THE DECLINE IN
ARIZONA JUVENILE CRIME
SUBMITTED TO:

Michael D. Branham, Director
SUBMITTED BY:
John Vivian, Ph.D.
Stella Vasquez
Gopal Chengalath, Ph.D.
Vira Meza
Research and Development
November 18, 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
According to official reports, juvenile crime in Arizona has declined. In fact, the number
of juvenile arrests has declined by 27.5%, and the percentage of crimes cleared by the
arrest of a juvenile has also declined. The decline in juvenile crime was greater in
Arizona than it was nationally, or in other western states. Director Michael Branham
asked the Research and Development Division to examine the decline and research why
it has occurred. In addition, Representative John Huppenthal of the Arizona House of
Representatives and Mr. Richard Stavneak, of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee
requested research on how charter school enrollments may have contributed to the
decline. The purpose of this report is to present the results of a study designed to gain a
better understanding of the recent decline in Arizona juvenile crime.
Nine of the eleven Arizona justice agencies who participated in our survey believed that
juvenile crime has declined in their communities. They credited a range of programs with
contributing to the decline, and the programs included such things as the transfer of
violent and serious juvenile offenders to adult court through gang, school and familybased interventions. Charter school enrollments increased by 77.4% between 1999 and
2003. Statistical analyses of charter school enrollment and juvenile crime data revealed
contradictory results: there is a strong negative association between enrollments and
juvenile crime at the state level, but when examined at the county level, we found a
positive association between enrollments and juvenile crime for most (12) Arizona
counties. The negative association at the state level can be attributed, in part, to the large,
negative, but insignificant associations between charter school enrollments and juvenile
crime in Maricopa and Pima counties.
While the decline in juvenile crime should be cause for celebration, additional research
should be conducted to better isolate the factors responsible for the decline. This research
should be conducted at a local level because that will limit the number of factors at play,
and also help identify programs which could be replicated in the Arizona communities
that have not experienced declines in juvenile crime. This report is organized into the
following four sections: Background, Methodology, Findings and Conclusions.
1

BACKGROUND
According to official reports, juvenile crime in Arizona is declining. Is it really declining,
and if it is, what could be causing the decline? These are important questions to ask in
2004 insofar as there was a great deal of attention devoted to Arizona juvenile crime in
the mid-1990s, and it would be useful to know if the programs implemented at that time
had their desired effect. The primary source of information on Arizona juvenile crime is
Crime in Arizona, published by the Arizona Department of Public Safety and Juveniles
Processed in the Arizona Court System (Juveniles Processed) published by the Arizona
Supreme Court, Juvenile Justice Services Division. Crime in Arizona contains law
enforcement data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Juveniles
Processed contains referral, petition and disposition data from the prosecutorial and
judicial branches of government. UCR reported crime data are the most frequently cited
source of information on Arizona crime trends. Offender age is unavailable1 for reported
crime, so the number of juveniles committing crimes in Arizona can only be estimated by
referring to the number of juveniles arrested, or by referring to the percentage of crimes
cleared because of a juvenile arrest. As displayed in Tables 1, 2 and 3, the percentage of
Arizona total crimes, as well as the percent of violent and property crimes cleared by
juvenile arrest have declined. As shown in Table 4, juvenile arrests declined by 27.5%
between 1996 and 2003. Table 4 also shows that referrals2 declined, and while the
number of juvenile petitions3 increased through 2000, they declined afterwards. Table 5
displays a comparison among Arizona, western states and national juvenile arrests, and it

1 The new National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) will correct this shortcoming.
2 A referral is a report submitted to a Juvenile Court alleging that a youth committed a delinquent act or
demonstrated incorrigible behavior.
3 Petitions represent charges brought against juveniles within the Juvenile Court.

2

shows that the decline in Arizona juvenile arrests (-25.5%) was greater than the decline
among western states (-22.2%) and all states (-19.8%).
Table 1

CRIME4

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Table 2

REPORTED
CRIME

CLEARANCES

310,757
316,490
300,910
278,804
299,823
320,836
344,181
338,975

59,532
56,887
54,861
49,559
47,975
48,529
41,517
53,667

CLEARANCES
INVOLVING
JUVENILES
23.8%
23.7%
22%
21.7%
21.4%
20.1%
20.5%
17.8%

VIOLENT CRIME5

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

REPORTED
CRIME

CLEARANCES

27,626
27,429
26,281
25,835
27,187
28,373
29,782
28,198

11,299
11,314
10,384
10,247
10,603
10,586
11,472
11,534

4 Source: Crime in Arizona
5 Source: Crime in Arizona

3

CLEARANCES
INVOLVING
JUVENILES
15.8%
16.8%
16.5%
15.4%
14.4%
15.0%
13.2%
12.5%

Table 3

PROPERTY CRIME6

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

REPORTED
CRIME

CLEARANCES

283,131
289,061
274,629
252,969
272,636
292,463
314,399
310,777

48,233
45,573
44,477
39,312
37,372
37,943
41,517
42,143

CLEARANCES
INVOLVING
JUVENILES
25.6%
25.4%
23.3%
23.4%
23.4%
21.6%
20.5%
19.3%

JUVENILE
ARRESTS7

JUVENILE
REFERRALS8

JUVENILE
PETITIONS9

73,046
69,493
64,419
58,688
58,807
53,850
52,373
52,941

50,820
50,210
51,009
48,246
48,534
51,274
50,399
49,588

16,384
17,733
18,496
18,186
20,204
19,983
19,036
17,903

Table 4

199610
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

6 Source: Crime in Arizona
7 Source: Crime in Arizona
8 Source: Juveniles Processed
9 Source: Juveniles Processed
10 Referral and petition data are for the respective fiscal years of July through June.

4

Table 5
JUVENILE ARRESTS BY JURISDICTION AND YEAR11
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

ARIZONA
68,974
63,287
60.072
56,492
52,674
51,894
50,583
51,400

WESTERN STATES
558,927
564,882
571,531
518,452
510,724
498,666
473,008
434,982

UNITED STATES
2,103,658
1969,407
1,986,553
1,720,169
1,751,752
1,685,675
1,747,175
1,687,482

Table 6
COURT DISPOSITION BY FISCAL YEAR AND TYPE

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

STANDARD
PROBATION
8,197
8,989
9,436
9,199
10,830
11,039
10,870
10,244

INTENSIVE
PROBATION
2,154
2,408
2,718
2,572
2,552
2,549
2,512
2,432

ADJC
COMMITS
952
1,136
1,134
1,005
987
893
823
752

2004

unavailable

unavailable

688

ADULT COURT
663
712
1,083
883
762
668
575
567
unavailable

The decline in Arizona juvenile crime is apparent in court disposition data. Table 6 shows
various dispositions for juveniles adjudicated delinquent or sent to adult Superior Court.
As can be seen, the number of juveniles placed on standard probation peaked in 2001 and
has declined the last two years. The number of Juveniles placed on intensive probation
peaked in 1998, and has declined since then. Commitments to the Arizona Department of
11 Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, the reason for the discrepancy in
Arizona juvenile arrest numbers displayed in Tables 4 and 5 is that the FBI has an earlier deadline to submit data
for the UCR than does DPS for their own reports. In other words, the DPS data is more inclusive and up-to-date
than what is represented in the UCR

5

Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) peaked in 1997 and have declined. Finally, juveniles sent to
adult court as transfers or direct files peaked in 1998, and also have declined.
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the decline in Arizona
juvenile crime by contacting selected police, probation and prosecutors offices in
Arizona, and also to review charter school enrollments. When contacting the jurisdictions
we sought to confirm the apparent decline in juvenile crime and to identify possible
reasons for the decline. In addition, we examined the trend in charter school enrollments
to ascertain if there was an association between juvenile crime trends and enrollments.
To obtain more information on juvenile arrests, we started with the three Arizona
counties that provide most of the commitments to ADJC, that also had declines in
juvenile arrests. The three counties were Maricopa, Pima and Yavapai. Using a standard
questionnaire we contacted the Chiefs of Police in the largest 11 police departments in
these three counties. We told the Chief’s office of the purpose of our study, and we asked
them to direct us to the appropriate party who could best answer our questions. Eight of
the eleven departments provided us with information for our study.
To obtain more information on referrals, we started with the four Arizona counties that
provide most of the commitments to ADJC that also had decreases in referrals. The four
counties were Maricopa, Pima, Coconino and Pinal. Using a standard questionnaire, we
contacted the Chief Juvenile Probation Officers within each of the four counties. We
advised the Chief’s office of the purpose of our study and asked them to direct us to the

6

appropriate party who could best answer our questions. We have received information
back from two of the four Arizona counties.

To obtain more information on juvenile petitions, we started with the two Arizona
counties that provide most of the commitments to ADJC that also had decreases in
petitions. The two counties were Maricopa and Pima. Using a standard questionnaire, we
contacted the Chief Juvenile Prosecutor. We advised the Chief’s office of the purpose of
our study and asked them to direct us to the appropriate party within their department
who could best answer our questions. We have received information back from one of the
counties.

To obtain information on charter school enrollments we contacted Mr. Lee McIlroy,
Research Analyst with the Arizona Charter School Board. Mr. McIlroy directed us to the
Arizona Department of Education internet website where we located charter school
enrollment data for 1999 through 2004. Mr. McIlroy also told us that no reliable data is
available on Arizona charter school enrollments prior to 1999.

Law Enforcement Findings
The police departments provided us with information which confirmed the decline in
juvenile crime and attributed the decline to various programs that have been implemented
since 1997. Six of the police departments told us that their arrest data corroborated the
UCR data showing declines in juvenile arrests. Two other police departments provided
data different than what was originally reported in Crime in Arizona, and the new data
showed increases in juvenile arrests in their jurisdictions. Differences between the two

7

arrest data bases were not examined in this study, but are most likely the result of the
timing of their respective reports and/or definitional differences.

Many of the police departments reported new programs which they said probably
contributed to the decline in juvenile crime. Tucson reported a greater emphasis upon
schools and truancy. In addition, Tucson attributed the decline to police and communitybased efforts to reach at-risk youth at a young age. They mentioned School Resource
Officers in middle and elementary schools as examples of this effort. Mesa identified a
new program for juvenile status offenders and a Families in Need program that they felt
reduced the number of juvenile arrests. Mesa Police Department attributed the decline in
juvenile crime to their efforts to intercede in junior high schools where they address
disciplinary problems. Mesa also told us that the addition of three new Positive
Alternatives to Gangs Advocates meant that they were impacting more at-risk juveniles.
Glendale, meanwhile, noted that a sweep of gang members in 2002 helped reduce
juvenile crime in their area. Phoenix and Peoria reported that curfew violations were not
being enforced as they were previously. Cottonwood identified a new school-based
program which has helped reduce juvenile crime. Glendale attributed the decline in
juvenile crime to their efforts of holding gang members accountable. Peoria attributed the
decline to two factors: a new person in charge of juvenile detention who has instituted an
education initiative on discipline, and greater interaction between the Peoria Police
Department and local charter schools. Phoenix Police Department felt that without a
proper research design it was impossible to determine the cause for the decrease. None of

8

the police departments were aware of any other studies done on juvenile crime in
Arizona.
Probation Findings
The probation departments that provided us with information confirmed the decline in
referrals, however, they were unable to attribute the decline to specific juvenile policies
or programs. Coconino County Probation reported that the decline in juvenile referrals
was part of an overall reduction in referrals and petitions to juvenile court. Neither of the
probation departments were aware of any other studies done on juvenile crime in
Arizona.
Prosecutor Findings
The Pima County Attorney’s Office confirmed the decline in petitions reported in
Juveniles Processed, but said that it was smaller than they had hoped-for. The Pima
County Attorney’s Office identified six policies and programs that contributed to the
decline. First, when Proposition 102 and Senate Bill (SB) 1446 were implemented in
1997, they resulted in violent and chronic juvenile offenders having charges filed in adult
rather than juvenile court. Second, placing violent and chronic juveniles in the adult
system freed resources to be used for the remaining cases in the juvenile justice system
enhancing the likelihood that they would desist from offending. Third, the School MultiAgency Response Team (SMART) program resulted in a decline in school-related drug
offenses. Fourth, Pima County instituted a program in 1997 whereby prosecutors were
assigned to specific regions which allowed them to become familiar with the respective
schools and neighborhoods and thereby select the most appropriate dispositions for

9

juvenile offenders. Fifth, Community Justice Boards were cited as aids to reducing the
number of juvenile petitions. Finally, Pima County engaged in community-based
prosecution by encouraging their prosecutors to appear in school classrooms and to
interact with community service groups on juvenile crime issues. The Pima County
Prosecutor also reported efforts to hold juveniles more accountable for their actions,
stepped-up efforts to educate school and police officials on what constituted a crime, and
an increase in the education of Pima County prosecutors themselves on what cases could
be diverted from the juvenile justice system. They were unaware of any other studies
done on juvenile crime in Arizona.
Charter School Findings
Table 7
TOTAL CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY JURISDICTION

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

STATE OF
ARIZONA
46,000
55,586
65,769
75,135
81,612

MARICOPA
COUNTY
29,396
36,601
42,007
47,587
51,993

PIMA
COUNTY
4,554
6,197
8,624
10,160
11,943

REMAINING
COUNTIES
9,650
12,788
15,138
17,388
17,670

Table 8
TOTAL CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY JURISDICTION

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

STATE OF
ARIZONA
16,453
21,009
24,621
27,769
30,534

MARICOPA
COUNTY
9,681
12,563
15,261
16,741
18,644

PIMA
COUNTY
2,924
3,376
3,978
4,976
5,681

REMAINING
COUNTIES
3,848
5,070
5,382
6,052
6,209

Enrollment in Arizona charter schools increased by 77.4% between 1999 and 2003 (see
Table 7). There was an especially large increase in Pima County (162%). Enrollment in
10

Arizona charter high schools increased by 85.6% between 2000 and 2004 (see Table 8).
Both Pima ( 94.3%) and Maricopa (92.6%) counties posted large increases.

Statistical analyses of charter school enrollment and juvenile crime data revealed a strong
negative association between enrollments and juvenile crime at the state level, but
insignificant results at the county level. A correlational analysis was conducted using
total charter school and charter high school enrollments as the independent variables and
seven different measures of juvenile crime as the dependent variables: clearances
involving juveniles, violent crime clearances involving juveniles, property crime
clearances involving juveniles, juvenile arrests, juvenile referrals, juvenile petitions and
juveniles sent to adult Superior Court. The analysis encompassed statewide Arizona data
for 1999 through 2003 The analysis revealed a large, statistically significant (p≤.05)
negative association between total charter school or charter high school enrollments and
various measures of juvenile crime. The coefficients ranged from a low of -.85 (p≤.05)
between total charter school enrollment and clearances involving juveniles to a high of .99 (p≤.001) between charter high school enrollments and juveniles sent to adult Superior
Court. While our analysis was not designed to identify causal relationships, our analysis
did find at the state level, that as charter school enrollments increased, juvenile crime
decreased. This finding should be regarded cautiously, however, due to other findings we
obtained. A second correlation analysis was conducted whereby we disaggregated total
charter school and charter high school enrollments and juvenile arrests by Arizona
county. This analysis revealed large negative, but not statistically significant associations
between total charter school or charter high school enrollments and juvenile arrests in

11

Maricopa and Pima counties. The negative association that we found at the state level can
be attributed, in part, to the large, negative associations between charter school
enrollments and juvenile crime in Maricopa and Pima counties. Indeed, 78% of the
charter school enrollments in 2003 were in Maricopa and Pima Counties. Before one
concludes that charter school enrollment is related to juvenile crime reduction you must
first take address the anomaly presented by the other Arizona counties. Indeed, our
analysis revealed a positive association between charter school enrollments and juvenile
arrests in 12 of the 14 counties we examined.
Table 9

2000
2001
2002
2003

ADJC COMMITMENTS BY CHARTER
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND CALENDAR YEAR
NUMBER
PER CENT
ADJC
ENROLLED IN A ENROLLED IN A
COMMITMENTS
CHARTER
CHARTER
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
956
167
17.5%
800
153
19.1%
832
189
22.7%
748
184
24.6%

The percentage of juveniles who attended charter schools prior to their commitment to
ADJC has increased. The increase in ADJC commitments from charter schools is
consistent with the statewide growth in charter school enrollments. As shown in Table 9,
the percentage of juveniles attending charter schools increased from 17.5% in 2000 to
24.6% in 2003. ADJC commitments from Maricopa County charter schools posted a
42.5% increase between 2000 (80) and 2003 (114).

12

CONCLUSIONS
Nine of the eleven Arizona justice officials we contacted during our study believed that
juvenile crime has, in fact, declined in their jurisdictions. This is good news for Arizona.
The officials we contacted credited a range of programs with contributing to the decline
in juvenile crime. The programs ranged from sending violent and serious juvenile
offenders to adult court through gang, school and family-based interventions. The strong
negative association between statewide charter school enrollments and juvenile crime
indicate that this factor may be a potential contributor to the decline in Arizona juvenile
crime for Maricopa and Pima Counties. The apparent contradiction between the results
for Maricopa and Pima and the other 12 counties when the county-by-county correlation
analysis was done shows, if anything, that the negative association that exists for the
aforementioned two counties and also for the aggregate data need to be viewed with
extreme suspicion. An examination of the relative importance of the various factors
associated with the decline of Arizona juvenile crime was beyond the scope of this
project. Data collection to conduct this endeavor at the state level would be a formidable
task. Research conducted at a local level might be the most prudent approach to
measuring the contribution each factor had on the decline in juvenile crime. This type of
evaluation research is vital to determining which programs have scientific support, and
this research could prove helpful to deciding which programs should be replicated in the
Arizona communities that have not experienced declines in juvenile crime.

13