State Strategy Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2012-2015 State Strategy Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Chairperson RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff Vice-Chairperson DANIEL G. SHARP, Chief Oro Valley Police Department JOHN R. ARMER Gila County Sheriff JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DUANE BELCHER, Chairperson Board of Executive Clemency DAVID K. BYERS, Director Administrative Office of the Courts CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff ROBERT C. HALLIDAY, Director Department of Public Safety TOM HORNE Attorney General ROBERT HUDDLESTON, Chief Casa Grande Police Department BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney BILL MONTGOMERY Maricopa County Attorney CHARLES RYAN, Director Department of Corrections DAVID SANDERS Pima County Chief Probation Officer LINDA SCOTT Former Judge GEORGE E. SILVA Santa Cruz County Attorney CARL TAYLOR Coconino County Supervisor Mayor VACANT Police Chief VACANT The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) is a statutorily authorized entity mandated to carry out various coordinating, monitoring and reporting functions regarding the administration and management of criminal justice programs in Arizona. In accordance with statutory guidelines, the Commission is comprised of 19 members who represent various elements of the criminal justice system in Arizona. Fourteen of the 19 Commissioners are appointed by the governor and are municipal, county or elected officials. The remaining five are state criminal justice agency heads. Appointed Commissioners serve for two years and terminate when the first regular session of the legislature is convened; they may be re-appointed. The ACJC was created in 1982 to serve as a resource and service organization for Arizona's 480 criminal justice agencies on a myriad of issues ranging from drugs, gangs, victim compensation and assistance to criminal record improvement initiatives. The ACJC works on behalf of the criminal justice agencies in Arizona to facilitate information and data exchange among state-wide agencies by establishing and maintaining criminal justice information archives, monitoring new and continuing legislation relating to criminal justice issues and gathering information and researching existing criminal justice programs. ACJC Mission: To sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity, and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Arizona. JOHN A. BLACKBURN JR. Executive Director PHILLIP STEVENSON, Ph.D. Statistical Analysis Center Director AIDEN FLEMING Intern TONY VIDALE Program Manager KERI RAICHERT Program Coordinator JANICE SIMPSON Program Coordinator LAWRENCE ROSKY Intern ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 4 Nature and Extent of the Problem - Data and Analysis ................................................ 5 Current and Coordinated Efforts ............................................................................... 24 Program Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges ................... 31 Goals and Purpose Areas ......................................................................................... 33 Strategic Principles ................................................................................................ 36 Program Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................... 37 References............................................................................................................. 43 1 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Introduction Drug, gang and violent crime continue to be a persistent threat to the public safety and health of Arizonans. Through granting millions of dollars in federal and state funds to address drug, gang and violent crime, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) serves an integral role in responding to the problem. The Arizona 2012-2015 Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control (Strategy) is the Commission’s primary decision-making tool for the allocation of funds and to guide project activity for the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control (DGVCC) program. An Arizona drug control strategy was initially developed in 1987 with extensive input from local, state, and federal officials and agencies. Through the years, the drug control strategy was updated, refined, and expanded to include gang and violent crime. The first multi-year strategy was released in 2000 and continued for three years, followed by a four-year strategy developed in 2004 and a subsequent strategy in 2008. The 2008-2011 Strategy has provided guidance for allocating resources through 2011. As with former strategies, the ACJC has requested public input in the development of the Strategy. Regional public hearings were held in Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tucson and Yuma in October 2011. The purpose of the public hearings was to solicit public input on the content of the Strategy. The Strategy serves as the Commission’s blueprint for directing funds to achieve the following two goals:  Curtail the flow of illicit drugs, drug proceeds and instruments used to perpetuate violence across Arizona  Reduce violent crime and illicit drug use and deter repeat offenders in Arizona. The DGVCC program is supported by multiple funding sources. The parameters of the various funding streams have been accounted for in the design of the Strategy. The following represents the funding sources associated with the program: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG): The Byrne JAG program is the primary source of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Byrne JAG program supports a range of program areas including law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education programs, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. Drug and Gang Enforcement Account (DEA): The DEA generates revenue through mandatory fines and surcharges from drug offenders that are collected pursuant to A.R.S. 41-2402. DEA funds are to be used for the purpose of enhancing efforts to deter, investigate, prosecute, adjudicate and punish drug offenders and members of criminal street gangs. 2 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Grant: The RSAT Grant is a federal grant issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance for purposes of developing and implementing substance abuse treatment programs in state, local, and tribal correctional and detention facilities and to create and maintain community-based aftercare services for offenders. Matching funds: The Commission may elect to require recipients to provide matching funds to leverage the federal and state dollars committed to the program. Matching funds build buy-in and ownership for local criminal justice initiatives and increase the overall size and effectiveness of the program. In crafting this multi-year strategy, special consideration has been given to the economic and political realities of shifts in available resources to support the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program. The strategy has been developed in a manner that is flexible to fluctuations in resources to support the program in order to remain a useful instrument for assuring funds are best directed to improve public safety and meet the needs of Arizona. 3 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Executive Summary Review and analysis of drug, gang and violent crime data pertinent to Arizona indicate that the frequency of most crime has remained relatively steady over the past decade. However, factoring in the significant increases in population the state has experienced, data reveals that rates for most crimes have trended downward. While arrest rates for the sale and manufacturing of drugs have decreased from 2000-2010, overall arrest rates for drug possession have remained relatively unchanged. In recent years, there has been an increase in the percentage of jurisdictions in Arizona with active gangs along with increased estimates of active gang members. Data indicates that gangs in Arizona are highly active in the distribution of both marijuana and methamphetamine. Along with the rest of the nation, Arizona has experienced significant declines in violent crime rates, 2000-2009. Over the years, the Commission has supported a variety of projects across the criminal justice system designed to address the drug, gang and violent crime problem in Arizona. A structural hallmark of the DGVCC program has been the support of multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces and their tandem prosecution projects. Additionally, the Commission has supported forensic support services, statewide forfeiture efforts, adjudication projects, and other criminal justice-related projects as a means of achieving the goals of the DGVCC program. The DGVCC program seeks to curtail the flow of illicit drugs, drug proceeds and instruments used to perpetuate violence across Arizona and reduce violent crime and illicit drug use and deter repeat offenders in Arizona. In response to drug, gang and violent crime in Arizona, the following seven purpose areas have been identified as potential funding areas for the 2012-2015 time period:        Apprehension Prosecution Forensic Support Services Adjudication and Sentencing Corrections and Community Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment for Corrections-Involved Individuals Prevention and Education. In addition to the seven purpose areas, a listing of strategic principles has been developed based on a thorough analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program. The seven purpose areas and strategic principles serve as the Commission’s instruments for establishing funding priorities. Each grant year, the Commission will establish priorities based on statewide needs and the funding environment. This strategy document supplies readers with a presentation of the scope of the problem, background on current programming, the strategic direction for allocation of resources for the 20122015 time period, and the program evaluation plan. It is through application of this comprehensive, data-driven strategy that the Commission will continue to maximize resources and promote valuable results for the state of Arizona. 4 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Nature and Extent of the Problem Data and Analysis ACJC’s DGVCC program is responsible for the administration of the Byrne JAG, DEA revenue and the RSAT grant. To make best use of the federal and state funds administered by ACJC’s DGVCC program, a comprehensive review and analysis of Arizona’s drug, gang, and violent crime data is conducted to inform the program’s funding strategy. In this section of the DGVCC program’s strategic document, publicly available data on drug, gang, and violent crime in Arizona is reviewed to provide state and local policymakers and practitioners with a data-driven approach to improving the criminal justice system and allocate scarce public safety resources where they are most needed. Data Sources Violent Offense and Drug Arrest Data The primary state and local source for violent offense and arrest information is the Arizona Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Initiated more than 70 years ago, the federal UCR program is a nationwide effort by law enforcement agencies to voluntarily report offense and arrest data on a set of specific crimes that occur in their jurisdictions. The purpose of the UCR program is to provide reliable information that describes the nature and extent of crime for administrative, operational, and management activities. The data that are collected through the UCR program, particularly data on those crimes that form the violent crime index (i.e., murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault), have become some of the most common and widely recognized social indicators of crime. It is important for users of official crime data to know that not all crimes are reported to law enforcement, and subsequently, the state UCR program. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 51 percent of violent crime and 60 percent of property crime were not reported to the police in 2009.1 Some of the reasons given by crime victims for why they do not report their victimizations to the police include: the offense was too trivial to involve law enforcement, there was nothing the criminal justice system could do about the victimization, and the belief that some crimes are a personal matter that should not be processed through the justice system.2 To better understand the nature and extent of all crime, including that which is not reported to law enforcement, data that is collected through a survey of crime victims provide a perspective on crime that is complementary to that which is obtained from law enforcement. The Bureau of Justice Statistics administers the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is the premier source of victimization data in the United States. Unfortunately, the cost of conducting a nationwide victimization survey makes it cost-prohibitive, in its current form, to generate state or local area estimates. Although informative, national victimization estimates have limited utility for local planning and policy development, thus, victimization data is not included in this report.3 Even though not all crimes are reported to the police, official offense and arrest data generated by law enforcement agencies statewide provide a uniform measure of crime and law enforcement 1 Truman, Jennifer L. and Michael R. Rand. “Criminal Victimization, 2009” October 2010. Web. March 29, 2011. Gottfredson, Michael R. 1986. “Substantive Contributions of Victimization Surveys.” Crime and Justice. 7: pp #251-287. 3 To address this data gap for the state of Arizona, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center was recently awarded a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to conduct the first ever victimization survey for the state of Arizona. The final report on Arizona’s victimization survey is expected to be published in the fall of 2012. 2 5 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 activity that provide important insights into a jurisdiction’s crime problem. Offense data include all crimes reported to the police while arrest data include only those offenses for which an alleged offender was arrested. In the crime data that follow, offense data are reviewed to assess Arizona’s violent crime problems. The UCR program also allows for the collection and reporting of other crimes (i.e., UCR program Part II offenses), including drug sales or manufacturing and drug possession. Although the violent crime data reviewed below rely on offenses reported to the police, the nature of drug crime requires the use of arrest data rather than offense data. Drug sale or manufacturing and drug possession are typically offenses that are not reported to the police; instead arrests for these offenses are typically a result of proactive investigations of law enforcement rather than events reported to the police by a party to the offense or a third party. For the violent crime data reported below, both the rate of crime and the frequency of crime as reported to the police are reviewed and assessed. A jurisdiction with a growing population can experience a dramatic reduction in its crime rate at the same time that the frequency of crime in that jurisdiction changes little. This is particularly evident in Arizona where rapid increases in the population of the state, counties, and municipalities have occurred for years. Though Arizona has experienced significant declines in violent crime rates from 2000 to 2009, there has been relatively less significant changes to the frequency of some crimes as illustrated in Figure 1. For example, the murder rate in Arizona has declined by more than 25 percent from 2000 to 2009 while the actual number of murders has declined by approximately 10 percent. This paradox is one of many challenges facing Arizona’s criminal justice system. Gang Data Since 1990, ACJC has administered a gang survey to state, county, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies in Arizona. In the summer of 2007, the Arizona Gang Survey was replaced with the Arizona Gang Threat Assessment because of feedback from the Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2000 and 2009 law enforcement community in Arizona who requested a more in-depth analysis of current threats posed by gangs. The Arizona Gang Threat Assessment was modeled after the National Gang Threat Assessment. The national assessment is a project of the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Drug Intelligence Center and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 6 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Drug Use Data United States specific illicit drug use prevalence data provided in this section is based on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The NSDUH is funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and is designed to track changes in substance use patterns for U.S. residents 12 years of age and older. Arizona specific adult illicit drug use prevalence data is based on the 2010 Arizona Health Survey; a St. Luke’s Health Initiative designed to compliment other data sources in capturing the status of the health and well-being of Arizonans. The 2010 Arizona Health Survey data were gathered through telephone interviews of 8,215 adult heads of household living in Arizona. Youth substance use prevalence data is based on the 2010 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered by 372 schools with participation of 63,784 students. The AYS measures the prevalence of drug use and other risky behavior among Arizona 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and the circumstances under which they live. The statewide survey is conducted by ACJC in collaboration with the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Department of Health Services, and the Office of Problem Gambling. Technical assistance is provided by Bach Harrison, LLC. Drug-related consequence data is based on reports prepared by the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. In addition, this section includes information from the Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics Report prepared by the Arizona Department of Health Services. Demographic Characteristics of the Arizona Population Population From 2000 to 2010, Arizona’s population grew nearly three times faster than the nation as a whole, increasing by 24.6 percent, compared to a 9.7 percent population increase for the nation (Table 1). For most of Arizona’s 15 counties, population change over time varied greatly from 2000 to 2010 (Table 2). Although the population increased in almost all Arizona counties, Greenlee County was the lone county where the population decreased, by 1.3 percent, Table 1: Arizona and U.S. Population, 2000-2010 Year-toYear-toArizona United States Year Year Year Population Population % Change % Change 2000 5,130,632 281,421,906 2001 5,307,331 +3.4 284,796,887 +1.2 2002 5,456,453 +2.8 287,973,924 +1.1 2003 5,580,811 +2.3 290,809,777 +1.3 2004 5,743,834 +2.9 293,656,842 +1.0 2005 5,939,292 +3.4 296,410,404 +0.9 2006 6,166,318 +3.8 299,398,484 +1.0 2007 6,338,755 +2.8 301,621,157 +0.8 2008 6,500,180 +2.5 304,059,724 +0.8 2009 6,595,778 +1.5 307,006,550 +1.0 2010 6,392,017 * 308,745,538 +0.6 % Change +24.6% +9.7% 20002010 Source: United States Census Bureau * Population data for the years 2000 and 2010 are based on decennial census counts. Population data for the years 2001 – 2009 are estimates provided by the United States Census Bureau and based on the last decennial census and administrative records information. For this reason, the population change from 2009 to 2010 is unknown due to the different methods used to measure the population of Arizona. 7 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Table 2: Arizona County Population, 2000-2010 2000 2010 % Change County Population Population 2000 - 2010 Apache 69,423 71,518 +3.0% Cochise 117,755 131,346 +11.5% Coconino 116,320 134,421 +15.6% Gila 51,355 53,597 +4.4% Graham 33,489 37,220 +11.1% Greenlee 8,547 8,437 -1.3% La Paz 19,715 20,489 +3.9% Maricopa 3,072,149 3,817,117 +24.2% Mohave 155,032 200,186 +29.1% Navajo 97,470 107,449 +10.2% Pima 843,743 980,263 +16.2% Pinal 179,727 375,700 +109.0% Santa Cruz 38,381 47,420 +23.6% Yavapai 167,517 211,033 +26.0% Yuma 160,026 195,751 +22.3% Source: United States Census Bureau of the state’s population that are White (including White Hispanics) decreased by 2.5 percentage points. In contrast, the percentage of the state’s population that are of other races increased by 0.1 to 1.0 percentage points. Nature and Extent of Drug, Gang and Violent Crime in Arizona Statewide Drug Crime Trends Arrests for Drug Sales or Manufacturing from 2000 to 2010. In contrast, all other Arizona counties experienced population growth ranging from a three percent increase in Apache County to a 109 percent increase in the population of Pinal County. Race and Ethnicity During the first decade of the 21st century, the population of Arizona became more racially and ethnically diverse. Although White NonHispanics continue to comprise the majority of the residents of Arizona, almost all other racial and ethnic groups increased their representation in Arizona (Table 3). From 2000 to 2010, the percentage Table 3: Race and Ethnicity of Arizona Residents, 2000-2010 Change 2000 2010 2000 - 2010 Race White 75.5% 73.0% -2.5 Black American Indian / Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander Two or more races 3.1% 4.1% +1.0 5.0% 4.6% -0.4 1.8% 2.8% +1.0 0.1% 0.2% +0.1 2.9% 3.4% +0.5 Ethnicity Hispanic 25.3% 29.6% +4.3 Non-Hispanic 74.7% 70.4% -4.3 Race and Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 63.8% 57.8% -6.0 Source: United States Census Bureau According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, from 2000 to 2010 the number of arrests for the sale or manufacture of drugs remained relatively stable throughout the early part of the decade, with decreases in the number of arrests since 2007 (Figure 2).4 The number of arrests for the sale or manufacture of drugs was 17.4 percent lower in 2010 than in 2000. 4 The drug categories used by Arizona UCR program include: opium or cocaine and their derivatives (e.g., morphine, heroin, codeine), marijuana, synthetic narcotics―manufactured narcotics that can cause true addiction (e.g., Demerol, methadone); and dangerous non-narcotic drugs (e.g., amphetamines, barbiturates, Benzedrine, etc.). 8 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 When looking at arrests by drug category, the number of arrests for the sale or manufacture of marijuana increased 29.3 percent from 2000 to 2010. In contrast, arrests for the sale or manufacture of all other drug types were lower in 2010 than in 2000, with most of the decrease for opium and its derivatives and synthetics occurring since 2007. Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2000 - 2010 When controlling for population change, from 2000 – 2010 the arrest rate for the sale or manufacturing of drugs decreased 33.3 percent (Figure 3). Similarly, arrest rates also decreased for opium and its derivatives (38.0 percent), synthetics (20.0 percent), and ―other‖ dangerous drugs (63.3 percent). In contrast, the arrest rate for the sale or manufacture of marijuana increased 4.8 percent. Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2000 - 2010 9 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Arrests for Drug Possession In contrast to the declining number of arrests for drug sales or manufacturing, the number of arrests for drug possession has increased from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 4). After small year-to-year decreases in the number of arrests for drug possession from 2000 to 2003, arrests for drug possession increased by 36.1 percent in a single year from 2003 to 2004. After that large single-year increase, the number of arrests for drug possession remained relatively stable until 2010 when the number of arrests decreased 10.7 percent from 2009. Driving the overall number of arrests for drug possession is the number of arrests for possession of marijuana. From 2000 to 2009, the Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2000 - 2010 number of arrests for possession of marijuana increased 36.3 percent, before dropping 11.3 percent in a single year from 2009 to 2010. Arrests for the possession of synthetics and ―other‖ dangerous drugs increased during the first half of the decade before decreasing to levels only slightly higher than in 2000. Arrests for the possession of opium or its derivatives decreased throughout much of the time period from 2000 to 2010, ending the decade 47.5 percent lower than in 2000. When controlling for change in the population of Arizona, increases in the number of arrests for drug possession tend to flatten out (Figure 5). The arrest rate for drug possession decreased by 17.1 percent from 2000 to 2003. After a single year increase of 32.1 percent from 2003 to 2004 Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2000 - 2010 10 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 in the arrest rate for drug possession, the rate steadily declined throughout the rest of the decade with an arrest rate for drug possession in 2010 that was 12.5 percent lower than in 2000. Although there was significant variation within each drug category in the arrest rate for drug possession, with increases evident in the arrest rate for drug possession during the middle part of the decade, by the end of the decade the arrest rates for drug possession were lower in 2010 than in 2000 for all drug categories. Statewide Gang Crime Trends The ACJC Statistical Analysis Center conducts an annual gang threat assessment. The assessment uses self-reported information from law enforcement agencies5 statewide to estimate the number of gangs, gang members, and the types of gang activity that are seen in Arizona’s communities. Gangs in Arizona From 2007 to 2009, there has been an increase in the percentage of jurisdictions in Arizona with active gangs. In 2007, approximately 60 percent of jurisdictions in Arizona reported having active gangs in their communities (Figure 6). By 2009, the percentage of jurisdictions reporting active gangs increased to approximately 75 percent. Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, 2007 - 2009 Gang Members in Arizona Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, 2007 - 2009 5 As part of the gang threat assessment, jurisdictions are asked to estimate the number of gang members who are active in their jurisdictions. From 2007 to 2009, the estimated number of active gang members in Arizona increased from 20,873 in 2007 to 32,772 in 2009 (Figure 7). This is not surprising given the data that suggest that Arizona has seen an increase in the number of active gangs during The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center surveys all police, sheriffs, and tribal police agencies in Arizona for their annual gang threat assessment. From 2007 to 2009, more than three-fourths of all local law enforcement agencies in Arizona provided information for the gang threat assessment. 11 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 this same time period. Additionally, although more agencies participated in the assessment in 2008 (69 agencies) and 2009 (59 agencies) than participated in 2007 (57 agencies), the additional participating agencies do not fully explain the increase in the estimated number of active gang members in Arizona. Gang Activity in Arizona To better understand the type of criminal activity gangs and gang members are engaged in, the 2009 gang threat assessment asked agencies to report the primary types of crimes gangs and gang members are committing in their jurisdictions. The most frequently reported primary crime type is aggravated assault (Figure 8). More than three-fourths of law enforcement agencies that reported active gangs in their jurisdiction reported aggravated assault as one of the primary types of crime of gangs and gang members. The second most frequently reported crime type was drug offenses. According to law enforcement agencies statewide, approximately 75 percent of jurisdictions in Arizona that reported active gangs identified drug offenses (e.g., possession, sales, trafficking, etc.) as one of the primary crimes of gangs Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, 2007 - 2009 and gang members. Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs The annual gang threat assessments also captured information on gang involvement in the distribution of drugs. Figure 9 contains data on the percentage of agencies with active gangs with high levels of involvement in the distribution of drugs by drug type. From 2007 to 2009, of the drug types asked about in the threat assessment, marijuana was the drug with the largest percentage of agencies reporting having a high level of gang involvement in its distribution. In 2009, nearly half of agencies with active gangs and gang members in their jurisdiction reported that gangs have a high level of involvement in the distribution of marijuana. It is also worth noting that the percentage of agencies reporting high levels of gang involvement in the distribution of marijuana has increased each year from 2007 to 2009. Additionally, the threat assessment reveals that gangs are highly active in the distribution of methamphetamine. In 2009, nearly one out of three agencies with active gangs reported high levels of involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine by gangs in their jurisdiction. Finally, it is also worth noting that from 2008 to 2009, there has been a marked increase in the percentage of jurisdictions with active gangs and gang members reporting high levels of involvement by gangs in the distribution of heroin, from 5.8 percent of agencies to 10.3 percent. 12 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, 2007 - 2009 Violent Index Offense Rates Rate per 100,000 Residents From 2000 to 2009, both Figure 10: United States and Arizona Violent Index Arizona and the nation Offense Rates, 2000-2009 experienced significant 700 decreases in the violent 600 offense rate (Figure 10).6 As 500 described earlier in this 400 report, 2008 marked the first 300 time in more than a decade 200 that Arizona’s violent offense 100 0 rate was lower than the 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 nation’s. In 2009, the United States 506.5 504.4 494.4 475 463.2 469.2 473.5 466.9 454.5 429.4 Arizona’s violent index Arizona 531.7 540.3 554.5 513.2 504.4 513.2 501.4 482.7 447.0 408.3 offense rate continued to decline more than the nation’s—Arizona’s violent index offense rate was 1.7 Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2000 2009 percent lower than the nation’s in 2008 and 4.9 percent lower than the nation’s in 2009. With the exception of 2000 to 2002 and 2005 to 2006, Arizona and the nation experienced similar downward trends in the violent index offense rates. 6 At the time that this plan was being developed, UCR program data on violent crime in the United States for 2010 was not yet available. 13 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter Offense Rates As defined by the UCR program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter is ―the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.‖7 Overall, the murder rate in both Arizona and the nation is significantly lower in 2009 than in 2000 (22.9 and 9.1 percent lower, respectively), although most of the decline for both Arizona and the nation occurred from 2006 to 2009 (Table 4). Throughout the time period examined, the murder rates for Arizona were higher than the nation’s. In 2009 the difference between the nation’s murder offense rate and Arizona’s was smaller than at any other time from 2000 to 2009. Forcible Rape Offense Rates As defined by the UCR program, forcible rape is ―the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.‖8 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 assaults on males are not included in this offense category and, instead, are classified as assaults or other sexual offenses not included in the UCR data. It is important to note that in Arizona, the criminal justice system does not use the term forcible rape and instead uses the term sexual assault. The term sexual assault is not utilized in presenting data within this document, as the term sexual assault captures a wide range of criminal behavior beyond forcible rape per the UCR program. For these reasons, the forcible rape data presented in this document could be regarded as a subset of sexual assault data. Nationally, the rate of forcible rape reported to the police was 10.3 percent lower in 2009 than in 2000. From 2000 to 2009, the nation’s rate decreased each year with the exception of increases from 2001 to 2002 and 2003 to 2004. By contrast, during the same time period, there was considerably more fluctuation in Arizona’s rape rate. After experiencing general increases in the rate of rape from 2001 to 2005, the rate in Arizona declined from 2005 to 2008. Yet, after reaching a decade low of 25.7 rapes per 100,000 residents in 2008, the rate of rape reported to law enforcement increased by 24.5 percent. Table 4 shows the forcible rape rate for Arizona and the United States from 2000 to 2009. Table 4: United States and Arizona Violent Offense Rates* by Type of Offense, 2000-2009 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault U.S. 2000 5.5 2001 5.6 2002 5.6 2003 5.7 2004 5.5 2005 5.6 2006 5.7 2007 5.6 2008 5.4 2009 5.0 AZ 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.9 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.4 6.3 5.4 U.S. 32.0 31.8 33.1 32.1 32.4 31.7 30.9 30.0 29.3 28.7 AZ 30.7 28.6 29.6 33.3 33.0 33.8 31.5 29.3 25.7 32.0 U.S. 145.0 148.5 146.1 142.2 136.7 140.7 149.4 147.6 145.3 133.0 AZ 146.3 167.1 147.0 136.5 134.5 144.4 149.6 151.7 149.2 122.8 U.S. 324 318.5 309.5 295 288.6 291.1 287.5 283.8 274.6 262.8 AZ 347.7 337.1 370.8 335.5 329.6 327.4 312.7 294.3 265.9 248.1 * Rate per 100,000 Residents Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2000-2009 7 8 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html 14 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Robbery Offense Rates 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.‖9 In the nation as a whole and in Arizona, the robbery rate decreased from 2000 to 2009 (16.1 and 8.3 percent, respectively). For most of the time period from 2000 to 2009, the nation’s and Arizona’s annual robbery offense rate were very similar. The exceptions to the similarity between the nation’s and Arizona’s robbery offense rate are seen in the 2001 and 2009 data. From 2000 to 2001, Arizona experienced a 14.2 percent increase in the robbery offense rate and a nearly equivalent decrease from 2001 to 2002. Illustrating the impact that Arizona’s major metropolitan areas have on the state’s crime rate, much of the increase in Arizona’s robbery rate from 2000 to 2001 can be explained by corresponding increases in the number of robberies that occurred during that time in Phoenix and Tucson (23.0 and 17.6 percent, respectively). From 2008 to 2009, Arizona also experienced a decline in the robbery offense rate greater than the decline seen in the nation as a whole (17.7 and 8.5 percent, respectively). Table 4 presents reported robbery rates for Arizona and the United States by year for 2000 through 2009. Aggravated Assault Offense Rates 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.‖ 10 Aggravated assaults are often committed with a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assaults that involve the display or threat to use a weapon are also included in this offense category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were successfully completed. From 2000 to 2009, both Arizona and the United States experienced significant decreases in the rate of aggravated assault (28.6 and 18.9 percent, respectively). Throughout this time period, Arizona’s and the nation’s aggravated assault rates consistently declined, with the exception of a one-year increase in the rate of aggravated assault in Arizona from 2001 to 2002. Table 4 shows reported aggravated assault offense rates from 2000 to 2009 for Arizona and the United States. In contrast to the robbery offense rate where significant increases in Arizona’s two largest cities accounted for most of the anomalous single-year increase in robberies statewide, the single-year increase in aggravated assault from 2001 to 2002 cannot be explained by large increases in aggravated assaults occurring in only a few jurisdictions. Index Offense Counts Like many states around the country, Arizona has experienced significant declines in index offense rates since 2000. Index offense rates are useful measures of crime and public safety in a jurisdiction because they allow for reasonable comparisons of crime to be made over time while controlling for changes in population. Yet, in states such as Arizona that continue to experience significant population increases, the number of crimes reported to the police better describes the impact of criminal victimization in a community (i.e., the number of individuals directly impacted by crime) and the impact of crime on the criminal justice system and its component agencies than rates of crime. 9 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html 10 15 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 In Arizona, aggregate index offense rates (i.e., overall, violent, and property crime indices) and most offense-specific rates (e.g., aggravated assault, motor vehicle theft, etc.) have declined significantly from 2000 to 2009 (Figure 11). Although index offense rates for most crimes in Arizona have decreased, indicative of an increased level of public safety, increases in the number of rapes and robberies in Arizona signal a need for resources that allow criminal justice agencies to continue to effectively respond to their local crime problems and target those crimes for which increases are evident. Importantly, the resources must allow for Arizona’s criminal justice system to keep pace with increases in the frequency of crime and, at minimum, maintain if not strengthen the ability to respond to increases in the number of offenders and provide supportive services to those who have been victimized. The data reviewed thus far illustrate the importance of analyzing both trends over time in offense rates and trends over time in the number of crimes occurring in Arizona. The next section of this report describes change over time in the number of crimes that occurred in Arizona for the two crime indices and associated crime types. From 2000 to 2009, Arizona experienced reductions in the crime rates for all index offenses reviewed. This is consistent with national index offense rates that also declined during the same time period. Arizona’s declining crime rates, particularly the violent crime rate, are a function of both declines in the number of offenses that are reported to the police and increases in the population of Arizona. In Arizona, the overall violent crime rate has declined even though the number of forcible rapes and robberies has increased (Figure 11). Nationally, from 2000 to 2009 both the violent and property crime rates and the number of violent and property crimes occurring have decreased significantly, with the exception of burglary. Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2000 - 2009 16 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Violent Index Offenses After generally consistent increases in the number of violent index offenses reported to police from 2000 to 2006, with the exception of a decrease from 2002 to 2003, the number of violent index offenses has consistently declined (Figure 12). In 2009, the number of violent index offenses reported to the police was 1.3 percent lower than in 2000 and 12.9 percent lower than in 2006. Figure 12: Reported Violent Index Offenses in Arizona 2000-2009 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2000 Arizona 27,281 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 28,675 30,171 28,638 28,952 30,478 30,916 30,600 29,059 26,929 Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2000 - 2009 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter From 2000 to 2007, Arizona experienced a generally increasing trend in the number of murders in Arizona (Table 5). With the exception of two year-to-year declines from 2001 to 2002 and 2003 to 2004, the number of reported murders increased 30.4 percent from 2000 to 2007. Since 2007, the number of murders reported in Arizona has declined 24.4 percent to the lowest number of murders in more than 10 years. Table 5: Arizona Reported Violent Offenses by Type of Offense, 2000-2009 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter 359 400 387 441 414 445 465 468 407 354 Forcible Rape 1,577 1,518 1,608 1,856 1,896 2,006 1,941 1,856 1,673 2,110 Robbery 7,504 8,868 8,000 7,619 7,721 8,579 9,226 9,618 9,697 8,099 Aggravated Assault 17,841 17,889 20,176 18,722 18,921 19,448 19,284 18,658 17,282 16,366 Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety, Crime in Arizona, 2000-2009 17 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Forcible Rape From 2000 to 2005, the number of forcible rapes reported to the police in Arizona increased by 32.1 percent, which was followed by a decline of 16.6 percent from 2005 to 2008. From 2008 to 2009 the number of forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in Arizona increased again by 26.1 percent—its highest level in more than a decade (Table 5). Robbery From 2000 to 2009, Arizona experienced significant variation in the number of robberies reported to law enforcement (Table 5). After experiencing a two-year decline in the number of robberies reported to law enforcement from 2001 to 2003, the number of robberies increased from 2003 to 2008 by 27.3 percent. More recently, from 2008 to 2009 the number of robberies reported to the police declined by 16.5 percent, but remained higher than at the beginning of the decade. Aggravated Assault For most of the time period from 2000 to 2009, the number of aggravated assaults reported to Arizona law enforcement remained relatively stable (Table 5). During this time, the largest year-toyear change occurred from 2001 to 2002 when the number of aggravated assaults reported to police in Arizona increased by 12.8 percent. After two small year-to-year increases in reported aggravated assaults, since 2005 the number of aggravated assaults reported to law enforcement in Arizona has steadily declined. By 2009, the number of aggravated assaults reported to law enforcement was 8.3 percent lower than in 2000. 18 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Drug Use Results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimate that 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were current (past month) illicit drug users in 2010. This figure represents 8.9 percent of the population aged 12 or older. This overall 2010 national rate (8.9 percent) was similar to the rate in 2009 (8.7 percent); however, was higher than the rates in 2002 through 2008 (Figure 13). Figure 13: United States Past Month Use of Selected Illicit Drugs among Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2002-2010 + Difference between this estimate and the 2010 estimate is statistically significant at the .05 level. Source: 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health Adult Illicit Drug Use in Arizona In accordance with the 2010 Arizona Health Survey, nearly one-third (31 percent) of adults in Arizona had used illicit drugs in their lifetime. Of the adults reporting lifetime illicit drug use, 6.5 percent reported using illicit drugs within the last year; half of which reported using drugs within the Table 6: Arizona Adults Reporting Past 30past 30 days. Marijuana was reported as the most day Illicit Drug Use in 2010 by Drug Type common of illicit drugs used by adults. Of the Type of Drug(s) Percent of Individuals* individuals who reported use in the past 30 days, Used 91 percent used marijuana, 3 percent used crack, Marijuana 91 17 percent used cocaine, 5 percent used heroin, 9 Crack 3 percent used methamphetamine and 11 percent Cocaine 17 used other illicit drugs (Table 6). Heroin 5 Methamphetamine 9 Other Illicit Drugs 11 *Respondents had the ability to select multiple responses. Of the one-third of adults who reported illicit drug use, a significant share of individuals began using Source: Arizona Health Survey 2010 before the age of 18. This is particularly evident for individuals reporting marijuana use. Seventy-one percent of those who have ever used marijuana initiated use before the age of 18. The percentage of respondents who reported first time illicit drug use under the age of 18 were 39 percent of methamphetamine users, 35 percent of those who tried heroin, 24 percent of those who used cocaine, 22 percent of individuals who reported using crack cocaine and 28 percent of those reporting any other illicit drug. 19 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Youth Substance Use in Arizona Alcohol continues to be the most used substance among youth in Arizona across all grades, with 45.1 percent of 8th graders, 64.1 percent of 10th graders, and 72.8 percent of 12th graders reporting having drank alcohol at least once in their lifetime. For substance use in the 30 days prior to taking the survey, alcohol was again the most widely used, with 21.9 percent of 8th graders, 34.7 percent of 10th graders, and 45.0 percent of 12th graders reporting using. As is evident with alcohol, rates of substance use among youth tends to increase as a youth’s age increases (Tables 7 and 8). An exception to this pattern can be seen in rates of inhalant use, which decreases as youth get older. Table 8: Percentage of Arizona Students Who Have Used Drugs in the Past 30-Days Alcohol Cigarettes Smokeless Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Sedatives Methamphetamines Stim ulants Ecstasy Heroin Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers Prescription Drugs Over-theCounter Drugs 8th Grade 21.9 8.9 10th Grade 34.7 15.6 12th Grade 45.0 22.9 Total 31.9 14.7 2.8 5.7 8.1 5.1 8.9 5.6 0.9 0.8 3.6 17.4 3.0 2.0 1.6 4.7 21.3 1.5 2.4 2.2 4.7 14.8 3.7 1.6 1.4 4.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.4 1.7 0.3 0.5 2.8 2.9 1.1 0.7 2.5 3.4 1.2 0.6 2.1 2.5 0.8 0.6 5.7 8.9 9.7 7.7 8.2 11.8 12.4 10.4 5.4 6.3 6.3 5.9 Table 7: Percentage of Arizona Students Who Ha ve Used Drugs in Their Lifetime Alcohol Cigarettes Smokeless Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Sedatives Methamphetam ines Stim ulants Ecstasy Heroin Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers Prescription Drugs Over-theCounter Drugs 8th Grade 45.1 23.8 10th Grade 64.1 37.2 12th Grade 72.8 46.9 Total 58.2 34.0 7.1 12.5 18.1 11.7 17.8 14.5 34.3 11.8 44.7 9.4 29.9 12.3 2.2 5.9 9.0 5.1 2.3 8.7 5.3 11.5 8.8 13.4 5.0 10.8 0.7 1.6 2.5 1.5 3.0 3.9 0.9 1.6 7.0 8.2 2.6 1.8 8.5 10.6 3.4 1.7 5.7 7.0 2.1 1.7 11.5 18.9 23.1 16.8 16.5 23.7 27.3 21.5 9.5 13.2 14.1 11.8 Source: Arizona Youth Survey 2010 The five substances that have the highest percentages of lifetime and 30-day use among Arizona youth are alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, any prescription drug, and prescription pain relievers. Figure 14 shows the usage rates of the five highest used drugs by gender. The rates of substance use for males and females are generally similar to one another. Surprisingly, for some drugs females report slightly higher rates of use than males; cigarettes and marijuana are the only exceptions for the drugs shown in Figure 14. Source: Arizona Youth Survey 2010 Percentage of students who have used ATODs Figure 14: Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use by Gender 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lifetime Alcohol Lifetime Lifetime Cigarette Marijuan s a Lifetime Rx Drugs Lifetime RX Pain Relievers 30-day Alcohol 30-day 30-day Cigarette Marijuan s a 30-day Rx Drugs 30-day RX Pain Relievers Male 56.7 34.9 31.8 19.9 16.3 30.8 15.5 16.3 9.8 7.6 Female 59.7 33.2 28.1 23.1 17.4 32.9 13.8 13.3 10.9 7.8 Source: Arizona Youth Survey 2010 20 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Drug Use Related Consequences Drug-Related Crime and Incarceration Quantifying the impact of drug offenses on the corrections system in Arizona is challenging because there is limited access to county jail data concerning confinement. However, the state Department of Corrections (ADC) does make drug offense statistics available in various reports. The impact of the drug problem on the corrections system can be framed by the number of offenders confined for drug offenses, the ability of the correctional institution to provide drug treatment programs, and the rate of recidivism among drug offenders. Table 9 summarizes information about drug offenses and the adult corrections system. Drug offenses create a significant cost to the state, impacting the ADC population more than any other serious offense. As of 2009, drug offenders made up approximately 20.4 percent (about 7,900 inmates) of the population in the ADC. Drug offenses were number one among all serious offenses drawing a prison term. The next closest offense was assault with 12.5 percent of the population. Although drug offenders comprised the largest number within the ADC population, their average length of stay was in the lower one-third of all serious offenses. The average length of stay in prison for drug offenders was 3.43 years (or 41.13 months). This indicates that those Table 9: Drug Offenses and Adult Corrections offenders confined for a Committing Average Number Number of Recidivism drug crime will be back Offense Length of of Inmates Rate in the community in a Stay Inmates Completing relatively short period (years) Substance of time. Of the Abuse offenders confined to Treatment prison for a drug Drug Offense 3.43 7,904 1,810* 21.4%** offense, less than half complete substance *Department delineate by type of substance abuse treatment. In FY **From the May 2005 “Arizona Inmate Recidivism Study” 2010, 1,810 inmates Source: Arizona Department of Corrections were eligible to participate and successfully completed substance abuse treatment. This was a 12.4 percent decrease from FY 2009, when 2,067 inmates were eligible and successfully completed substance abuse treatment. Finally, according to ADC’s Arizona Inmate Recidivism Study, the recidivism rate for drug offenses was 21.4 percent. The recidivism rate is defined as ―new felony conviction resulting in recommitment to ADC within three years of release.‖ The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) also provides information related to the impact of drug crimes on the institution. In FY 2010, drug offenses comprised 18.7 percent of all committed offenses. Parole Table 10: New Juvenile Commitments and Parole Revocations revocations for drug offense FY 2007 – FY 2010 also impact ADJC. Parole FY FY FY FY revocation results in a Committing Offense 2007 2008 2009 2010 juvenile returning to a Drug Offense - New 115 119 102 100 secure safe school. The Commitments (15.7%) (16%) (15.4%) (18.7%) most current data for FY Total New Commitments 734 746 662 535 2010 was not available at Drug Offense – Parole 33 44 29 * the time this publication was Revocations (8.4%) (11.3%) (9%) prepared; however, 2009 Total Parole Revocations 393 390 322 * data was available. Of all *Data was not available for FY 2010 Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections parole revocations in FY 21 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 2009, 9 percent involved drug offenses. Table 10 shows the number of new commitments to ADJC and the number of parole revocations for the fiscal years 2007 to 2010. ADJC does calculate recidivism rates annually, producing the latest calculation in March 2011. Although the department does not report on rates specific to drug offenses, it may be helpful to know the overall recidivism rate for juveniles. ADJC had a 36-month recidivism rate of 51.3 percent for juveniles released in 2007. This rate includes 26 percent sentenced to ADJC with the remainder being parole violators. Drug-Related Health Consequences Drug use affects the community outside of the criminal justice system in a multitude of ways. Three noteworthy ways that drug use affects the community are emergency room visits, length of hospital stay, and drug-related mortality. In 2009, there were 17,144 visits to the emergency room where a drug-related diagnosis was the first diagnosis to be listed. This number includes drug psychoses, drug dependence, and nondependent abuse of drugs. Total emergency room visits in 2009 were 1,825,488. The total number of emergency room visits represents each individual incident where a visit was made and does not represent the number of patients that went to the emergency room for a drug-related reason. In some instances a patient seeking treatment for a drug-related condition warrants a hospital stay. In 2009, the average length of stay for drug psychoses was 4.3 days. The average for drug dependence was 5.4 days, and the average for nondependent abuse of drugs was 2.1 days. The average stay for all diagnoses in 2009 was 4.5 days. Table 11 shows the number of emergency room visits and the average length of stay in the hospital where there was a drugrelated diagnosis, broken out by age groups. Table 11: Drug-related ER Visits and Length of Stay All <15 15-19 20-44 45-64 First-listed Diagnosis ages years years years years Number of ER visits Drug psychoses Drug dependence Nondependent abuse of drugs Totals 65+ years Unknown 2,398 878 13,868 10 2 258 138 76 1,639 1,406 572 7,364 731 211 4,152 113 17 451 0 0 4 17,144 270 1,853 9,342 5,094 581 4 4.3 5.4 2.1 3.4 0.0 2.1 3.9 5.2 1.8 4.1 5.1 1.9 4.4 5.9 2.5 4.6 5.4 1.9 Average length of stay (days) Drug psychoses Drug dependence Nondependent abuse of drugs Source: Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics 2009 An unfortunate outcome of drug use beyond hospital visits is the untimely death of the user. According to the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) there were 1,093 drug-induced deaths in 2009. Drug-induced deaths comprised 2.4 percent of all Arizona deaths in 2009 (45,065). Of the total deaths due to drugs, middle-aged adults (ages 45 -65) and young adults (ages 20-44) experienced the greatest number of deaths; 509 and 485 respectively. DHS reported that between 1999 and 2009, middle-aged adults experienced an unprecedented increase in the mortality rate from accidental drug overdoses, from 9.8 per 100,000 to 23.2. In addition, the mortality rate due to drug overdoses for young adults in 2009 was 16.7 per 100,000 people, exceeding the mortality rate for motor vehicle-related injuries for the first time. Figure 15 summarizes the mortality rates due to 22 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 drug overdoses for middle-aged and young adults between 1999 and 2009. The median age at death due to drug use was 45 years. Of those individuals where the leading cause of mortality was drug-induced, 98.4 percent died before their expected years of life were reached. Figure 15: Drug Overdose Mortality Rates for Middle-Aged and Young Adults 1999 - 2009 25 20 15 10 5 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Middle Aged Adult 9.8 12.9 13.1 13.9 14 17.3 19.4 18.6 18.9 20.9 23.2 Young Adult 14.5 13.6 14.5 13.6 12.5 12.2 12.2 14.9 14.8 14.5 16.7 Source: Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics 2009 23 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Current and Coordinated Efforts The DGVCC program utilizes Byrne JAG funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance along with the RSAT grant and DEA funds to support activities that combat drug, gang, and violent crime. Funding for state, county, local and tribal governments supports a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime based on local needs and conditions. Byrne JAG funds may be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and information systems for criminal justice according to one or more of the following purpose areas:       Law enforcement Prosecution and court Prevention and education Corrections and community corrections Drug treatment Planning, evaluation and technology improvement. The Commission authorizes funding to six program areas in accordance with the DEA guidelines under A.R.S. § 41-2402 and A.R.S. § 41-2405 account. The six drug- and gang-related areas are apprehension and prosecution, forensic drug analysis, adjudication, criminal records improvement (under the Systems Improvement program), and drug abuse education and prevention. In 2009, ACJC was granted an award under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) through the Byrne JAG program, with funding directed toward job creation and retention. The Byrne JAG ARRA award, in conjunction with Byrne JAG non-ARRA funds and funds appropriated to ACJC through the statewide enhanced drug enforcement strategy, supported projects for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Grantees were required to report financial and activity progress through periodic reports. Additionally, recipients of ARRA funding were required to report specific job creation and retention data quarterly under stringent reporting deadlines. Effective drug, gang and violent crime control efforts under the Byrne JAG purpose areas and DEA guidelines have been established in all 15 Arizona counties. Project activities are required to be conducted with a collaboration component. Numerous programs not funded through ACJC are conducted statewide and complement activities under the drug, gang and violent crime control strategy, providing opportunities to collaborate and leverage resources. The longstanding, system-wide approach of the DGVCC program has proven effective in addressing the drug and gang criminal element in Arizona. The approach follows the structure and flow of the criminal justice system, allowing role-specific efforts toward a collective goal of reducing crime. Apprehension activities are conducted through multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces. Task force personnel collaborate to garner information and intelligence, leverage expertise, and extend efforts in tactical operations. Specific project activities vary according to the unique needs of Arizona’s diverse communities and include investigations, apprehension of offenders, conducting numerous types of tactical operations to halt drug and gang criminal activity, serving search warrants, disrupting or dismantling drug trafficking organizations, removing illicit drugs from the streets, seizing weapons and assets used or gained from drug trafficking and other illegal activities, conducting and participating in trainings, conducting controlled buys and controlled deliveries, investigating and disrupting clandestine methamphetamine labs, investigating and disrupting 24 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 marijuana growing operations, and engaging in community education and awareness events. Efforts are often conducted in coordination with other local, state, federal and tribal entities, as well as schools and community organizations. Prosecution projects work in tandem with task forces for focused efforts and increased effectiveness. Statewide civil forfeiture project activities include providing investigative and prosecutorial expertise in cases involving asset forfeitures. Coordinating efforts promotes collaboration and enhances program effectiveness through specialized legal assistance, training and case processing. The inception of task forces to address crime in Arizona began with four formal drug task forces in 1987 that included federal, state, county and local officers. These task forces were: the Border Alliance Group (BAG) in Cochise County; the Yuma County Narcotics Task Force (YCNTF); the Northern Arizona Metro Task Force (METRO) in Coconino County; and the MAGNET Task Force in Mohave County in northwestern Arizona. Each of these original task forces continues apprehension efforts in their high impact communities. In July 2007, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission allocated grant funds (federal and state) to sixteen (16) drug task forces in the state. At the same time the Commission allocated grant funds to 13 county attorneys, one city attorney and the Arizona Attorney General's Office for enhanced prosecution in tandem with the drug, gang and violent crime investigations task forces. Multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces continue efforts in all 15 counties across Arizona to combat drug, gang, and violent crime statewide. In FY 2011, task force activities conducted arrests on 6,197 drug offense violators, 57.87 percent of the arrests were for marijuana, followed by 17.28 percent for methamphetamines/ampheta mines. There were 176 arrests for heroin offenses in FY 2008 and 265 heroin arrests in FY 2011, an increase of more than 50 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2011. From FY 2008 to FY 2011, task force officers averaged more than 6,800 drug related arrests annually. The largest proportion of drug arrests was for possessing or concealing an illicit drug followed by the offense of distributing or selling. The third largest proportion of drug-related arrests for the four-year period was for transporting or importing illegal drugs. The remaining arrests were distributed among the offenses of buying/receiving, cultivating/manufacturing, consumption/use and other drug related arrests. 25 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Tandem prosecution projects are conducted in tandem with multijurisdictional, multiagency drug task forces in all 15 Arizona counties. Prosecution activities include investigative and prosecutorial case processing efforts to combat drug and gang criminal offending. Projects statewide rely heavily upon dedicated efforts and focused expertise for successful operations. Drug enforcement efforts in each county utilize the expertise of drug prosecutors. The use of specialized legal experience and expertise throughout the process continues to be an efficient and effective use of collaboration. Case prosecution efforts are carried out by county attorneys, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, local prosecutors, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office provides oversight and prosecution for civil forfeiture and money laundering cases resulting from drug cases. County attorneys work in tandem with drug and gang task forces to prosecute those who violate state drug laws and pursue asset forfeiture actions related to drug violations committed in their jurisdictions and handle cases that do not meet federal thresholds. In some municipalities, local prosecutors are involved with drug prosecutions at the misdemeanor level as a result of county attorney declination policies or decisions, and in asset forfeiture actions. As a result of the numerous collaborative narcotics task force operations, many prosecutors are involved in decision-making (according to legal jurisdiction such as federal and/or state) early in the investigative process. The multi-jurisdictional nature of these efforts enhances the need for a cooperative atmosphere at all levels. The Arizona Attorney General's Financial Remedies Unit is active in inter-jurisdictional asset forfeiture actions and supplies assistance and training to federal prosecutors, county attorneys and law enforcement agencies in Arizona and nationally. In FY 2011, a total of 25,242 drug violators were convicted in the state. This reflects task force and other law enforcement agency cases. More than 52 percent were felony convictions. Thirty-one percent of the convictions were for marijuana, nearly 24 percent for paraphernalia and 11 percent for methamphetaminerelated charges. The Attorney General’s Office Financial Remedies Section 26 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 participates with Arizona’s multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces by contributing the legal expertise of a forfeiture investigator or a forfeiture prosecutor to assist with task force cases. The Financial Remedies Section assists multi-agency task forces by working with Arizona financial institutions, the Arizona Forfeiture Association (AFA) and the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). DPS and task force personnel involve the Financial Remedies Unit in statewide civil forfeiture actions and money laundering resulting from drug cases. The specialized efforts of the Financial Remedies Unit are a major contributor to the overwhelming success of the asset forfeiture component in Arizona. Prior to the initial implementation of Arizona’s drug control strategy 1987, only two county attorneys in Arizona had deputies assigned/dedicated full time to drug case prosecutions. As a result of the 1987 statewide drug strategy development and the allocation of funds (federal drug grants and state DEA funds) by ACJC, thirteen (13) of the fifteen (15) county attorneys in Arizona had at least one full-time drug prosecutor in 2007. The increase in coordinated drug control efforts continues to make an impact and is demonstrated through measured program performance. The DGVCC program coordinates and leverages resources with other program funding sources to further Arizona’s efforts to combat drug and gang crime. Criminal justice personnel statewide focus on reducing drug supply and demand and criminal street gang and violent crime and programs that address crime problems consistent with program guidelines and the needs of the state. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONCDP) has designated Cochise, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA). La Paz and Mohave counties received the HIDTA designation, in part, due to the heavy drug trafficking problems along the Colorado River and Arizona’s border with California. The ONDCP uses established criteria to determine whether the HIDTA designation is appropriate. HIDTA determinants include: being a center for illegal drug production or distribution; state, local, and tribal law enforcement has committed resources to the area’s drug trafficking problem; drug-related activities have a significant harmful impact; and an allocation of federal resources is required to address the drug related activities in the area. The Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program and HIDTA Initiatives have been designed to work strategically and in concert with each other. The federal Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) Initiative supports the ongoing strategy to reduce gun and gang violence in Arizona. These programs complement Arizona’s Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control projects and leverage resources. 27 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) has a dedicated gang investigative and enforcement team, the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM). This statewide gang task force is dedicated to four areas: 1) deter gang activity through investigations, enforcement and prosecution; 2) dismantle gang and organized crime and related enterprises; 3) deter border related crimes; 4) disrupt human smuggling organizations. GIITEM brings together law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies from state, county, municipal, federal and tribal jurisdictions in a coordinated, intelligence-driven approach to address gang criminal activity. In many jurisdictions, the GIITEM task forces are co-located with multi-jurisdictional narcotics task forces, which enhance coordinated efforts and optimizes intelligence for interdiction activities. In addition to law enforcement apprehension projects and prosecution projects such as tandem prosecution and civil forfeiture activities, forensic laboratories, court adjudication activities corrections project may support efforts to combat drug, gang and violent crime under strategy guidelines. These activities and related coordinated programs are critical components of the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program. The forensic laboratory component currently includes three DPS regional laboratories and the city of Tucson Police Department crime lab. Forensic laboratories conduct scientific analysis to assist in the prosecution of cases generated by the multi-jurisdictional task forces. Forensic science professionals frequently provide expert testimony during the court process. Forensic laboratories completed 28,740 drug forensic analyses during FY 2011. More than 54 percent of analyses completed showed positive for marijuana. Marijuana remained the most commonly identified illicit substance through forensic analysis from FY 2008 through FY 2011, ranging from 51 to 54 percent of tests conducted. The court adjudication component provides needed services for Arizona’s criminal justice system. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has administrative authority over court-related activities receiving Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program funds. The funds are used to accommodate increased caseloads resulting from enhanced drug enforcement efforts in Arizona. These projects provide a wide range of services to expedite the judicial process by adding additional court divisions, judges and related essential staff for superior courts and probation departments. The number of drug-related cases filed in Superior Court has declined 19.17 percent from 22,436 cases in FY 2008 to 18,134 cases in FY 2011. Adjudication support projects conduct a broad range of court services, including probation-related services, case processing, drug courts, and other treatment and court diversion activities. The AOC reports that the majority of the drug cases filed in superior courts was disposed of within 90 days of filing. 28 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Cases Disposed Within 90 Days FY 2008 – FY 2011 FY 2008 11,748 FY 2009 FY 2010 12,665 11,448 FY 2011 12,067 Drug Tests Performed FY 2008 - FY 2011 Percent Change FY 2008 FY 2011 24,448 37,496 Percent Change 53.4% Pre-sentence Reports Prepared FY 2008 – FY 2011 The probation services division of AOC reports the number of urinalysis drug tests performed for FY FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 2011 was 37,496, which is 53.4 percent more than the number of tests (24,448) performed in FY 2008. 838 858 1,215 1,076 The number of presentence reports prepared by the probation department has increased from 838 in FY 2008 to 1,076 in FY 2011, representing a 28.4 percent increase. Corrections and community corrections projects may be eligible to apply for funding under this program depending upon Commission-established program priorities. The corrections and community corrections component enhances resources required by county jails to supervise the additional inmates brought into the system following convictions that were supported by the statewide drug enforcement and prosecution efforts. In FY 2008, there were 5,980 drug offenders sentenced to prison, which represents a 22.62 percent increase over the 4,877 that received prison sentences in FY 2007. The most common sentence for drug convictions was probation for each year from FY 2008 to FY 2011 followed by a sentence of prison time. The DGVCC program supports substance abuse treatment within corrections and jail facilities utilizing RSAT funding. RSAT projects seek to break the cycle of substance abuse, anti-social behavior, and prepare inmates for community re29 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 entry by providing services that will develop cognitive, behavioral, social, and vocational skill sets. In FY 2011, RSAT projects served 1,288 individuals and provided a total of 84,743 residential service days. Effective coordination of efforts is regarded as a basic tenet of the Strategy, recognizing that coordination leads to well-informed decision making. Ultimate success of the approach to drug, gang and violent crime control requires carefully established priorities, flexibility, and coordination and cooperation at all levels, including intergovernmental, interdisciplinary, and the statewide community. The ACJC and staff, through their support and involvement, embody the themes of focused efforts and coordination. The Strategy was developed with inter-governmental, interagency, and interdisciplinary coordination and cooperation as essential components. In addition, the Commission and its members are active participants in many organizations, boards, councils, partnerships, working groups, and committees that reflect the nature and value of organization-wide collaboration and cooperation. 30 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Program Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program have been explored, catalogued and evaluated. Completing a thorough analysis of each of these elements provides clarity in understanding the conditions and situation in which the DGVCC program operates. The ultimate value is in understanding the strategic implications of this analysis. Understanding the strategic implications of the analysis is an important prelude to identifying strategic issues and developing effective strategies to addressing the problem. The table presented on the next page provides a summary of the assessment conducted pertaining to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program. In addition, this table presents a listing of distinctive competencies that represent the abilities that enable the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program to perform well against key performance indicators. 31 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges (SWOC) SWOC Analysis – ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program Strengths  Information sharing among task forces, tandem prosecution and forensic support projects  Projects reflect a specialist environment in addressing drug, gang and violent crime  Implementation of proactive policing strategies  Coordination of resources  The multiple funding streams allow for flexibility of funding projects across the criminal justice system  Established DGVCC program infrastructure creates opportunity for producing long-term outcomes  Significant data collection from agencies  Adjudication projects are broad in scope  Diversification in projects funded across the criminal justice system Weaknesses  Size of task forces has decreased, impacting ability to address drug, gang and violent crime  Reduced agency participation  Funding support provided by local agencies has decreased  Changes in priorities, noted by recognition that some agencies have returned to traditional policing and prosecution strategies  Competitive nature of solicitation process does not necessarily foster collaboration  Resources available to support program tend to fluctuate  Changing funding environment, yet uncertainly whether projects are prepared to adapt  Defining impact on drug, gang and violent crime is innately challenging due to a variety of contributing factors Opportunities  Opportunity to establish new partnerships  Opportunity for increased communication among agencies  Cost/benefit analysis of the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program  Opportunity to create structure for disseminating information on best practices/what works  Coordination of funding sources  Ability to respond to changing needs through updates to strategic plan  Reduction in resources can promote creativity and innovation in approach  As the national trend continues to move in the direction of supporting evidence-based programming, opportunity exists to assist agencies in understanding effectiveness of projects 32 Challenges  Federal funds to support program are trending downward  State budget continues to be a challenge  Reduced Drug Enforcement Account revenue  Jurisdictional boundaries and information sharing  Shrinking agency resources  Erosion of support for apprehension and prosecution of drug cases – costly to manage  Community make-up changes  Reported data demonstrates reduced arrests; however, this may not necessarily translate to reduced crime and less of a need  Indirect impact of reduction of support to federal grant programs other than Byrne JAG  Unknown impact of medical marijuana Distinctive Competencies  Quality data  Empirical evaluation of projects – establish sound methodology for evaluation in the current environment  Project level – demonstrate value of the project through implementing best practice approaches  Continue to assure funding decisions are likely to have the greatest impact  Effectively assist grantees with working within the parameters of grant management rules and regulations  Support evidence-based, proven-effective projects  Support, replicate and expand strategic efforts ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Goals The Strategy calls for an approach to addressing drug, gang and violent crime, with a particular focus on addressing the supply and demand for illicit drugs. Goals of the DGVCC program have been developed based on the scope of the problem, parameters of funding sources and review of overarching strategies including the 2011 National Drug Control Strategy and the 2011 Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. The following two goals set forth the foundation and direction for the DGVCC program:  Curtail the flow of illicit drugs, drug proceeds and instruments used to perpetuate violence across Arizona  Reduce violent crime and illicit drug use and deter repeat offenders in Arizona. Purpose Areas As the vehicle for achieving the aforementioned goals, the Commission will utilize seven purpose areas to guide the funding priorities. The purpose areas listed below were selected for their ability to best contribute to achieving the goals of the DGVCC program in addition to their system-wide scope, responsiveness to the expressed system needs, and flexibility to accommodate fluctuation in available resources. In the selection of purpose areas, consideration has also been given to purpose areas chosen in previous years for their proven ability to produce results for the state of Arizona. While acknowledging the distinct value of each purpose area, the Commission has historically prioritized the apprehension, prosecution, forensic support services and adjudication and sentencing purpose areas.        Apprehension Prosecution Forensic Support Services Adjudication and Sentencing Corrections and Community Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment for Corrections-Involved Individuals Prevention and Education. Apprehension: Serving as the entry point into the criminal justice system and having a primary role in maintaining public order and enforcing the law, law enforcement efforts play a critical role in contributing to the achievement of the two goals of the Strategy. Key elements of focus include disrupting and dismantling trafficking and associated criminal networks, and interdicting drugs, proceeds and weapons. The apprehension purpose area may include, but is not limited to, efforts promoting enhanced information sharing and intelligence exchange, approaches to address locally distinct drug, gang and violent crime related challenges, and proactive policing strategies to address drug, gang and violent crime such as multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces. Over the years, the DGVCC program has provided consistent support to multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces and has regarded task forces and their tandem prosecution projects as the centerpiece of program efforts. 33 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Prosecution: With the duty of seeking justice and protecting the public safety and welfare of the community, prosecutorial efforts have a critical function as cases pertaining to drug, gang and violent crime move through the criminal justice system, from investigation to charging decisions and sentencing. Prosecutorial efforts are an important contributor to achieving the goals of the Strategy, with a primary role of holding offenders properly accountable. The prosecution purpose area may include, but is not limited to, prosecutorial efforts in tandem with multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces, efforts to deny criminals currency, property and drugs such as statewide civil forfeiture efforts, and other effective prosecution strategies to address drug, gang and violent crime. Historically, prosecution efforts in tandem with multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces have been a primary focus for moving forward the goals of the DGVCC program. Forensic Support Services: Forensic support services directed toward detecting crime and identifying criminals are fundamental to supporting law enforcement and prosecution agencies in addressing drug, gang and violent crime. Providing expedient, reliable, accurate and unbiased forensic support services promotes efficient case processing and enhances the operation of law enforcement and prosecution functions in the state, contributing to the advancement of the goals of the Strategy. The Commission has provided continuous support to the forensic support services purpose area over the years, as forensic support projects have provided significant utility to apprehension and prosecution efforts. The forensic support services purpose area includes activities such as evidence examination and analysis, development of investigative leads, training, providing expert courtroom testimony and other forensic support services as they pertain to drug, gang and violent crime related cases. Adjudication and Sentencing: When stability and balance are characteristic of adjudication and sentencing processes for drug, gang and violent crime cases, there is greater system efficiency, offenders are held appropriately accountable and offenders often receive services to deter repeated offenses. Efficient, effective adjudication processes contribute to moving forward the goals of the Strategy. Traditionally, the Commission has regarded the adjudication and sentencing purpose areas as fulfilling a critical support role to apprehension and prosecution efforts and thus has provided consistent support to adjudication and sentencing projects. The adjudication and sentencing purpose area may encompass a range of activities associated with court processes. Such activities include, but are not limited to, pre-trial services, improved criminal court case processing, supporting specialty courts and public defender services. Corrections and Community Corrections: Corrections and community corrections are critical elements to assuring public safety and offender accountability in addition to providing opportunities to deter repeated offenses. Corrections and community corrections can be a pathway for impacting drug, gang and violent crime and moving forward the goals of the Strategy. This purpose area includes projects responding to the needs of prison and jail facilities and corrections practitioners to providing secure care for offenders of drug, gang and violent crime. Projects could include, but are not limited to, safety and security improvements, inmate programming, corrections equipment and technology, and contraband control and detection. For community corrections, projects may include, but are not limited to, pre-release planning, coordinated reentry services, and supporting probation and parole services for offenders of drug, gang and violent crime. 34 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Substance Abuse Treatment for Corrections-Involved Individuals: Providing substance abuse treatment for corrections-involved individuals can reduce the likelihood of reoffending; consequently improving public safety and reducing the burden on the criminal justice system. Providing treatment and early intervention to youth involved in the juvenile justice system can prevent adjudicated youth from returning or entering the adult criminal justice system. Supporting such efforts contributes to moving forward the goals of the Strategy. This purpose area includes, but is not limited to, providing residential substance abuse treatment for inmates, preparing offenders for reentry into the community, and supporting community-based treatment and other broad-based aftercare services upon release. Prevention and Education: Effective prevention and education efforts designed to prevent and/or reduce drug, gang and violent crime are cost-effective and result in increased public safety. A proactive approach that addresses drug, gang and violent crime before its inception creates opportunity to thwart negative consequences related to safety, health and academic achievement. Prevention and education efforts may be an effective means in moving forward the goals of the Strategy. The prevention and education purpose area encompasses evidence-based interventions and environmental prevention strategies. Efforts should involve multiple sectors of the community and focus on reducing access and opportunity, enforcing consequences and decreasing the likelihood of engaging in drug, gang and/or violent crime by addressing risk and protective factors. 35 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Strategic Principles The analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program provides a basis for identifying issues important to overcome in promoting the success of the Strategy. The analysis also paves the way for creating strategic principles as a means for addressing the issues. In combination with the identified purpose areas, strategic principles have been identified to serve as a guide to the Commission in defining funding priorities. Application of the strategic principles to funding decisions builds on the identified strengths, capitalizes on opportunities and seeks to minimize the effects of weaknesses and challenges of the DGVCC program, serving as a pathway to achieving the goals of the program.  Proactive policing and prosecution strategies are effective in eradicating drug and gang crime and work well with a collaborative strategy.  Utilizing specialized personnel and processes across the criminal justice system is an efficient, cost-effective approach to combat drug, gang and violent crime.  Diversified funding of projects promotes balance in addressing workload throughout the criminal justice system.  Local agencies must be committed to shared efforts addressing drug, gang, and violent crime problems in the state.  In allocating funds, identifying and considering gaps in services of the criminal justice system is a means of promoting efficiency and effectiveness within the criminal justice system.  Continually assessing what really works as a response to changing resources is an effective means of maximizing resources.  Strong collaboration and intelligence and information sharing provide a competitive advantage in eradicating the drug problem, gang crime and associated violent crime in the state.  Intelligence and information exchange contributes to a better understanding of the drug, gang and violent crime problem and assists in designing effective criminal justice strategies.  Maintaining and building partnerships at federal, state and local levels is an effective means of leveraging resources and creates opportunities for a greater impact.  Stability in funding and committed agency participation are essential to promoting sustainability and successfully achieving program objectives.  Collecting sound, reliable, and timely data is needed to inform stakeholders of program effectiveness.  Disseminating information on the impact of the efforts of the DGVCC program can be a means for promoting program sustainability.  Supporting evidence-based approaches and/or innovative approaches with an evaluation component is essential to allocating resources. 36 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Program Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Performance monitoring and evaluation is fundamental to determining whether projects are making progress toward the goals of the DGVCC program. Review and analysis of the information reported by grantees also provides opportunities to refine the program approach. The ACJC grant application process is structured in a manner that requires applicants to develop a logical link between the problem statement, goals, objectives, project summary, collaboration efforts, budget and evaluation plan in submitting a project proposal. Upon award, grantees are required to develop performance benchmarks for the grant year. In addition to qualitative information reported by grantees, monitoring of goal(s), objective(s) and performance measurement data and the performance benchmark data are used to evaluate project performance. Standardized goals, objectives and performance measures specific to each purpose area have been developed to provide quantitative data in the evaluation of the DGVCC program. It is a combination of this quantitative data along with qualitative information reported by projects that will be utilized in evaluating project performance. The tables below present standardized goals, objectives and performance measures by program purpose area. The measures outlined below provide readers with the direction the DGVCC program assumes in quantitative evaluation of projects and is not intended to be all inclusive. Purpose Area: APPREHENSION APPREHENSION Goal 1: To reduce or disrupt the flow of illicit drugs imported, transported, and sold in the community. Objective 1.1 Performance Measure: Increase arrests for importing/transporting of 1. Number of arrests for transport/import of drugs illicit drugs Objective 1.2 Increase arrests for the distribution of illicit drugs Objective 1.3 Disrupt methamphetamine labs Objective 1.4 Eradicate marijuana cultivation grows Objective 1.5 Disrupt or dismantle Drug Trafficking Organizations Objective 1.6 Arrest members of criminal street gangs Performance Measures: 1. Number of arrests for distribution/sale of drugs 2. Number of arrests for buying/receiving drugs Performance Measures: 1. Number of methamphetamine related investigations 2. Number of clandestine labs seized. 3. Number of methamphetamine dump sites discovered 4. Number of methamphetamine sites referred for mitigation/cleanup Performance Measures: 1. Number of indoor marijuana grows seized 2. Number of outdoor marijuana grows seized Performance Measures: 1. Number of DTOs disrupted 2. Number of DTOs dismantled Performance Measures: 1. Number of arrests of criminal street gang members 37 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 APPREHENSION Goal 2: Strengthen collaborative partnerships between federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Objective 2.1 Performance Measures: Conduct coordination or collaboration 1. Number of deconfliction events activities with other agencies 2. Number of tips/leads referred to other task forces 3. Number of counterterrorism referrals 4. Number of drug-endangered child referrals or calls to CPS 5. Number of drug interdiction activity assists Objective 2.2 Performance Measures: Conduct intelligence-driven, collaborative 1. Number of intelligence-driven, collaborative investigations investigations 2. Number of intelligence-driven investigations resulting in arrest 3. Number of intelligence-driven investigations resulting in drug seizures Purpose Area: PROSECUTION PROSECUTION Goal 1: To enhance the pursuit of justice for drug and drug-related gang and violent crimes in an equitable, unprejudiced, and expeditious manner. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Prosecute drug-related cases 1. Number of drug-related cases referrals received 2. Number of drug-related cases declined for prosecution 3. Number of drug-related cases deferred to a diversion program 4. Number of drug-related cases dismissed 5. Number of drug-related cases resulting in conviction 6. Number of drug-related cases resulting in acquittal Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Prosecute members of criminal street gangs 1. Number of criminal street gang members prosecuted PROSECUTION Goal 2: Strengthen collaborative partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Objective 2.1 Performance Measures: Conduct coordination or collaboration 1. Number of drug-related law enforcement activities with other agencies investigation assists 2. Number of meeting(s) with law enforcement related to case preparation, case processing and/or hearings 3. Number of trainings/briefings offered to law enforcement from prosecutors 4. Number of trainings/briefings offered by law enforcement and attended by prosecutors PROSECUTION Goal 3 (Statewide Civil Forfeiture Efforts Only): Deprive Arizona drug money laundering criminals of their profits. Objective 3.1 Performance Measure: Achieve successful outcomes in high-impact 1. Number of successful outcomes cases 2. Total number of high-impact cases 38 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Objective 3.2 Disrupt criminal enterprises with consequence of limiting subsequent criminal conduct Objective 3.3 Partner with task forces to prepare and execute seizure warrants in cases where money laundering is a principal allegation Performance Measure: 1. Number of criminal enterprises disrupted 2. Number of cases involving criminal enterprises Performance Measure: 1. Number of seizure warrants issued on behalf of task forces in money laundering cases 2. Total number of seizure warrants issued in money laundering cases PROSECUTION Goal 4 (Statewide Civil Forfeiture Efforts Only): Improve coordination of Arizona forfeiture/money laundering efforts. Objective 4.1 Performance Measure: Provide forfeiture/money laundering training 1. Number of prosecutors and/or investigators that are programs for attorneys and investigators provided training on forfeiture/money laundering statewide 2. Number of training participants demonstrating increased knowledge Objective 4.2 Performance Measure: Provide analytical/investigative law 1. Number of requests for assistance received enforcement assists 2. Number of assists provided Purpose Area: FORENSIC SUPPORT SERVICES FORENSIC SUPPORT SERVICES Goal 1: To enhance forensic analysis processing to aid in the apprehension and prosecution of drug offenders. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Conduct forensic drug analysis 1. Number of requests for analysis awaiting analysis (in queue or backlogged) 2. Number of analysis reports completed 3. Average number of days from receipt of sample to analysis report Objective 1.2 Performance Measure: Provide expert witness testimony 1. Number of times staff testified in court 2. Number of times staff testified in court on cases brought forward by task force Objective 1.3 Performance Measures: Efficiently process forensic cases 1. Number of cases handled per FTE 2. Average number of working days to complete analysis 3. Average processing cost per analysis FORENSIC SUPPORT SERVICES Goal 2: To collaborate with apprehension and prosecution agencies in the investigation and examination of drug-related evidence. Objective 2.1 Performance Measure: Assist law enforcement in the examination of 1. Number of investigation assists drug evidence 2. Number of task force specific investigation assists Objective 2.2 Performance Measures: Conduct drug field testing training 1. Number of field test training classes completed 2. Number of officers trained in drug field testing 3. Number of agencies participating in field testing sessions 4. Number of training participants demonstrating increased knowledge 39 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Purpose Area: ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCING ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCING Goal 1: To enhance court adjudication services for drug offenders. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Provide enhanced court service activities for 1. Number of drug court participants drug offenders 2. Number of drug court graduates 3. Number of drug court participants that did not recidivate during participation 4. Average processing time of drug-related cases funded by the grant 5. Number of indigent defendants requesting services 6. Number of indigent defendants served Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Provide probation services 1. Number of drug offenders that received surveillance 2. Average number of days to prepare cases for drug offenders 3. Total number of drug probationers screened for services 4. Total number of drug probationers receiving drug treatment 5. Total number of drug probation absconders apprehended Objective 1.3 Performance Measures: Conduct presentence investigations 1. Number of presentence investigation reports prepared 2. Number of presentence investigation reports submitted on time without a continuance Purpose Area: CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Goal 1: Provide a safer and more effective environment for inmates and staff at correctional and detention facilities. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Identify and disrupt criminal support systems 1. Number of successful criminal syndicate investigations of inmates involving civilian suspects 2. Number of successful prosecutions involving inmates and civilians for prison contraband Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Identify Security Threat Group (STG) 1. Number of validation packets and gang member members, associates, and prospective identification cards used to document prison gangs members 2. Number of inmates participating in debriefings to cooperate with investigators 3. Number of inmates entering into the Step Down program, in which STG members formally denounce their membership and agree to stop associating with their gang Objective 1.3 Performance Measures: Enhance security measures within 1. Number of seizures of contraband located, entering correctional facilities facilities and within facilities 2. Number of successful prosecutions for prison contraband 40 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Goal 2: To maintain effective community supervision of drug offenders, facilitate their successful transition from prison to the community and return offenders to prison when necessary to protect the public. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: To effectively release, supervise and monitor 1. Percentage of drug offenders on community drug offenders under active Department supervision community supervision. 2. Percentage of drug offenders on community supervision returned to prison for technical violations 3. Percentage of drug offenders on community supervision returned to prison for a new crime 4. Number of drug offenders returned to prison for absconding Purpose Area: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 1: Prepare offenders for reintegration into the communities by incorporating reentry planning activities into treatment programs. Reduce recidivism rates. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Increase the number of offenders that have 1. Number of participants tracked 1 year following remained arrest free for one year following release from an aftercare program. release from aftercare. 2. Of the number that were tracked, the number that remained arrest-free. Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Increase the number of participants who 1. Total number of participants that have completed the completed the residential program and have BJA-funded program and have passed the drug test passed drug testing. during this reporting period. 2. Total number of offenders that have completed the BJA-funded program and have been drug tested (that passed and failed) SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 2: Enhance the capability of states and local government to provide residential substance abuse treatment to incarcerated inmates. Objective 2.1 Performance Measures: Increase the number of RSAT participants. 1. Number of participants entering residential treatment 2. Number of days of residential treatment provided. 3. New treatment beds added with RSAT funds. 4. Treatment beds funded through other sources, but enhanced with RSAT-funded services. 5. Average length of stay (in days) in the residential program for those completing the program. 6. Average treatment cost per participant for residential program 41 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 3: Prepare participants for reintegration into the community by incorporating reentry planning activities into treatment programs. Objective 3.1 Performance Measures: Increase the number of participants who 1. Number of participants who successfully completed successfully complete the program. the program. 2. Number of participants who dropped out of the residential program. 3. Number of participants who were terminated from the residential program. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 4: Assist both the participants and their communities through the reentry process through the delivery of both community-based treatment and other broad based post-release services. Objective 4.1 Performance Measures: Increase the percent of participants 1. Total number of participants entering an RSATsuccessfully completing the post-release funded post-release program. program. 2. Average length of stay in the post-release program, in days, for those completing the program. 3. Total number of participants successfully completing the post-release program. 4. Total number of participants who dropped out of the post-release program. 5. Total number of participants who were terminated from the post-release program. 6. Average treatment cost per participant for the postrelease program. Purpose Area: PREVENTION AND EDUCATION PREVENTION AND EDUCATION Goal 1: Decrease the likelihood of engagement in drug, gang and/or violent crime Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Conduct effective education and awareness 1. Number of individuals receiving drug and/or gang events on the risks associated with drug and prevention and education programming gang involvement 2. Number of individuals demonstrating an increased knowledge that received programming Objective 1.2 Improve pro-social behaviors Performance Measures: 1. Number of individuals served 2. Number of individuals completing program requirements 3. Of individuals completing program requirements, number of individuals exhibiting desired change in targeted behaviors 42 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 References Alston, F.K., & Bryson, J.M. (2005). Creating and Implementing Your Strategic Plan; A Workbook for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Second Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2009). 2008-2011 Drug, Gang, and Violent Crime Control State Strategy. Retrieved from http://acjc.state.az.us/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2008-2011_DGVC_Control_StrategyAmended.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2009). Enhanced Drug and Gang Enforcement Report 2008. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/FY2008_EDGE_Report.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2010). Enhanced Drug and Gang Enforcement Report 2009. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2009_EDGE_report_final.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2011). Arizona Youth Survey 2010 Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.acjc.state.az.us/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/AYS_Onepager_overview_2010.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2011). Enhanced Drug and Gang Enforcement Report 2010. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/Edge_Report_FY2010.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2011). Gang Threat Assessment 2009. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2009%20Gang%20Threat%20Assessment _State%20Report_revised.pdf. Arizona Department of Corrections. (2005). Arizona Inmate Recidivism Study. Retrieved from http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports/recidivism_2005.pdf Arizona Department of Corrections. (2010). Arizona Department of Corrections Five-Year Strategic Plan FY 2012 to FY 2016. Retrieved from www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports/adc_5yr_Plan_FY12_FY16.pdf Arizona Department of Corrections. (2010). Confined Population – Average Length of Stay By Most Serious Current Offense. Retrieved from http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports/avg_length_stay.pdf Arizona Department of Health Services. (2010). Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics 2009. Retrieved from http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/report/ahs/ahs2009/toc09.htm Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (2010). Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Annual Report, FY 2010. Retrieved from http://www.azdjc.gov/FactsNews/ADJCPublications/Annual%20Report%202010-Final.pdf 43 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Arizona Department of Public Safety. (2011). Crime in Arizona Reports 2000-2009. Available at http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/Crime_In_Arizona/ Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2000-2009. Available at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/index.html Gottfredson, M.R. (1986). Substantive Contributions of Victimization Surveys. Crime and Justice, 7, 251-287. National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA). (2011). Cornerstone for Justice: Byrne JAG and its Impact on the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from http://www.ncja.org/NCJA/Navigation/PoliciesPractices/Byrne_JAG_Impact/Byrne_JAG_R eport.aspx Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (2011). 2011 National Drug Control Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/2011-national-drug-control-strategy Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (2011). 2011 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/southwestborder Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center, Arizona State University. (2010). Results from the Arizona Health Survey: Adult Substance Use in Arizona 2010. Phoenix AZ: St. Luke’s Health Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.arizonahealthsurvey.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/ahs-2010-SubstanceUse-Dec10.pdf Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011). Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm#Ch2 Truman, J.L., & Rand, M.R. (2010). Criminal Victimization, 2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Arizona and United States population data, 2000-2010. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Race and Ethnicity of Arizona Residents, 2000-2010. 44 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2012-2015 Disclaimer: This project is supported by Award No. 2009-DJ-BX-0145 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Justice. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting the Commission office at (602) 3641146. 45