of 86 precincts with 81 Justices of the Peace serving four-year terms. In FY2004, 848,721 cases were 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 348,040 of the 848,721 statewide. That represents approximately 41.0 percent of the total Justice Court filings. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 34 Table 32 JUSTICE COURT FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR AND TYPE Non-Traffic Fiscal Year Felonies Misdemeanors 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 2002 121,428 39,112 2003 122,891 26,209 2004 116,582 27,008 Of the 848,721 total cases filed in FY2004, there were 116,582 nontraffic misdemeanors and 27,008 felonies. Table 32 reflects a reduction from 122,891 misdemeanors in FY2003 to 116,582 in FY2004. Felonies increased from 26,209 in FY2003 to 27,008 in FY2004. Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) MUNICIPAL COURTS The Municipal Courts are comprised of 138 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 1,439,452 cases filed in the various Municipal Courts within Arizona in FY2004. Maricopa County, with 956,475, was the largest with approximately 66.4 percent of the Municipal Court filings and Greenlee County was the smallest with 550 (or less than one percent of total filings). Table 33 FY2004 MUNICIPAL CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Municipal Apache 1,638 Cochise 8,589 Coconino 27,017 Gila 8,680 Graham 3,218 Greenlee 550 La Paz 3,293 Maricopa 956,475 Mohave 29,586 Navajo 6,071 Pima 281,845 Pinal 29,538 Santa Cruz 17,890 Yavapai 41,862 Yuma 23,200 Total 1,439,452 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 35 Table 34 MUNICIPAL COURT NON-TRAFFIC CRIMINAL FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR Fiscal Non-Traffic Year Misdemeanors 1994 243,419 1995 270,116 1996 243,253 1997 241,016 1998 222,611 1999 230,792 2000 212,518 2001 224,703 2002 219,166 2003 233,507 2004 234,139 Municipal Court non-traffic criminal misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2 percent from 233,507 in FY2003 to 234,139 in FY2004. Although total misdemeanor filings increased, FY2004 filings were lower in six of the past 10-year totals (Municipal Courts do not process felony cases). Of the nearly 2.5 million filings in FY2004, 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 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services the fact crime rates have been on the decline Division) for most of the past 10-year period, court workloads have, with the exception of Justice Courts, continued to increase. The 10year increase for Superior Court criminal case filings statewide was 81.8 percent. In FY2004 adult (4.5 percent) and juvenile (2.7 percent) probation caseloads increased, Justice Court felonies increased while misdemeanors declined and Municipal Court nontraffic misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2 percent. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 36 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: Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS), Adult Probation Services Fund (PSF), Community Punishment Program (CPP), Drug Enforcement Account (DEA), Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF), State Aid Enhancement (SAE) which primarily funds standard probation supervision, Interstate Compact Program (ISC), Transferred Youth (TY), Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) and the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund (JCEF). 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. The data presented below was drawn from the Probation Information Management System (PIMS) and the Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS), and county monthly statistical reports submitted to the APSD. The data represented focuses on the total number of probationers under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation departments, number of active probationers receiving standard and intensive probation, number completing a probation term, number revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), total amount of restitution collected, and the total number of community work service hours performed. ADULT STANDARD PROBATION The purpose of standard probation supervision in Arizona is to provide the highest quality of service to the court, community, and offenders. This is accomplished by promoting safety through effective community-based supervision and enforcement of court orders, offering accurate and reliable information and affording offenders opportunities to be accountable and initiate positive changes. Standard probation is a less restrictive form of probation and those placed on this type of supervision are deemed to be a lower risk for re-offending. An officer supervising a standard caseload may only be required to contact their probationers once or twice a month, as opposed to intensive officers whose contacts range from four to sixteen times per month. The program provides supervision through a probation officer that is 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 monitor the probationers’ compliance with Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 37 the conditions of probation. Officers are also responsible for returning 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 risks/needs, and with the safety of the community in mind. Examples of such services are substance abuse treatment, education and literacy classes, financial counseling, anger management counseling, and domestic violence counseling. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on standard supervision increased by 3.3 percent from 60,506 to 62,478. The overall number of probationers on standard supervision includes active probationers, absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving standard probation services during this same time period increased by 2.4 percent from 34,871 to 35,709 (see Figure 23 for FY1999-2004). The number of active adults receiving standard probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and receiving direct supervision services. During the course of fiscal year 2004, 11,345 standard probationers successfully completed their probation grant (discharge or early termination), while 4,791 were revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections. The number of standard probationers who absconded from supervision increased 8.6 percent from 10,421 to 11,317, while the total number of standard absconders apprehended during this time period was 46.8 percent. Over that same period, $11,573,507 in restitution to victims was collected, while 813,523 hours of community service were performed. 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 or as a result of a technical violation of standard probation. The program provides intensive supervision through probation officer or surveillance officer teams of two or three persons, depending on the level of supervision. A two-person team is comprised of a probation officer and a surveillance officer, and a three-person team is one probation officer and two surveillance officers. Pursuant to statute, a two-person team can supervise a maximum of 25 intensive probationers and a three-person team can supervise no more than 40 probationers. In small counties, one probation officer is authorized to supervise up to 15 intensive probationers. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 38 Intensive Probation requires supervision teams to have face-to-face contact with probationers a minimum of four to sixteen times per month, depending on which phase of the program the probationer is in. Probationers on IPS are also required to maintain employment, complete 40 hours of community service per month, and pay restitution to victims of crimes, as well as other financial assessments. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on intensive supervision increased by 18.7 percent from 3,508 to 4,164. The overall number of probationers on intensive supervision includes active probationers, absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving intensive probation services during this same time period increased by 21.8 percent from 2,399 to 2,923 (see Figure 24 for FY1999-FY2004). The number of active adults receiving intensive probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and receiving direct supervision services. During fiscal year 2004, 1,415 intensive probationers successfully completed their probation grant (discharged or graduated to standard), while 1,535 were revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections. The number of intensive probationers who absconded from supervision during fiscal year 2004 increased 13.2 percent from 960 to 1,087, while the total intensive absconders apprehended was 49.5 percent. Over that same period, $761,281 in restitution to victims was collected, while 615,182 hours of community service were performed. Figure 23 ACTIVE STANDARD PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004 2004 35,709 2003 34,871 37,388 2002 2001 34,699 2000 34,395 1999 32,500 34,220 33,000 33,500 34,000 34,500 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 35,000 35,500 36,000 36,500 37,000 37,500 38,000 39 Figure 24 ACTIVE INTENSIVE PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004 2004 2,923 2003 2,399 2002 3,084 2001 3,384 2000 3,379 1999 3,401 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Figure 25 PROBATION POPULATION UNDER ARIZONA SUPERVISION IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004 2004 66,642 2003 63,763 2002 64,564 2001 60,881 2000 57,420 1999 10,000 55,452 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 40 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 (http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html). 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 specified lengths of incarceration by crime type. There is a much greater emphasis on research and social science methods in the juvenile than the adult system. 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 (www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html). 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 create a national standard for dealing with juvenile delinquency within the context of law enforcement and criminal justice efforts (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/compliance/jjdpchronology.pdf). 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 Revised Statute 13-501 mandating juveniles accused of violent offenses be direct filed into an adult court under certain circumstances, thereby precluding the juvenile from the treatment approach provided in Arizona’s juvenile justice system (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00501.htm). 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. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 41 The following data represent the demographic and offense characteristics of juveniles in the juvenile court system from FY1996 to FY2004. The tables present data on juvenile referrals by age, gender, race, county and type of offense. 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 reflect 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 FY2004, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court decreased by 1.9 percent. In FY2004, the largest category for juvenile referrals was public peace (26.6 percent), while the smallest category was citations/administrative (0.6 percent). Felonies against person made up 4.9 percent of all referrals, felonies against property made up 10.5 percent, status offenses made up 16.1 percent and drugs made up 10.0 percent of referrals in FY2004. A higher percentage of referrals came from obstruction of justice, misdemeanors against person, drugs, public peace and administrative in FY2004 than in FY1996, while a lower percentage of referrals came from felony against person, felony against property, misdemeanors against property and status offenses. Table 35 Felony Against Person Felony Against Property Obstruction of Justice Misd. Against Person Drugs Public Peace Misd. Against Property Status Offenses Administrative TOTAL Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division By Most Serious Offense FY1996 – FY2004 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 3,297 3,039 2,861 2,484 2,491 2,478 2,401 7,944 3,613 4,372 4,416 6,919 9,365 10,732 162 50,820 7,504 3,702 4,573 4,940 7,476 8,885 9,893 198 50,210 7,233 4,221 4,408 5,097 8,687 8,654 9,648 200 51,009 5,900 4,288 4,276 4,800 9,912 7,530 8,850 206 48,246 5,727 4,376 4,483 4,459 10,861 7,313 8,591 233 48,534 5,513 4,679 4,490 4,900 12,960 6,667 9,340 247 51,274 5,618 4,850 4,329 4,874 12,537 6,799 8,729 262 50,399 FY2003 2,400 FY2004 2,464 5,290 4,756 4,414 4,608 12,937 6,724 8,178 281 49,588 5,254 4,473 4,332 4,973 13,257 6,759 8,049 317 49,878 Nearly three-fourths (73.1 percent) of referred youth in FY2004 came from the three highest populated counties, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal. Over 49 percent of all referrals came from Maricopa County. Gila, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties had an increase in referrals in FY2004 when compared to FY1996. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 42 Table 36 FY1996 473 1,955 2,291 994 436 168 181 24,260 1,819 1,261 10,498 1,956 460 1,901 2,167 50,820 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma TOTAL Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division By County FY1996 – FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 424 419 349 365 309 276 1,849 1,703 1,625 1,651 1,658 1,496 2,166 2,195 1,896 1,873 1,829 1,790 1,072 1,050 1,058 985 851 827 486 558 484 521 513 493 172 157 103 104 103 81 234 201 193 135 190 188 24,000 24,659 22,818 23,133 26,145 25,414 1,795 1,836 1,858 1,898 2,225 2,196 1,284 1,313 1,158 1,308 1,272 1,195 10,192 9,913 9,742 9,787 9,595 9,498 2,074 2,149 2,035 2,056 2,222 2,121 470 500 789 764 633 699 1,872 1,821 1,886 1,844 1,849 1,893 2,120 2,535 2,255 2,110 1,880 2,232 50,210 51,009 48,249 48,534 51,274 50,399 FY2003 282 1,553 1,753 923 437 84 204 24,680 2,218 1,128 9,193 2,325 702 1,737 2,369 49,588 FY2004 272 1,510 1,633 1,027 392 82 193 24,743 2,161 1,137 9,461 2,265 741 1,645 2,616 49,878 Over half (64.7 percent) of youth referred in FY2004 were between the ages of 15 and 17. This is comparative to the 63.5 percent of juvenile referrals between the ages of 15 and 17 in FY1996. A slightly smaller percentage of youth between the ages of 8 and 10 were referred in FY2004 (2.3 percent) than in FY1996 (2.9 percent). Table 37 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown TOTAL Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division By Age FY1996 – FY2004 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 234 241 312 264 252 284 285 449 423 472 455 485 561 458 800 732 826 787 790 838 770 1,374 1,315 1,369 1,228 1,333 1,429 1,377 2,544 2,564 2,644 2,571 2,414 2,805 2,706 4,920 4,705 4,844 4,651 4,596 4,997 4,876 7,755 7,333 7,285 6,747 7,264 7,400 7,053 9,957 9,600 9,455 8,968 9,038 9,602 9,321 10,766 10,955 11,051 10,461 10,031 10,452 10,640 11,566 11,850 12,100 11,533 11,797 12,422 12,362 455 492 651 581 534 484 551 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 FY2003 270 459 734 1,259 2,595 4,734 6,959 8,938 10,444 12,607 589 49,588 FY2004 197 385 578 1,175 2,603 4,709 7,313 9,301 10,382 12,596 639 49,878 While there was a 4.3 percent decrease in male referrals between FY1996 and FY2004, there was a 3.3 percent increase in females during the same time period. The majority (66.4 percent) of referrals in FY2004 were male, however the percentage of girls referred (33.6 percent) was higher than in FY1996 (31.9 percent). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 43 Table 38 Male Female Unknown TOTAL FY1996 34,610 16,204 6 50,820 Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division By Gender FY1996 – FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 34,182 34,406 32,609 32,372 34,224 33,205 16,022 16,598 15,636 16,160 17,050 17,194 6 5 1 2 0 0 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 FY2003 32,800 16,788 0 49,588 FY2004 33,136 16,742 0 49,878 Of those referred in FY2004, 48.0 percent were Anglo, 38.1 percent were Hispanic, 7.0 percent were African American, 5.5 percent were Native American, 0.5 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remaining 1.0 percent were another race/ethnicity, or their race/ethnicity was unknown. This is comparable to the racial/ethnic breakdown in FY1996. Table 39 Hispanic Afr. Am. Anglo Nat. Am. Asian/PI Other Unknown TOTAL FY1996 16,882 3,450 27,260 2,609 234 187 198 50,820 Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division By Race/Ethnicity FY1996 – FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 16,709 17,343 16,790 17,335 18,510 18,558 3,321 3,291 3,149 3,070 3,298 3,179 26,822 26,503 24,767 24,468 25,792 25,095 2,823 3,034 2,736 2,829 2,777 2,736 249 242 239 301 288 240 132 249 318 172 229 201 154 347 247 359 380 390 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 FY2003 18,186 3,224 24,748 2,614 238 165 413 49,588 FY2004 18,979 3,502 23,925 2,727 247 136 362 49,878 Between FY1996 and FY2004, the number of youth referred in Arizona remained relatively constant. One trend worthy of consideration is the fact that females are being referred at a higher rate than previously. Other research has shown that females are more likely to commit crimes than once thought, a factor that warrants further research in Arizona. Almost half of referred youth come from Maricopa County, which is also the county with the highest juvenile population. While a small percentage of youth referred are on the younger end of those referred, the majority of youth referred are between the ages of 15 and 17. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 44 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is responsible for juveniles adjudicated delinquent and committed to its jurisdiction by the county juvenile courts. It is also responsible for juvenile parole and Interstate probation and parole. It is accountable to the citizens of Arizona for the promotion of public safety through the management of the state's secure juvenile facilities and the development and provision of a continuum of services to juvenile offenders, including rehabilitation, treatment and education. ADJC operates and maintains four secure care facilities for the custody, treatment, and education of committed juveniles. Each juvenile placed in a secure facility receives rehabilitative services appropriate to the juvenile’s age, risk, needs, abilities, and committing offenses. This includes education, individual and group counseling, psychological services, health care, and recreation. In addition, treatment groups and specialized housing units focus on juveniles with histories of violence, substance abuse or sexual offenses. Following their release from secure care, youth under the age of 18 receive communitybased parole supervision and treatment through the Department’s statewide Community Resource Centers. Community Corrections is responsible for establishing and operating a system of community based programs to supervise and rehabilitate youth in the least restrictive environment, consistent with public safety and the needs of the youth. Transition from Secure Care to the community is facilitated by a multidisciplinary team. Secure and parole staff work with the youth and treatment providers to extend the youth’s treatment into the community. ADJC also participates in the Interstate Compact. Interstate Compact has the primary responsibility of promoting public safety, ensuring the welfare of juveniles, and protecting victims within the various states through control and regulation of the interstate movement of juveniles. Compacting states are required to provide the same level of care and supervision for ICJ youth as they provide to their own youth. In Arizona those standards mean youth from other states are provided excellent supervision. Arizona “imports” a far greater number of probation and parole cases than it “exports.” Case management of these youth is in conjunction with the supervision requirements from the state(s) of origin (sending state). In addition to adjudicated juveniles, the office provides for the safe return of youth who have run away and/or have fled to avoid prosecution. ADJC operates and maintains four safe schools for juveniles: Adobe Mountain School (AMS), Black Canyon School (BCS), Catalina Mountain School (CMS), and Eagle Point School (EPS). AMS operates intake and secure care programming for male youth. AMS operates 17 treatment units, plus one unit for youth with special behavior problems. AMS primarily houses youth from Maricopa County. It is located on Pinnacle Peak Road, just west of the I-17 freeway. BCS operates intake and secure care programming for all female youth. BCS is located just south of the Happy Valley Road exit, west of the I-17 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 45 freeway. CMS is a secure facility for male juveniles. CMS has five treatment units and one for youth with special behavior problems. CMS primarily houses youth from Pima County. It is located north of Tucson on Highway 89. EPS is a secure facility for males that has six housing units. Eagle Point houses youth primarily from the southern and western counties. It is located off of Highway 85 in Buckeye. ADJC is currently in the process of revising its assessment and behavior management systems to better reflect the needs of the youth in its care and to promote the agency’s vision: Safer communities through successful youth. The improved classification system includes the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2) and the Criminogenic and Protective Factors Assessment (CAPFA) instrument. The MAYSI-2 is a method for screening every juvenile entering ADJC in order to identify potential mental health problems in need of immediate attention. The CAPFA assesses each juvenile for the need for individual mental health, family, and group counseling. Additional assessment instruments include the Behavior Assessment Scales for Children (BASC), which was designed to facilitate the differential diagnosis and educational classification of a variety of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and to aid in the design of treatment plans; the Adolescent Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-A2), which helps identify youth who have a high probability of having a substance use disorder; and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II), which provides a structured clinical guide to rate specific variables that have demonstrated an association with future acts of sexual offending and general delinquent behavior. An integrated behavior management system has also been developed to promote ADJC’s goal of creating an environment that is safe, secure, pro-social, and allows all other activities to function. The following data represent the demographic characteristics of the juveniles committed to ADJC for the first time (new commitments) for the last four fiscal years (FY). RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic juveniles (excluding Mexican Nationals), accounted for 46.1 percent of the new commitments in FY2004, increasing slightly from 42.6 percent in FY2001. The number of Caucasian juveniles decreased from 38.9 percent in FY2001 to 34.7 percent in FY2004. Commitments of African American juveniles decreased slightly from 9.2 percent in FY2001 to 8.6 percent in FY2004. Commitments of Native American juveniles have remained relatively constant over the four years from 4.48 percent in FY2001 to 4.4 percent in FY2004. The number of Mexican National juveniles committed has also held steady from 4.5 percent in FY2001 to 4.5 percent in FY2004. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 46 Table 40 Hispanic Caucasian African American Native American Mexican National Asian Other TOTALS Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Race/Ethnicity FY2001 – FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 336 44 342 35 304 48 42.5% 42.7% 47.1% 36.1% 46.1% 51.6% 303 44 243 41 207 36 38.4% 42.7% 33.5% 42.3% 31.4% 38.7% 72 10 76 10 64 6 9.1% 9.7% 10.5% 10.3% 9.7% 6.5% 37 3 34 10 32 2 4.7% 2.9% 4.7% 10.3% 4.9% 2.2% 38 2 29 1 48 0 4.8% 1.9% 4.0% 1.0% 7.3% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2 0 2 0 4 0 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% FY2004 Male Female 271 46 46.2% 45.1% 201 38 34.3% 37.3% 50 9 8.5% 8.8% 25 5 4.3% 4.9% 30 1 5.1% 1.0% 3 1 0.5% 1.0% 6 2 1.0% 2.0% 586 102 100% 100% AGE Of the 688 juveniles committed to ADJC in FY2004, two-thirds (66.6 percent) were 16 or 17 years old. New commitments of 15 year old juveniles have remained relatively stable throughout the past four years, representing 21.7 percent of the total in FY2004. There were no juveniles ages 11 or younger committed to ADJC in 2004, and only a small number (.29 percent) of 12 year olds were committed, which remains mostly unchanged for each of the years represented. Table 41 11 and younger 12 years old 13 years old 14 years old 15 years old 16 years old 17 years old TOTALS Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Age FY2001 – FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3 0 1 1 3 0 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 40 6 16 0 9 2 5.1% 5.8% 2.2% 0.0% 1.4% 2.2% 84 20 89 12 61 10 10.6% 19.4% 12.3% 12.4% 9.3% 10.8% 167 26 164 33 143 18 21.1% 25.2% 22.6% 34.0% 21.7% 19.4% 229 28 233 28 215 31 29.0% 27.2% 32.1% 28.9% 32.6% 33.3% 267 23 223 23 227 32 33.8% 22.3% 30.7% 23.7% 34.4% 34.4% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review FY2004 Male Female 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0.2% 1.0% 7 2 1.2% 2.0% 61 9 10.4% 8.8% 123 26 21.0% 25.5% 192 27 32.8% 26.5% 202 37 34.5% 36.3% 586 102 100% 100% 47 COUNTY The number of juveniles committed to ADJC from Maricopa County increased from 44.2 percent in FY2001 to 52.8 percent in FY2004, while juveniles committed from Pima County decreased from 24.5 percent in FY2001 to 17.7 percent in FY2004. New commitments from Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, Mohave, Navajo and Santa Cruz increased slightly over the past four years, while those from Graham, La Paz, Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma decreased. Table 42 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma TOTALS Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by County FY2001 – FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 3 0 2 1 0 2 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 2.2% 21 1 23 3 20 3 2.7% 1.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 3.2% 12 3 15 3 21 0 1.5% 2.9% 2.1% 3.1% 3.2% 0.0% 10 1 11 0 12 5 1.3% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.8% 5.4% 7 0 7 3 2 2 0.9% 0.0% 1.0% 3.1% 0.3% 2.2% 0 0 1 0 3 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2 0 1 0 2 0 0.3% 0 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 350 45 277 37 277 40 44.3% 43.7% 38.2% 38.1% 42.0% 43.0% 33 7 26 3 24 7 4.2% 6.8% 3.6% 3.1% 3.6% 7.5% 13 1 17 2 19 2 1.6% 1.0% 2.3% 2.1% 2.9% 2.2% 192 27 211 30 179 16 24.3% 26.2% 29.1% 3.9% 27.2% 17.2% 67 5 51 2 37 4 8.5% 4.9% 7.0% 2.1% 5.6% 4.3% 11 1 8 2 7 2 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 2.1% 1.1% 2.2% 30 3 35 1 27 3 3.8% 2.9% 4.8% 1.0% 4.1% 3.2% 39 9 41 10 29 7 4.9% 8.7% 5.6% 10.3% 4.4% 7.5% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review FY2004 Male Female 4 2 0.7% 2.0% 18 3 3.1% 2.9% 15 2 2.6% 2.0% 12 1 2.0% 1.0% 1 2 0.2% 2.0% 1 1 0.2% 1.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 306 57 52.2% 55.9% 30 2 5.1% 2.0% 9 2 1.5% 2.0% 104 18 17.7% 17.6% 41 6 7.0% 5.9% 12 1 2.0% 1.0% 11 2 1.9% 2.0% 22 3 3.8% 2.9% 586 102 100% 100% 48 New Commitments in ADJC Custody by Most Serious Committing Offense For FY2004, there were fewer commitments to ADJC in every offense category than FY2001. Commitments for property offenses, including burglary, theft, shoplifting, and criminal damage accounted for 44.8 percent of total offenses in FY2004. Crimes against persons, which includes homicide, assault, sexual assault, and kidnapping, increased from 17.8 percent of commitments in FY2001 to 20.2 percent in FY2004. Commitments for drug offenses rose from 16.8 percent in FY2001 to 18.3 percent in FY2004. Similarly, commitments for public order offenses showed an increase for the same time period, from 9.7 percent to 10.2 percent. Table 43 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Committing Offense FY2001 – FY2004 COMMITTING OFFENSE FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Property Offenses 437 (48.9%) 358 (43.5%) 316 (42.0%) Crimes Against Persons 159 (17.8%) 171 (20.8%) 154 (20.5%) Drug Offenses 150 (16.8%) 146 (17.7%) 129 (17.2%) Public Order Offenses 87 (9.7%) 81 (9.8%) 81 (10.8%) Weapons Offenses 22 (2.5%) 28 (3.4%) 30 (4.0%) All Other Offenses 38 (4.3%) 39 (4.7%) 42 (5.6%) TOTALS 893 (100%) 823 (100%) 752 (100%) FY2004 308 (44.8%) 139 (20.2%) 126 (18.3%) 70 (10.2%) 19 (2.8%) 26 (3.8%) 688 (100%) Figure 26 FY 2004 FY 2001 All Other Offenses 3.8% All Other Offenses 4.3% Weapons Offenses 2.8% Weapons Offenses 2.5% Public Order Offenses 10.2% Public Order Offenses 9.7% Property Offenses 44.8% Drug Offenses 16.8% Crimes Against Persons 17.8% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Property Offenses 48.9% Drug Offenses 18.3% Crimes Against Persons 20.2% 49 Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Custody The number of juveniles in secure care has decreased steadily over the last five years from 964 at the end of FY2000 to 637 in FY2004. Table 44 POPULATION Adobe Mountain School Black Canyon School Catalina Mountain School Eagle Point School Encanto TOTALS Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Secure Care* 6/30/2000 – 6/30/2004 As of As of As of As of 6/30/2000 6/30/2001 6/30/2002 6/30/2003 453 410 371 348 124 97 77 61 153 122 141 118 234 193 123 109 31 56 45 964 853 768 681 As of 6/30/2004 311 72 118 136 637 *Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles. The number of juveniles in ADJC custody on parole has continued to decline since FY2000, decreasing from 751 juveniles on parole at the end of FY2000 to 512 juveniles on parole at the end of FY2004. Table 45 POPULATION Home PV Center Abscond Residential Treatment Center TOTALS Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Number of Juveniles on Parole 6/30/2000 – 6/30/2004 As of As of As of As of 6/30/2000 6/30/2001 6/30/2002 6/30/2003 480 407 405 358 73 77 41 148 103 103 143 As of 6/30/2004 349 108 123 138 115 111 55 751 721 700 653 512 *Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 50 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 a sub-population of approximately 300 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 December 31, 2004, the total population of 32,570 offenders committed to the DOC was distributed among prison facilities as follows: Table 46 LOCATION OF COMMITTED POPULATION December 31, 2004 Facility Population Capacity ASPC-Douglas 2,214 2,015 ASPC-Eyman 4,666 4,120 ASPC-Florence 3,848 3,266 ASPC-Lewis 4,184 4,150 ASPC-Perryville 2,592 2,796 ASPC-Phoenix 934 802 ASPC-Safford 1,762 1,453 ASPC-Tucson 3,909 3,784 ASPC-Winslow 1,828 1,626 ASPC-Yuma 2,271 1,850 Private Prisons 4,307 4,746 County Jail Transfers 55 Total Committed Population 32,570 30,608 Designated Operating Capacity 30,608 Bed Surplus/(Deficit) (1,962) Source: Arizona Department of Corrections *Arizona State Prison Complex **No fixed capacity for pending transfer. The following shows the gender and sentence type of inmates active on December 31, 2004: Table 47 GENDER AND SENTENCE TYPE OF COMMITTED POPULATION DECEMBER 31, 2004 SENTENCE TYPE Death Sentence Life Sentence Term of Years TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 103 1,142 28,557 29,802 2 51 2,715 2,768 105 1,193 31,272 32,570 Source: Arizona Department of Corrections Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 51 PRISON POPULATION GROWTH TREND The next section presents three figures that follow the growth in the Arizona prison population over the period from December 31, 1990 to December 31, 2004. Over this 14-year period, prison population increased from 14,313 to 32,570 or by 128.6 percent. Growth over this period averaged 1,304 per year or 109 committed adults per month. Figure 27 ENDING ADULT COMMITTED POPULATION December 1990-2004 40,000 35,000 Inmates 30,000 25,000 20,000 14,313 15,000 15,464 16,572 17,968 19,864 21,663 22,697 23,866 26,747 25,712 26,003 28,059 29,591 31,258 32,570 10,000 5,000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 52 Figure 28 PERCENTAGE PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1991-2004 Yearly Percentage Growth 12.0% 10.6% 10.0% 9.1% 8.4% 8.0% 8.0% 7.7% 7.2% 6.0% 5.2% 4.8% 4.9% 5.5% 5.6% 4.2% 4.0% 2.9% 2.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1991 1994 1993 1992 1996 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Calendar Year Figure 29 MONTHLY PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1990-2004 180 158 Avg. Monthly Population Growth 154 150 160 139 140 128 116 120 96 100 110 109 97 92 86 79 80 62 60 40 24 20 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 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 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 53 criminal case activity in Maricopa County. Over the five year period between 2000 and 2004, the committed population increased 76.3 percent. Factors believed to be associated with growth in the Arizona prison population over the period 1990-2004 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, 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. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 54 INCARCERATION RATE TREND The figure “Arizona Incarceration Rate” shown below tracks the trend in the Arizona incarceration rate over the period 1993-2003. 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 456.5 in 1993 to 560.1 in 2003. Figure 30 Arizona Incarceration Rate 1993-2003 600.0 550.7 513.6 Inmates per 100,000 Population 500.0 512.6 560.1 544.2 524.0 521.3 528.7 542.3 487.5 456.5 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 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. Although releases rise along with admissions, the release rate does not rise at the same rate as the rate of admissions, causing a net population increase. In any case, the growth in prison 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 released violators. Releases include both discretionary and nondiscretionary releases. In recent years, following the implementation of Truth in Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 55 Sentencing in 1994, the vast majority of releases have been non-discretionary. The figure “Adult Prison Admissions and Releases” seen below, tracks the level of Arizona prison admissions and releases over the period 1990-2004. 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. Figure 31 ADULT PRISON ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES 1990-2004 20,000 18,000 16,531 Admissions/Releases 16,000 14,448 14,000 11,223 12,000 10,000 8,084 8,889 7,105 7,781 8,581 12,697 9,327 10,008 10,566 14,198 14,961 14,999 12,602 9,977 8,256 8,000 6,000 7,139 11,807 11,600 13,507 17,331 17,234 15,664 15,922 13,649 13,216 13,454 11,528 4,000 2,000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Calendar Year ADMISSIONS RELEASES 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, causing a population 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 1990-2004. As indicated, time served has gradually increased over the past 14 years, primarily because of harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth in Sentencing. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 56 Figure 32 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 Average Time Served (Months) Average Time Served for Prison Releases 1990-2004 Calendar Year PRISON POPULATION FORECASTING One of the responsibilities of the Research Unit of 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 longerterm 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. 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 period 1991-2004. This does not include those released to probation supervision by county authorities. Shorter community supervision terms under Truth in Sentencing laws than under the former criminal code have led to a trend in offender population under community supervision that does not follow the trend in releases and admissions into prison. While more inmates are released into community supervision under Truth in Sentencing, the time spent under community supervision is shorter. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 57 Figure 33 Offenders Under Community Supervision 1991 - 2004 7,000 6,000 5,816 5,679 5,468 5,208 Supervised Population 5,000 4,657 4,626 4,289 4,098 4,033 3,801 4,000 3,715 3,351 3,536 3,665 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 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 1991–2004. The figure shows an increase in positions following the increase in inmate population. While correctional employees have increased, the increase has not been at the same rate as the population increase causing a higher prisoner-to-employee ratio than in previous years. Figure 34 ADC Full Time Equivalent Positions 1991 - 2004 12,000 10,673 10,677 10,627 2000 2001 2002 9,959 10,295 10,322 2003 2004 10,000 8,624 7,944 Positions 8,000 5,829 6,000 9,020 7,313 6,062 6,457 6,812 4,000 2,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 58 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 $554 million in FY2002, a 131 percent increase. Accordingly, as shown on the figure titled “ADC Cost per Inmate Day,” the ADC inmate cost per day of incarceration has increased by 18.5 percent, from $45.09 in Calendar Year 1991 to $53.44 in 2002. Figure 35 ADC Agency Expenditures FY1991 - FY2002 $700 $600 $552 $575 $554 $523 $476 Expenditures (Millions) $500 $428 $402 $400 $300 $240 $348 $295 $251 $267 $200 $100 $0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Fiscal Year *Data for FY2003 and FY2004 not available at time of publication Figure 36 ADC Cost Per Inmate Per Day 1991-2002 70.00 60.00 56.66 58.51 53.44 Cost Per Day (in Dollars) 52.81 50.00 45.09 48.29 43.66 43.21 43.89 44.79 45.62 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 50.25 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Calendar Year *Data for FY2003 and FY2004 not available at time of publication Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 59 SPECIAL TOPICS As with any other field, certain issues come to the forefront at times that warrant further analysis. This report seeks to provide an overview of crime trends, trends in criminal justice agencies, and current issues facing criminal justice agencies. Many issues affect how criminal justice agencies are able to function day to day. Other issues affect policies and programs that are needed to deal with specific trends facing criminal justice agencies. One such issue is gender. It was once assumed that in the juvenile justice system that because males were most frequently the ones in the system, and the crimes committed by males were more serious than those committed by females, males needed to be the primary focus of the juvenile justice system. While males continue to outnumber females in the criminal justice system, there has been a shift in recent years with females making up a larger percentage of the juvenile justice population, and often for more serious crimes than previously seen. This has a significant impact on how the juvenile justice system operates because females in the juvenile justice system often come from abusive situations, and often have far different rehabilitative needs than males. As has been seen at the juvenile level, the percentage of females in the adult system has also been increasing. While comprising less than one-tenth of those incarcerated with the Department of Corrections, the crimes committed by females, along with the demographic make-up of the female population differs from the male population. Along with a rising female population comes issues relating to children of inmates, treatment needs and housing concerns. Other topics discussed in this section include the advancement of the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) program and the continued funding of Fill the Gap case processing improvement efforts. While it is not feasible for this report to review all the issues facing the criminal justice community today, this report will focus on specific areas that have been requested. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 60 Gender in the Juvenile Justice System Table 48 Approximately two-thirds of referrals into the criminal justice system are male and one-third are female. However, nearly three-fourths of youth in detention are males. At every stage of the juvenile justice system, males comprise a higher percentage than females. Differences in the types of crimes committed by each gender play a large role in this disparity. Percentage of Each Gender at Stages in the Juvenile Justice System FY2004 Female Male Referral 33.6% 66.4% Detention 25.5% 74.6% Diversion 39.6% 60.4% Petitioned 25.9% 74.2% Dismissed 28.8% 71.2% Penalty Only 27.1% 72.9% Standard Probation 25.6% 74.4% JIPS 16.6% 83.4% ADJC 14.8% 85.2% Direct-Filed 5.3% 94.7% Transferred 8.6% 91.4% Over the last decade, increased attention has been paid to females in the juvenile justice system. In Arizona, the proportions have held fairly constant, although female referrals are increasing at a faster rate than male referrals. Between FY2000 and FY2004, there was a 3.6 percent increase in females referred compared to a 2.3 percent increase in males referred. Figure 37 Referrals by Gender 40,000 35,000 30,000 Referrals 25,000 Female Male 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Traditionally, juvenile males have been seen as committing more delinquent and serious offenses than their female counterparts. The male and female proportions in the Arizona juvenile justice system bear this out. As seen below, males make up an increasing percentage of the total number of juveniles as they move through the juvenile justice system. Average Age Table 49 For the juveniles referred in FY2004, females entered the juvenile justice system for the first time when they were 14.1 years old, compared to 13.8 years old for males. Average Age at First Referral FY2004 Age # Female 14.1 16,742 Male 13.8 33,136 TOTAL 49,878 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 61 Table 50 Offense Severity and Type Severity of Most Serious Referral Offense: Percentage By Gender FY2004 Female Male Felonies Against Person 2.5% 6.2% Felonies Against Property 5.8% 12.9% Obstruction of Justice: Fel. & Misd. 7.7% 9.6% Misdemeanors Against Person 9.4% 8.3% Drugs: Fel. & Misd. 7.4% 11.3% Public Peace: Fel. & Misd. 24.9% 27.4% Misdemeanors Against Property 17.6% 11.5% Status Offenses 24.2% 12.1% Citations/Administrative 0.5% 0.7% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Females and males differ in the distribution of their referral offenses. Three offense categories make up twothirds of female referrals: public peace (24.9 percent); status (24.2 percent); and misdemeanors against property (17.6 percent). Apart from public peace offenses (27.4 percent), male referral offenses are more equally distributed across severity categories. Table 51 Misdemeanors make up the largest proportion of offenses for both males and females. Over the last five years however, felonies have consistently made up a greater percentage of the total referral offenses for males than for females. The proportion of females referred for felonies increased from 16.5 percent in FY2000 to 18.0 percent in FY2004. During the same time period, the proportion of male felony referrals dropped from 36.1 percent to 35.0 percent. Figure 38 below depicts the percentage of referrals for felonies Offense Type of Most Serious Referral Offense: Percentage By Gender Female 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2,669 2,865 3,083 2,923 3,016 (16.5%) (16.8%) (17.9%) (17.4%) (18.0%) 11,690 12,112 11,709 11,267 11,585 (36.1%) (35.4%) (35.3%) (34.4%) (35.0%) 8,219 8,457 8,612 8,699 8,702 (50.8%) (49.6%) (50.1%) (51.8%) (52.0%) 14,620 15,458 14,969 15,365 15,369 (45.1%) (45.2%) (45.1%) (46.9%) (46.4%) Misdemeanor 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 between FY2000 and FY2004 for males and females. While percentage of referrals for felonies for males has decreased slightly, female felony referrals increased slightly. Figure 38 Percent of Referrals for Felonies 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% Referrals for Felonies Male Felony 25.0% Female Male 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 62 Gender in the Adult Prison Population Over 90 percent of inmates in Arizona Department of Corrections facilities are male. While females only made up 8.4 percent of the committed population as of December 31, 2004, the percent of incarcerated females has been steadily climbing in recent years. Comparatively, in June 2001, only 7.4 percent of inmates were female. Tables 47 and 48 show demographic information regarding the female and male populations in the prisons, along with the types of crimes each gender commits. Each table shows the percentage of that gender as a whole in each category. Men are far more likely than women to have been incarcerated for crimes against persons with the percentage of men incarcerated for crimes against persons more than double the percentage of women. Women however, are more likely than men to be incarcerated for crimes against property, such as theft, forgery, fraud, burglary, arson, and criminal damage, as well as drug crimes. Over half of incarcerated females are Caucasian (54.8 percent), 25.5 percent are Mexican American or Mexican Nationals, and 12.0 percent African American. The remaining female inmates are Native American (6.7 percent) and Asian/Other (1.0 percent). The race/ethnic breakdown of incarcerated males is somewhat similar to that of females, in that Caucasian is the highest category followed by Mexican American/Mexican Nationals. However, there is a lower percentage of Caucasians and a higher percentage of Mexican Nationals among incarcerated males. Table 52 Females in ADC Facilities December 31, 2004 Crime Type Against Persons 20.8% Against Property 37.2% Drug Offenses 29.9% DUI 7.3% Misc. Offenses 4.8% Total 100.0% Race/Ethnicity African American 12.0% Asian/Other 1.0% Caucasian 54.8% Mexican American 23.8% Mexican National 1.7% Native American 6.7% Total 100.0% Age 0-24 13.0% 25-34 37.2% 35-44 34.9% 45-54 12.6% 55+ 2.3% Total 100.0% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Table 53 Males in ADC Facilities December 31, 2004 Crime Type Against Persons 42.9% Against Property 25.7% Drug Offenses 16.8% DUI 7.9% Misc. Offenses 6.7% Total 100.0% Race/Ethnicity African American 13.2% Asian/Other 1.6% Caucasian 42.6% Mexican American 25.3% Mexican National 12.5% Native American 4.7% Total 100.0% Age 0-24 18.5% 25-34 34.6% 35-44 27.7% 45-54 14.2% 55+ 5.1% Total 100.0% 63 The following table shows the number of inmates in the ADC system from each county as of December 31st in 2002-2004. The male/female breakdowns are given as percentages of total inmates from each county. In 2004, of the total number of incarcerated adults in Arizona, 8.4 percent were female and 91.6 percent were male. Greenlee County had the highest female-to-male ratio and Coconino had the lowest. P P Table 54 County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Other Total Arizona Department of Corrections Inmates by Gender 2002 – 2004 2002 2003 2004 Female Male Female Male Female Male 9.3% 90.7% 4.8% 95.2% 7.6% 92.4% 10.9% 89.1% 9.5% 90.5% 9.1% 90.9% 5.1% 94.9% 5.6% 94.4% 5.5% 94.5% 6.6% 93.4% 7.4% 92.6% 7.3% 92.7% 7.4% 92.6% 5.5% 94.5% 6.8% 93.2% 10.6% 89.4% 16.7% 83.3% 11.8% 88.2% 9.7% 90.3% 8.3% 91.7% 8.1% 91.9% 8.5% 91.5% 8.9% 91.1% 8.8% 91.2% 11.3% 88.7% 10.4% 89.6% 10.4% 89.6% 7.7% 92.3% 8.2% 91.8% 8.1% 91.9% 5.6% 94.4% 5.5% 94.5% 6.6% 93.4% 7.1% 92.9% 6.9% 93.1% 8.2% 91.8% 6.7% 93.3% 7.7% 92.3% 6.2% 93.8% 7.2% 92.8% 6.2% 93.8% 10.5% 89.5% 8.3% 91.7% 9.4% 90.6% 7.3% 92.7% 8.4% 91.6% 7.6% 92.4% 5.9% 95.4% 8.2% 91.8% 8.5% 91.5% 8.4% 91.6% While 8.4 percent of the inmate population as of December 31, 2004 was female, only 4.3 percent of those incarcerated for crimes against persons were female. However, 11.8 percent of those incarcerated for crimes against property and 14.0 percent of those incarcerated for drug offenses were female. Drug offenses can involve either drug sales or possession. Table 55 Arizona Department of Corrections Inmates by Gender 2002 – 2004 2002 2003 Female Male Female Male Crime Against Persons 4.2% 95.8% 4.3% 95.7% Crimes Against Property 11.4% 88.6% 11.7% 88.3% Drug Offenses 15.0% 85.0% 14.8% 85.2% DUI 7.0% 93.0% 7.6% 92.4% Misc. Offenses 5.3% 94.7% 6.4% 93.6% Total 8.2% 91.8% 8.5% 91.5% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2004 Female Male 4.3% 95.7% 11.8% 88.2% 14.0% 86.0% 7.8% 92.2% 6.2% 93.8% 8.4% 91.6% 64 AIBRS/NIBRS The National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is a national crime reporting system that will provide more comprehensive information than the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) program currently in use by law enforcement for collecting and reporting crime data to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The FBI began to redesign the reporting structure in order to enhance the usefulness of the information collected. The National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is designed to collect more detailed information regarding the offense, offender, victim, property, and arrest data. The number of state certified programs reporting NIBRS data has increased to 18, as states convert reporting systems to comply with NIBRS reporting. Most agencies continue UCR reporting while transitioning to the NIBRS format (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/nibrsrs.htm). T T The most significant difference between NIBRS and the traditional UCR summary system is the degree of detail in reporting. Uniform Crime Report (UCR) collects and reports information on only the eight Part I Crimes, known as the Crime Index. The new NIBRS reporting format includes 22 crime categories covering 46 offense types. These offense types are categorized as Group A and include victim, offender, arrestee and circumstance data for each Table 56 criminal incident. Only arrest UCR and NIBRS Comparison data are reported on Group B UCR PART I and NIBRS GROUP A Offenses UCR NIBRS offenses. Uniform Crime Reports Offense Related Data Incident Related Data capture only limited offense and (most serious counted) (all crimes counted) arrest information and general PART I GROUP A characteristics of persons Homicide Arson arrested for the most serious Forcible Rape Assault Offenses Bribery crime committed during an Robbery Burglary offense. While UCR does permit Aggravated Assault Burglary Counterfeiting/Forgery limited analysis, once fully Larceny-Theft Destruction/Damage/Vandalism implemented, NIBRS will Motor Vehicle Theft Drug/Narcotic Offenses enhance the ability of Arson Embezzlement Extortion/Blackmail researchers to evaluate and Fraud Offenses compare data submitted by Gambling Offenses various agencies and states. The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) has implemented the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) repository. This repository is designed to collect data on each crime occurrence as well as each incident and Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Homicide Offenses Kidnapping/Extortion Larceny-Theft Offenses Motor Vehicle Theft Pornography/Obscene Material Prostitution Offenses Robbery Sex Offenses, Forcible Sex Offenses, Nonforcible Stolen Property Offenses Weapons Law Violations 65 arrest within that occurrence and will allow the state to report information to the FBI for NIBRS. The new repository will allow for better analysis of crime data. Information from the AIBRS repository is forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and added to the National Incident Based Reporting System Database. The expanded data reporting format that is currently being implemented on a state and national level will permit criminal justice and law enforcement professionals to better identify and study trends in different types of crime. This gives law enforcement greater ability to identify when, where, and how crime is taking place, as well as identifying victim characteristics. Complete and accurate information equips law enforcement with a valuable tool in combating crime. Better information also provides agency administrators with a base point to acquire and allocate resources. The AIBRS/NIBRS reporting systems allow for recognizing common denominator links which better enable multiple agencies to work together on issues in common, providing the groundwork for developing solutions and proactive strategies. In addition, the more inclusive data may aid lawmakers in developing policy-relevant legislation. As a public service, law enforcement holds accountability to its commissioner, administrator or chief, as well as its citizenry. Because incident based formats include more specific crime characteristics, it permits more crime-specific information reported to the public. The inclusion of misdemeanor and additional crime types as well as characteristics of offenses may be of particular interest to neighborhood watch leaders, homeowner associations, and the public. The expanded reporting provides citizens with an opportunity to view a snapshot of criminal activity in areas, neighborhoods, and communities (www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nibrsfaq.pdf). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 66 Fill the Gap In 1999, Arizona Senate Bill 1013 was passed to provide funding for prosecutors, public defenders, courts and the Attorney General’s Office to enhance criminal case processing by creating three new funds within the State Aid Fund allocation. The Fill the Gap bill established a composite formula for the distribution of monies from each fund to each county based on a three year average of felony case filings in each of Arizona’s fifteen Superior Court branches. The long term goal is to reduce their case processing times, as mandated by the Arizona Supreme Court. Appropriations for Fill the Gap funds are specifically designated in Arizona Revised Statute §41-2421. Three entities are funded by Fill the Gap: courts (57.37 percent), county attorneys (21.61 percent), indigent defense (20.53 percent), and the department of law for the processing of criminal cases (0.49 percent). Additional funds for Fill the Gap come from a portion of monies collected by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the payment of filing fees, clerk fees, diversion fees, fines, penalties, surcharges, sanctions and forfeitures. Fill the Gap funding for county attorneys and public defenders increased each year from FY2000 to FY2002. After that time, Maricopa and Pima counties were excluded from legislative appropriations, decreasing the overall funds available. Both counties continue to receive revenue from fines. Table 57 County Attorney Public Defender Fill the Gap Funding FY2000 – FY2004 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 $675,659 $1,228,575 $1,313,141 $641,776 $1,166,995 $1,247,182 FY2003 $850,500 $807,600 FY2004 $864,227 $820,900 Source: Fill the Gap, 2000 and 2004 reports, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Arizona Revised Statute §41-2409 mandates that the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) is responsible for administering funds to the county attorney and public defender offices in each county, and monitoring their progress toward reducing case processing times. Arizona Revised Statute §12-102.02 mandates that the Arizona Supreme Court administer and report on the court portion of the fund. Both entities are required to create a report each year on the progress made using Fill the Gap funds; however, there are no funds appropriated for the administration, monitoring or reporting on Fill the Gap. While these three funds are all mandated to be used to improve case processing, the two reports and data collection strategies regarding these funds are not coordinated. Results presented in the two annual Fill the Gap reports are not directly comparable as each agency uses differing standards and definitions. These funds are expended differently by each funded agency, according to each agency’s case processing needs. The majority of county attorney’s offices and public Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 67 defender’s offices use these funds to hire additional personnel in an effort to increase productivity and reduce staff workloads. Since the implementation of the fund, several agencies have used appropriated funds for case management systems that increase tracking ability and reduce redundancies in workload. While agencies have made strides in providing workload data, variations in case management systems, definitions and other difficulties have precluded meaningful data collection for analysis purposes. All agencies are either currently reporting case processing data, or have a plan in place to be able to produce this data in the near future. Agencies continue to rely on Fill the Gap funding to maintain improvements already made and to reduce case processing times even further. The importance of Fill the Gap funds have increased as a result of recent Supreme Court rulings that have affected case processing times. Agencies were asked to report on the impact of the Ring v. Arizona, Blakely v. Washington, and Apprendi v. New Jersey Supreme Court cases. Most agencies funded by Fill the Gap reported that the Supreme Court decisions demanded more resources to address new trial phases, remanded cases, and in some cases, new trials or sentencing hearings. Recommendations for future management and reporting of Fill the Gap funds include coordinating efforts between the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and the Arizona Supreme Court, developing a standardized methodology and definitions for the reporting of case aging information, obtaining a plan of action from those agencies not able to report case aging data, and obtaining funds for conducting research on the effectiveness of Fill the Gap funds. By standardizing reporting methods and definitions, more in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of Fill the Gap funding will be possible. This will allow effective methods to be highlighted for possible replication in order to improve case processing times statewide. Further analysis will also provide policymakers with the data they need in order to determine future funding levels, as well as how Fill the Gap funds should be used. More information regarding the expenditure of current Fill the Gap funding, as well as the purpose and history of Fill the Gap funding can be found in the 2004 annual Fill the Gap reports written by the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts (http://www.supreme.state.az.us/ftg/pdf/FTG2003-04.pdf) and the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (http://azcjc.gov/pubs/home/Fill_the_Gap_03072005final.pdf). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 68 FINDINGS Population Arizona’s population grew more than three times faster than the rest of the nation from 1993 to 2003, growing at a rate of 41.8 percent, compared to a 12.8 percent growth in the national population. Between 2000 and 2004, Arizona was the second fastest growing state, behind Nevada. Victimization According to the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted in 2003, less than 50 percent of all violent crime is reported to police. In 2003, males were less likely (45.9 percent) than females (53.3 percent) to report victimization. Uniform Crime Reports Uniform Crime Report submissions from individual agencies in Arizona increased over the ten-year period between 1994 and 2003. • • • In 1994, 89.7 percent of monthly uniform crime reports were received from agencies, compared to 91.8 percent in 2003. In 1994, 76.0 percent of agencies submitted all 12 monthly reports compared to 91.8 percent in 2003. In 2001, the highest participation year between 1994 and 2003, 94.9 percent of monthly submissions were received. In 2003, 91.8 percent were received. Part I Crime The total Part I Reported Crime Rate decreased 24.9 percent in the United States and 17.3 percent in Arizona from 1993 to 2003. The United States and Arizona had decreases in all Part I Reported Crime Rates between 1993 and 2003, with the exception of the Motor Vehicle Theft rate which increased in Arizona. Individual Index Crime Increased/Decreased between 1993 and 2003 as follows: • • Murder – United States, decreased 40.0 percent; Arizona, decreased 8.1 percent. Forcible Rape – United States, decreased 21.9 percent; Arizona, decreased 11.9 percent. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 69 • • • • • Robbery – United States, decreased 44.5 percent; Arizona, decreased 16.2 percent. Aggravated Assault – United States, decreased 33.0 percent; Arizona, decreased 33.7 percent. Burglary – United States, decreased 32.7 percent; Arizona, decreased 28.3 percent. Larceny-Theft – United States, decreased 20.4 percent; Arizona, decreased 18.8 percent. Motor Vehicle Theft – United States, decreased 28.5 percent; Arizona, increased 18.2 percent. When compared to the rest of the states, Arizona ranked highest in overall Crime Index and Property Crime in 2003, and was 13th in Violent Crime. P P Between 1994 and 2003, violent crimes in Arizona involved the use of a firearm at a higher rate than nationally. • • • In 1994, 65.2 percent of murders nationally and 72.8 percent of murders in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. In 2003, 66.0 percent of murders nationally and 70.7 percent of murders in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. A lower percentage of robberies in Arizona in 1994 (40.2 percent) involved a firearm than nationally (41.6 percent). In 2003, a higher percentage of robberies in Arizona (48.3 percent) involved the use of a firearm than nationally (41.8 percent). The percentage of aggravated assaults in Arizona that involved the use of a firearm decreased from 35.7 percent in 1994 to 27.0 percent in 2003. However, this remained higher than the national rate of 24.0 percent in 1994 and 19.1 percent in 2003. Courts In fiscal year 2004, 1,170 cases were filed with the Arizona Supreme Court, 3,457 cases were filed with the Court of Appeals, and 204,681 cases were filed with the Superior courts. Of the 204,681 cases filed in Superior Court in fiscal year 2004, 56,078 of those were criminal case filings. There was an 81.8 percent increase in criminal case filings between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2004. At the local level, there were 848,721 case filings in justice courts in fiscal year 2004, and 1,439,452 case filings in municipal case filings. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 70 Adult Probation Between 1999 and 2004, 34,220 to 37,388 probationers were receiving standard probation services. During that same time period, 2,399 to 3,401 probationers were receiving intensive probation services. A total of 55,452 to 66,642 probationers were under Arizona probation supervision at any given time between 1999 and 2004. The total probation population increased 20.2 percent between 1999 and 2004. In fiscal year 2004, 62,448 individuals were on adult probation in Arizona. Of those individuals, 35,709 were active and received standard probation services, and 2,923 received intensive probation services. During fiscal year 2004, 1,428,705 hours of community service were performed by probationers and $12,334,788 in restitution to victims was collected. Juvenile Justice System Between fiscal year 1996 and 2004 juveniles referred decreased from 50,820 referrals in fiscal year 1996 to 49,878 in fiscal year 2004, a decrease of 1.9 percent. This decrease was despite an increase in the overall juvenile population in Arizona. 64.7 percent of juveniles referred in fiscal year 2004 were between the ages of 15 and 17. While there was a 4.3 percent decrease in male referrals between fiscal year 1996 and 2004, there was a 3.3 percent increase in female referrals during the same time period. The number of juveniles in secure care decreased from 964 in June 2000 to 637 in June 2004. Hispanic juveniles (excluding Mexican Nationals), accounted for 46.1 percent of new commitments to the Department of Juvenile Corrections in FY2004. This is an increase of 3.5 percentage points since FY2000. Two-thirds of new commitments to the Department of Juvenile Corrections in FY2004 were 16 or 17 years old. Arizona Department of Corrections As of December 31, 2004, the total population committed to the Arizona Department of Corrections was 32,570, which is 1,962 higher than the designated bed capacity for the facilities of 30,608. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 71 Between 1990 and December 2004, the adult committed population in the Department of Corrections increased 127.6 percent rising from 14,313 to 32,570. Over 90 percent of inmates in the Department of Corrections are male, while 8.4 percent are female. Males are most frequently incarcerated for crimes against persons, while females are most frequently incarcerated for crimes against property. Gender In FY2004, 33.6 percent of all juveniles referred were female, an increase of almost 2 percentage points since 1996. In FY2004, 14.8 percent of juveniles committed to the Department of Juvenile Corrections were female. This was an increase of more than three percentage points since FY2001. In FY2004, 35.0 percent of juvenile males referred were referred for felonies, while 18.0 percent of females were referred for felonies. While over 90 percent of inmates in the Department of Corrections are male, the percentage of females increased from 7.4 percent of the total inmate population in June 2001 to 8.4 percent in June 2004. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 72 CONCLUSION The three primary objectives of this report are first to provide an overview of crime trends in Arizona, second to provide the Governor, criminal justice stakeholders, and the citizens of Arizona with a review of the criminal justice system, and third to provide an overview of selected topics within the criminal justice system. A collaborative partnership was formed among various criminal justice agencies, with the end product being this report. Key stakeholders throughout the criminal justice system compiled information relating to the trends in their agency, and each stakeholder had an opportunity to review the completed document. The Statistical Analysis Center of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission took the sections provided by each agency to create the final report. 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 (NCVS), 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. Both the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Reports showed a national decline in the rate of crimes per 100,000 residents between 1993 and 2003. Arizona followed the national trend of lower crime rates during that time period. From 1993 to 2003, the Part I reported crime rate per 100,000 residents in Arizona decreased 17.3 percent, compared to 24.9 percent nationwide. Nationally, the crime rate decreased in every Part I category, a trend that was also seen in Arizona, with the exception of motor vehicle theft, which increased. In 2003, Arizona had the highest total Part I crime rate in the nation. Similar to the national level, approximately 90 percent of Part I crimes reported in the state are property crimes. For this reason, even though Arizona ranks 13th in violent crime, the number one ranking in property crime drives Arizona to have the highest overall crime rate. P P Overall, nearly 2.5 million cases were filed in all Arizona courts in FY2004. Criminal cases filed by prosecutors from fiscal year 1994 to 2004 in Superior Court have increased each year with the exception of 1999. In fiscal year 2004, 62,448 individuals were on adult probation in Arizona. Of those individuals, 35,709 were active and received standard probation services, and 2,923 received intensive probation services. In the juvenile justice system, 64.7 percent of all juveniles referred into the system are between the ages of 15 and 17. Despite an increase in the overall juvenile population, both juvenile referrals, and the number of juveniles in the Department of Juvenile Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 73 Corrections decreased between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2004. During the same time period, the number of adult inmates increased. Though the cause for the decrease in juvenile referrals is unknown, it is uncharacteristic that while adult reported crime and arrests increased when the population increased, juvenile referrals decreased. Over the period from 1990 to 2004, the Arizona prison population increased from 14,313 to 32,750. The 2004 prison population was approximately 2,000 inmates more than the prisons are rated to hold. 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 population growth, combined with other factors, has caused a higher level of incarceration. As reflected in this 2005 Arizona Crime Trends document, crime rates have decreased, while workloads of each of the criminal justice system components have grown dramatically, largely due to population growth. Over the past 10 years, criminal filings submitted by prosecution and processed through the court system have increased noticeably. Additionally, the number of adults placed on probation has risen during the past five years. Finally, the population at the Department of Corrections has risen considerably during this time period. Several issues, including a rising state population, Truth in Sentencing laws, and laws requiring prison time for DUI offenders, have contributed to this increase. In view of this continuing increase in the prison population and the accompanying increases in costs per inmate and agency expenditures, additional research on recidivism rates for violent and non-violent offenders should be conducted. The current sentencing structure in relation to individual statutes could then be evaluated based on risk and recidivism information for offenders of various crime types. Based upon the findings of this research, effective policies could be implemented with an appropriate balance between lowering administrative costs while assuring community safety. Given the increased workloads and demands placed upon the criminal justice system, expectations for increased access to critical data for policy decisions has never been more important. Uniform Crime Report data has been instrumental in allowing the criminal justice system to track trends and increase data-driven decision making. However, it is limited in the amount of information collected. Reporting in this system has decreased slightly in the past two years, with some smaller agencies not reporting every month. The Arizona Incident Based Reporting System is currently being implemented alongside of UCR in order to collect more detailed information. The expansion of AIBRS will provide more detailed information for comparison and analysis purposes. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 74 Agencies throughout the criminal justice system are being tasked with demonstrating effectiveness, or losing state and federal funding. An increased emphasis on developing strategies for building data infrastructure within the criminal justice system is imperative. This infrastructure should provide for increased analysis across agencies within the criminal justice system and allow for more in depth analysis including geographic information systems. This detailed information will allow policymakers at all levels of government to use more complete information for decision making. The 2005 Arizona Crime Trends is a collaborative project with agencies within the criminal justice system working together to provide an overview of crime in Arizona. Each agency provided information regarding their role and in several instances, their perspective of the criminal justice system. Decision makers in Arizona are encouraged to utilize this publication in developing strategies to assist criminal justice agencies in meeting the future needs and demands placed upon them. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (2004). State of Arizona Youth Survey 2004. Phoenix: Arizona Statistical Analysis Center. Crime State Rankings, Crime in the 50 United States. (2002-2003) Lawrence, Kansas: Morgan Quinto Corporation. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States Uniform Crime Reports, 1993-2003. Uniform Crime Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigations [online] March 10, 2005. online at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm T T Arizona Revised Statutes. Arizona State Legislature. online: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp. T T Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey Reports, 1993-2003. Department of Public Safety. Crime in Arizona. Criminal Victimization, 2003. online: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv03.txt. T T Federal Bureau of Investigation. online: www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nibrsfaq/pdf. T T Fill the Gap Reports. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Office of Justice programs, U.S. Department of Justice. online: http://www.ncjrs.org T T National Incident Based Reporting System. online: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nibrs.htm. T T Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 76 APPENDIX A Agencies Total Months Reported Total Months Possible Percent Months Returned Full reports Percent Full Reports No Reports Percent No Reports Partial Reports Percent Partial Reports UCR Agency Submissions in Arizona 1994 - 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 100 100 102 102 102 1994 100 1995 100 2001 102 2002 102 2003 103 1,076 1,055 1,013 1,047 1,100 1,149 1,149 1,162 1,089 1,124 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,224 1,224 1,224 1,224 1,224 1,224 89.7% 87.9% 84.4% 87.3% 89.9% 93.9% 93.9% 94.9% 89.0% 91.8% 76 74 68 66 70 89 87 91 80 84 76.0% 74.0% 68.0% 66.0% 68.6% 87.3% 85.3% 89.2% 78.4% 81.6% 11 10 13 8 8 5 4 3 7 6 11.0% 10.0% 13.0% 8.0% 7.8% 4.9% 3.9% 2.9% 6.9% 5.8% 13 16 19 26 24 8 11 8 15 13 13.0% 16.0% 19.0% 26.0% 23.5% 7.8% 10.8% 7.8% 14.7% 12.6% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 77