The Adult Probation Department
of the Arizona Superior Court
in Pima County
Annual Report 2000-2001

i

Letter to the Honorable John Leonardo, Presiding Judge

ii

Mission and Goals

iii

Code of Ethics

iv

How Probation Works in Pima County

1

Assessment Center Division

5

Field Supervision Division

13

Operational Services Division

17

Planning and Development Division

21

Administrative Services

25

Employee Recognition

29

Court Benches

30

Organizational Chart

31

Statistical Summary
Acknowledgments

The Adult Probation Department
of the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County
110 W. Congress - 8th Floor
Tucson, Arizona 85701
520-740-3814
Fax 520-740-3352
Don R. Stiles
Chief Probation Officer

Diane L. McGinnis
Executive Director

February 11, 2002
The Honorable John Leonardo
Presiding Judge - Division X
Arizona Superior Court in Pima County
110 West Congress Street
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Dear Judge Leonardo:
On behalf of the Adult Probation Department, I am pleased to present the 2001 Annual Report. The theme
Probation Works in Arizona is reflective of a year filled with success as a direct result of the special
dedication and efforts of the department’s employees. Interwoven throughout the report are examples of
how Assessment Center and Field Supervision personnel, Planning and Development staff and Operational
Services support employees have positively impacted the lives of probationers. The department’s staff
served crime victims, protected the community, and assisted with ensuring offender accountability and
rehabilitation, thereby demonstrating that probation works in Arizona.
Department highlights include:
$ Officers in the Assessment Center Division completed 3,550 investigations while officers in the Field
Supervision Division supervised 7,218 probationers during the fiscal year.
$ With the implementation of the Assessment Center Division’s “Jail Reduction Project,” a savings of
nearly $79,000 was realized.
$ The Absconder/Warrants Team apprehended 505 absconders during the reporting period.
$ An office supervisor saved the department $23,510 in operating costs by maintaining and calibrating
breathalyzer units and by reprogramming and repairing telephones at a satellite office.
$ LEARN lab staff served 973 students throughout the fiscal year.
$ Officers collected $3,743,645 in court-ordered restitution, fees and fines.
I salute and applaud the efforts and dedication of the employees of this department. It is they who
provide the day-to-day services to the citizens of Pima County, and it is they who deserve the respect and
appreciation for making probation work in Pima County. In addition, the department appreciates the
continued support of the Bench and of Court Administrator K. Kent Batty.
Respectfully submitted,

Don R. Stiles
Chief Probation Officer

The mission of the Adult Probation Department is to work cooperatively with
citizens and organizations toward servicing, protecting, and restoring victims
and the community while assisting probationers to become law-abiding and
productive citizens.

GOALS

ii

OF THE

ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT

1.

To seek victims’ input and facilitate their involvement in the restoration
process.

2.

To develop collaborative relationships and partnerships with the community
and its agencies.

3.

To provide the Court with the highest quality information available to
assist judicial decisions.

4.

To assess probationer risks and needs, and implement outcome-based
supervision plans designed to develop competency and bring about
lasting behavioral change.

5.

To monitor and assist probationer compliance with Court orders and
laws, reward progress, and respond appropriately to violations.

6.

To research, develop, and implement effective, efficient probation
strategies, and measure performance outcomes.

7.

To create and maintain a learning organization conducive to individual
growth, creativity, and fulfillment.

The people of Arizona expect of probation officers and staff unfailing honesty,
respect for the dignity and individuality of human beings, and a commitment to
professional and compassionate service.
PROBATION

PERSONNEL SHALL:

• Respect the authority and follow the directives of the Court, recognizing at all
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

times that they are an extension of the Court.
Endeavor to respect and protect the civil and legal rights of all.
Serve each case with appropriate concern for the individual’s welfare and with
no purpose of personal gain.
Encourage relationships with colleagues of such character to promote mutual
respect within the profession and improve the quality of service.
Make no statements critical of colleagues or their agencies not verifiable and
constructive in purpose.
Respect the importance of all elements of the criminal justice system and
cultivate a professional cooperation with each segment.
Respect the public’s right to know, and willingly share information with the
public with openness and candor, subject to the law and the individual’s right
of privacy.
Respect and protect the right of the public to be safeguarded from criminal
activity.
Record diligently and make available for review any and all case information
which could contribute to sound decisions affecting an individual and public
safety.
Report without reservation any corrupt or unethical behavior which could affect
either an individual or the integrity of the agency.
Maintain the integrity of private information; neither seek personal data beyond
that needed to perform responsibilities, nor reveal case information to anyone
not having proper professional need.
Distinguish clearly in any public statement those that are personal views and
those that are statements and positions on behalf of an agency.
Endeavor to eliminate discrimination.
Make all appointments, promotions, or dismissals only on the basis of merit
and not in furtherance of partisan or personal political interest.

PROBATION

PERSONNEL SHALL NOT:

• Use official position to secure privileges or advantages.
• Act in an official capacity in any manner in which personal interest could
impair objectivity.

• Use official position to promote any partisan political purposes.
• Accept any gift or favor of a nature to imply an obligation that is inconsistent
with the free and objective exercise of professional responsibilities.
Adopted by the Arizona Chief Probation Officers Association on June 20, 1989.
iii

A crime is committed. A victim suffers physical, emotional, and financial injury. The
community is diminished and seeks justice and restoration. A young man is arrested
and taken to jail; he waits for others to make decisions that could change the course of
his life.
A prosecutor and a defense attorney argue the case to the members of the jury, who
find sufficient evidence exists to convict the man of the crime. A judge determines
whether society will best be served by sending the man to prison, or if a period of
probation is warranted allowing the convicted man to prove that he can live as a
productive member of the community.
Before the judge determines an appropriate sentence, the Adult Probation Department
assists by performing an in-depth presentence assessment of the offender. A probation
officer gathers basic information about the offender’s family and social history, previous
criminal record, employment status, level of education, financial situation, and substance
abuse history. Often, the presentence investigator is the first person to discuss the
crime and its impact with the victim. Using this information, the probation officer
analyzes the current situation and evaluates the sentencing alternatives. A presentence
report summarizes the offense, victim impact, and the offender history, and is prepared
to assist the court with the sentencing decision.
In about 60 percent of the cases sentenced in Pima County, the offender will be
placed on supervised probation for an average of three years. In these cases, the
supervising probation officer develops a supervision plan which addresses not only the
conditions imposed by the judge, but also any significant difficulties in the
probationer’s current life.
Protection of the community is always the primary consideration when determining a
supervision program. In the short-term, direct supervision and monitoring of the
probationer’s activities through frequent face-to-face contacts might be necessary.
However, the probation officer also realizes the best way to ensure long-term
protection is to influence the offender to change those factors that contributed to
his criminal behavior. Based upon the empirical research of social scientists, certain
dynamic factors are common to many offenders’ lives and are good targets for change.
They include:
$
Changing anti-social attitudes
$
Reducing anti-social peer associations
$
Promoting better family relationships and communication
$
Promoting identification with anti-criminal role models
$
Increasing self-control, self-management and problem-solving skills
$
Ensuring the probationer recognizes volatile/relapse situations and has a
concrete and well-rehearsed plan for dealing with those situations
$
Reducing chemical dependencies and substance abuse

iv

Armed with this valuable information, the supervising officer reviews the presentence
report, interviews the probationer and significant others, and develops a supervision
plan designed to influence the offender to make changes in critical areas. The degree to
which a probationer is closely monitored depends on his history of criminal behavior, the
nature of the most recent offense, and the level of personal motivation and compliance
with the supervision plan. For those who do not choose to cooperate and who violate
the conditions of probation, the officer has a number of intermediate sanctions available,
which are designed to more closely control the offender and to impose an immediate
consequence for continued inappropriate behavior. These alternative sanctions include
drug screening, electronic monitoring, substance abuse and mental health treatment,
and community service.
For the offender placed on Intensive Probation, a probation officer, assisted by a
surveillance officer, monitors the probationer’s activities closely, often making more than
six personal contacts with the offender every week. Regular contact with employers,
treatment counselors, school officials, and family members keeps the probation officer
well informed of the probationer’s daily activities. Curfews are imposed and strictly
enforced, and a minimum of 40 hours of community service must be performed each
month.
A significant number of offenders have special needs, requiring supervision services
specifically tailored to address their needs. Specialized caseloads are maintained for the
seriously mentally ill, sex offenders, those with special learning needs, and chronic drug
abusers, with the goal of providing services that will increase the likelihood of success
and provide for closer monitoring. Special programs exist for those convicted of domestic
violence offenses and for juvenile offenders who have been transferred to adult court.
One of the major goals of supervision is to keep the probationer gainfully employed. This
promotes personal responsibility, a more trouble-free family, positive social relationships.
It offers the probationer the means to make financial restitution to the victim. Moreover,
one of the court-ordered conditions of probation is the payment of a $40 monthly probation
fee to offset the cost of supervision. However, simply requiring probationers to have
jobs seldom addresses the underlying problems that serve as roadblocks to stable,
productive employment.
Significant time and energy have been expended working with probationers, their families
and significant others. To be most effective, officers must be committed to the belief
that people can change and that, in the long run, the community is best served and
protected when offenders learn new and better ways to live as productive members of
society. This belief is central to the philosophy and practice of probation work in Pima
County.

Grand J ury
Arrest

Initial Court
Appearance

Release
Decision

Arraignment
Preliminary
Hearing

Plea
Agreement
Trial

Case closed

•Presentence
Investigation
•Sentencing
•Probation
Supervision

Prison

Successful
Termination

v

The fiscal year 2000-2001 can be characterized as an evolutionary year in the Assessment
Center. While the division experienced a slight decline in the number of presentence
reports completed from the previous year—3,550 compared to 3,632—the staff was involved
in several new projects that would change the way of doing business in the Assessment
Center.
The concept of utilizing criminogenic factors to
identify and categorize probation candidates from
the larger body of convicted felons has recently
gained acceptance by the corrections community.
Historically, professionals depended on common
sense and experience to determine appropriate
sentencing options. By focusing the background
investigation on factors validated by science, the
value of the presentence report has increased in
the sentencing phase, as well as in the community
supervision process.
The emphasis on criminogenic factors generally
results in more balanced and defendable reports,
as well as an improved supervision plan. While
the format of the report remained the same, the
content of the report was redefined to focus on
an individual’s criminogenic factors.
A significant part of the division’s evolution was the renewed emphasis on quality. Staff
and mangers were committed to improving the work product. Together, they quantified
each section of the report for technical accuracy, content, spelling and grammar. Evaluation
criteria, as well as points associated with each section, were established. After many
drafts and trial runs, a consensus on a grading system was reached and implemented.
The overall effect was consistency in the report content, a decrease in technical errors,
a significant decrease in spelling and grammatical errors, and improved timeliness (94
percent of reports were completed on schedule). Staff accountability was emphasized
by the manager’s ability to track specific performance indicators within their work units.
Victim services continued to be a priority, which was reflected by the fact that 2,253 (72
percent) of 3,115 victims, who were contacted, responded and provided sentencing input.
In an effort to stay current on victim-related case law and services, the division’s staff
created a Victim Training Manual, which served as the basis of victim-related policy and
procedure.
Technology had a major impact on the work of the division, especially on how staff
researched information for the presentence report. The Internet provided direct links to
government agencies, courts, and correctional facilities. Instead of waiting for information
to be located and mailed, staff was able to download court and prison records. Additionally,
the distribution of reports and referrals was automated, which resulted in less staff
distributing more information at a faster rate.

1

Throughout the report, highlights of probation success are flagged with the following
logo which designates the special work and efforts of Adult Probation employees:
Probation works in Arizona - The Jail Reduction Project as implemented
at the Assessment Center is an example of how probation works in Pima
County. At midyear, division employees initiated a project which
attempted to reduce the numbers of days defendants spent in custody,
thereby reducing the cost to the local government. Each day a defendant
spends in custody at the local jail costs at least $31. The Jail Team, managed by
Unit Supervisor Linda Montoya, dedicated itself to accelerating the presentence
process for those defendants housed at the county jail. In the initial six months
of the program, a savings of approximately $79,000 was realized.

Division staff continued to be involved in research and training in the area of offender
assessment. Training took on a new meaning this past year with the addition of a new
position: lead probation officer. Bill Shoffner was the first officer in the department
to hold this job title. His primary role was to train Assessment Center officers in
specific skills applicable to their work. He influenced almost every major facet of the
Assessment Center’s new developments. Much of the division’s progress was directly
attributed to his dedication and hard work. Although Bill succumbed to a sudden
illness in June 2001, his influence on the division will continue in the years to come.

•Presentence
reports
completed:
3,550
•Criminogenic
factors
verified by
research
incorporated
in
presentence
reports to
assist with
sentencing
and
supervision
plans
• 94% of
reports
completed
on time
• 2253 of
3115
victims
provided
sentencing
input
• Cost per
day to be in
custody at
Pima County
Jail: $31

• Officers
expediting
presentence
process for
defendants
in custody
save nearly
$79,000

Treasured memories do not fade.

Bill Shoffner
1947 - 2001

2

$ Recidivism
reductions
range
between 2560% when
matching risk
with
intervention
$ A co-pay
system
requires
offenders to
pay for
treatment
$ 1,044
probationers
treated at a
cost of
$555,450
$ Average
treatment
expenditure
per
probationer:
$428.20
$ Nearly 95%
of offenders
paid 50% of
treatment
costs
$ Screeners
conducted
2,713
assessments
$ 1,001
probationers
referred to
treatment

3

TREATMENT

AND REFERRAL CENTER - Recent outcome
studies confirmed that treatment works when
matching the assessed risk with the appropriate
intervention. Studies indicated that treatment
programs demonstrated recidivism reductions ranging
from 25 to 60 percent, with the greatest reductions
found in community-based programs rather than prison.

According to published reports, the cost benefit
averaged a $7 return for every dollar invested with the
largest savings due to reductions in crime. Treatment
and Referral Center staff are dedicated to providing
best practice services as defined by the most recent research and treatment trends.
When probationers are ordered to complete treatment programs, the department
subsidizes treatment by using a co-pay system which obligates offenders to pay for a
significant portion of their treatment. This system helped stretch treatment dollars
by requiring probationers to invest in their own treatment. In this reporting period,
1,044 probationers were treated for substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health
and sex offender disorders at a cost of $551,450, averaging $528.20 per probationer.
Approximately 95 percent of the probationers paid 50 percent of their treatment
cost.
The Drug Education Treatment Fund (DTEF) was initiated and approved by the Arizona
voters in 1996. Originally known as the Drug, Medicalization, Prevention and Control
Act or Proposition 200, the law allowed for a percentage of revenue from luxury taxes
on liquors to fund the treatment of offenders with substance abuse problems. This
past year, Treatment and Referral staff conducted 2,713 assessments using the Arizona
Substance Use Survey (ASUS); 1,001 probationers were referred for substance abuse
services based on recommendations of the ASUS and other criteria.
The Community Punishment Program (CPP) and Pima County funded services for sex
offenders that included polygraph testing. During the fiscal year, 138 sex offenders
participated in treatment subsidized by the two funding sources.
Staff at the department’s DUI Screening Center conducted 678 comprehensive alcohol
abuse screenings for Superior and Justice Courts. Staff tracked the offenders through
the process to ensure compliance. Because of these efforts, 80 percent of the DUI
offenders successfully completed the recommended treatment program. The DUI
Screening Center, along with other anti-DUI initiatives, contributed to the reduction
of drunk driving arrests, injuries, and fatalities in Pima County during the last several
years.
Community Supervision coupled with appropriate treatment programming has proven
to be a sound investment in the rehabilitation of offenders and the protection of the
community. In collaboration with community agencies, Adult Probation established a
treatment network consisting of 20 agencies that provide 32 distinct services.
Contracted treatment agencies provided a continuum of services, including assessment,
substance abuse education, standard and intensive outpatient treatment, lapse/
relapse intervention, detoxification, and short and long-term residential treatment.

Assessment Center
Division
Employee Listing
Ed Espinoza, Division Director
Bill Shoffner, Lead Probation Officer
Robert Druckenbrod,
Program Coordinator
Judith Delligatti, DUI Assessor
Michelle Fleetwood, DUI Assessor
Stuart Jenks, DUI Assessor
Kerry Pettit, Administrative Assistant I
Judy Thompson, DUI Coordinator
Errol Dimenstein, Unit Supervisor
Karen Bustamante, Sr. Probation Officer
Elizabeth Dalgleish, Sr. Probation Officer
Christine Davis, Probation Officer
Keith Gorley, Sr. Probation Officer
Kim Hatfield, Sr. Probation Officer
Robert Kridler, Sr. Probation Officer
Kerry McLaughlin, Sr. Probation Officer
Pam Sweigart, Intake Support Specialist
Jean Thews, Sr. Probation Officer
Ken McCulloch, Unit Supervisor
Patricia Biscardi, Intake Support Specialist
Cesar Castillo, Sr. Probation Officer
Louise Chernetz, Sr. Probation Officer
Carol Fecher, Sr. Probation Officer
Jane Lowery, Sr. Probation Officer
Sandra Mace, Sr. Probation Officer
Pam Pugh, Sr. Probation Officer
James Robinett, Sr. Probation Officer
Sharon Rhoy, Probation Officer

Assessment
Center
Division
110 West
Congress
Street
8th Floor
Tucson, AZ
85701
520-740-3800

Linda Montoya, Unit Supervisor
Rejeana Bowersox, Probation Officer
Diana Bustamante, Intake Support Specialist
Pam Hamlett, Sr. Probation Officer
Judith Heffner, Probation Officer
Jennifer Herberholt, Probation Officer
Judy James, Sr. Probation Officer
Shirley Moreno, Sr. Probation Officer
• Number of
Dawn Nixon, Probation Officer
POs: 31
Sue Von Borstel, Probation Officer
Kevin Mulligan, Unit Supervisor
Armando Acuña, Sr. Probation Officer
Jim Good, Sr. Probation Officer
Teresa Harvey, Sr. Probation Officer
Deborah Pela, Sr. Probation Officer
Kathryn Riley, Probation Officer
Jaime Siqueiros, Sr. Probation Officer
Kris Sparks, Sr. Probation Officer
Dave Storch, Sr. Probation Officer

• Number of
other
staff: 8

• Number of
managers:
6

• Total
number
of staff:
45

• Number of
Operational
staff
supporting
division: 9

• Training
hours
completed:
1,441
• Average
number of
training
hours per
divisional
staff: 32
Employee assignments as of June 30, 2001

4

The goal of the Field Services Division, through the efforts of officers and staff at three
satellite locations, is to selectively and proactively intervene with offenders to reduce
the likelihood of their future criminal activity. The supervision of 7,218 probationers
throughout the fiscal year was achieved by the following caseload assignments and
auxiliary services:

• Standard Probation
• Intensive Probation Supervision
• Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI)
• Special Learning Needs (SLN)
• DIRECT(program for probationers • Community Service
•
•
•
•
•

with chronic substance abuse)
Aggravated DUI
Domestic Violence
Inter/Intra State
Drug Court
Juvenile Transfers

•
•
•
•
•

Sex Offenders
Justice Court caseload
Interstate Compact
Absconder/Warrants Unit
Electronic Monitoring

Six different caseloads and the Community Service
program are described. Success stories of
probationers who are changing their lives, becoming
productive and law-abiding citizens are featured.
The work of probation emphasizes the restoration
of victims and the community while ensuring the
protection of Pima County’s citizens. In keeping with
the balanced supervision approach is holding
probationers accountable while assisting them in
developing competencies that permit success. Brief
descriptions of all caseloads and services are included on pages 35 and 36 of the Statistical
Summary.

DIRECT AND AGGRAVATED DUI - Implemented in 1989 as a Community Punishment Program
(CPP) component, the DIRECT (Drug Involvement Reversal Though Education, Control
and Treatment) program was developed by a committee of seven probation officers.
DIRECT, created as a drug abuse intervention program, gained court recognition as a
cost-saving, viable alternative to incarceration for eligible drug-addicted probationers.
The program was implemented to reduce jail and prison populations through a balanced
approach of control and treatment. Officers working DIRECT cases served probationers
with documented chronic, on going drug or alcohol addictions. In 1996, three Aggravated
DUI teams were added to supervise probationers convicted of Aggravated DUI and alcoholrelated offenses.
Probation works in Arizona - Loriann is a 30-year-old single mother
of three who is on probation for various drug offenses. Initially,
she was placed in residential treatment where she made significant lifestyle changes and successfully completed treatment. Since
being transferred to the street DIRECT supervision, Loriann has maintained her sobriety and obtained gainful employment although she still struggles
with childcare and transportation issues. Recently, Loriann told her parents,
who are drug addicts, to move out of her apartment. She looks forward to being
permanently employed with benefits, and to moving into her own home in the
near future.
5

When screened for the Aggravated DUI program, Ruben stated he had concerns about
whether or not he could complete the program. He resided alone, and since his
incarceration, lost his employment. Ruben asked the court to give him an opportunity
for probation. Being a Spanish-speaker, Ruben was supervised by a probation officer at
a building across town from his residence, requiring him to travel on the bus for more
than two hours. Ruben never missed an office visit. He struggled with finding
employment, yet still managed to pay his court-ordered fines and fees by selling his
vehicle. When asked why he did that, Ruben replied, “I can’t drive and don’t want to
get into any more trouble.” Although he was struggling financially, Ruben enrolled in
drug and alcohol treatment and paid for the services. Ruben never consumed alcohol or
violated his probation.
Officers assigned to the DIRECT and Aggravated DUI programs continued to provide
enhanced treatment-oriented supervision and guidance so desperately needed by
probationers addicted to illicit drugs or alcohol. The programs afforded many defendants
their first opportunity to achieve sobriety and to change destructive, negative lifestyles.
Increased surveillance and contact provided by the supervision teams gave defendants
a foundation to rebuild their lives and integrate productively into the community.
Specialized supervision afforded by DIRECT and Aggravated DUI programs remained a
successful, frequently imposed alternative for local courts.

DRUG COURT - In January 1998, Drug Court was created to
break the cycle of drug abuse. Using a cooperative
approach, Drug Court employed the services of a judge,
prosecutor, defense counsel, probation case manager, and
treatment provider. They work as a team to encourage
and promote substance-free behavior of offenders who
are enrolled two weeks after being arrested. The
arraignment, change of plea, and sentencing are combined
into one hearing within 14 days of the arrest.
Upon successful completion of the program, the dismissal
or reduction of the original charges is granted during the
graduation ceremony. Other benefits to offenders include:
being gainfully employed; being enrolled in educational programming; achieving family
unification; developing self-esteem, confidence; and most importantly, realizing a clean
and sober lifestyle.

Probation works in Arizona - Comments regarding Drug Court included:
Chief Justice Thomas A. Zlaket: “The answer to this problem is not to
warehouse human beings behind bars.” Program graduate John, “It is
certainly clear to me that the effects of the drug war are far more
costly in terms of not just money, but of human suffering. Drug Court
is a step in a better, not perfect, but better, direction.” Judge Leslie
Miller–presiding jurist since program’s inception–said, “We have gone from federal
funding to reliance on county, state, grant and participant funding. This is a
major accomplishment not realized by most other courts in the state.”

$ Number of
probationers
supervised
during the
FY: 7,218
$Number on
DIRECT: 347
Gender:
23% Female
77% Male
Ethnicity:
46% White
40%Hispanic
7% African
American
6% Native
American
1% Other
Drug Court
$ Number
served in
FY: 223
Gender:
76% males
23% females
Ethnicity:
46% White
61% Hispanic
1.34%
African
American
1.34% Native
American
$ Operating
budget:
$333,000
$ Collections:
$162,520

6

• Number of
Sex
Offenders:
353

• Ethnicity:
60% White
29% Hispanic
6% African
American
4% Other

SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM - Sex offenders on probation are considered high-profile, highaccountability, and high-responsibility cases to supervise. Public safety remains the
primary consideration in meeting the needs of this special offender population and in
serving the community. In the 1994-95 fiscal year, sex offenders represented 3.4 percent
of the probation population. By fiscal year 1997-98, sex offenders represented 5 percent
of the probation population, reflecting a 47 percent increase.
In the three subsequent fiscal years and to date,
sex offenders consistently represent 4 percent of
the supervision population. The initial increase may
be attributed to the progressive development of
caseload specialization, changes in legislation,
lengthier terms of probation, and increased public
awareness, resulting in successful prosecutions of
sexual offenders.

• Gender:
96% Male
4% Female

• Average
age:
#25 years

• Education:
74%
GED/High
School grad
or higher

• Number of

Of the 353 sex offenders on probation during the
2000-01 fiscal year, 138 (39 percent) received
subsidization of treatment services. Nearly 100 percent of those receiving assistance
rendered a co-pay. The remaining offenders financed their treatment without a subsidy.

• 13.5 percent, or $78,090, of the total treatment budget was allocated to sex offenders.
• Sex offenders represented 10.3 percent of those probationers receiving treatment
subsidies.
Because sex offenders posed a continued risk to re-offend, it was important to enlist

absconders: the aid of local law enforcement agencies. Staff established a continuum of
700
communication and exchange of information with counterparts at local, statewide law

• Number
arrested:
505

• Restitution
collected by
A-Team:
$30,000

•

Potential
collections
from those
reinstated
to probation
Restitution:
$330,950

• Victims
Fund:
$132,474

• Probation
fees:
$526,745
7

enforcement agencies.

Probation works in Arizona - The unit, known as the “A-Team,”
was formed in 1986 with the assistance of a state grant. During its
existence, the team has arrested 4,400 probationers who absconded
from their responsibilities to the court, victims and the community.
The current team consists of a senior probation officer, a senior
surveillance officer, and a litigation support specialist II.
The officers work closely with local and national agencies to locate and arrest
absconders. Skip tracing techniques and investigative work have yielded
excellent results during the reporting period as 505 absconders were apprehended.
The arrest of nearly 200 was directly attributed to the credit data program,
Experian, which tracks the use of credit cards.
The A-Team brings accountability to probationers who violate the privilege of
probation. Probationers are aware that officers in the department are actively
searching for them. Having grown weary of being on the run, it is common for
probationers to voluntarily turn themselves in. The team continues to serve
victims and the community by apprehending absconders before they commit
further crimes and by demonstrating that there are consequences for those who
fail to comply with the court’s orders.

SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL (SMI) - A specialized probation
program was initiated in 1990 to assist offenders
with serious mental health problems. The SMI
caseload is supervised by two teams, each comprised
of a senior probation officer and a senior surveillance
officer. SMI probationers require an enormous
amount of personal contact as they can be volatile,
and at times capable of violence to themselves and
to the community. Yet when stabilized on
appropriate medication and adequate mental health
treatment, these offenders are productive citizens
of the community. Funding for the mentally ill
probationers remains a critical part of the community
supervision plan. However, as that funding diminishes, officers are challenged to
bring probationers into compliance without further incarceration and costs to the
community.

C SMI
probationers
supervised
per month:
103.5

Probation works in Arizona - Most offenders placed on the SMI
caseload come with a plethora of physical, emotional, relationship,
and financial problems. A young man named Eric was placed on
probation for damaging someone’s property. During his term of
probation, he diligently complied by keeping his appointments and
advising his officer of his residence and employment. Eric regularly paid his
restitution and other assessments. The treatment agency documented Eric’s
compliance with medication and mental health treatment. During his probation
term, he married and purchased a home. He was reported as being one of the top
sales personnel at the recreational vehicle dealership where employed. Eric
completed his term early as there were no petitions to revoke, or indications of
non-compliance. Officers know that Eric succeeded because of the supervision
he received and the resolution of his mental health issues. Officers found it
rewarding to watch Eric’s personal growth and willing ness to return to productivity.

C 19% enrolled
in education
program

The SMI program is an integral part of the philosophy and commitment to community
supervision by the department. The emphasis on diagnosis and treatment continues
through the partnerships officers have developed with mental health treatment
providers and case workers.

COMMUNITY SERVICE (CS) PROGRAM - The concept of community service is based upon a
form of restitution to the community while assisting with the rehabilitation of the
offender. In 1974, a probation officer was assigned to the first supervised Community
Service program. The department’s current program began in January of 1994. The CS
program includes supervised work crews and individual assignments for probationers
by their supervising officers. Intensive Probation Supervision officers, working at the
Meehan Building on Ajo Way, assisted the program by directing a work crew every
Saturday during the reporting period. Numerous organizations in the community—
ranging from the Adopt-a-Park Program to the city’s zoo—received services from Adult
Probation’s Community Service program.

C Average
SMI
caseload: 52
C 98% SMI
probationers
participated
in some form
of treatment
C 61% gained
employment

Community
Service(CS)
$ CS hours
completed by
offenders on
standard
probation:
97,089
$ CS hours
completed by
probationers
on IPS:167,622
$ CS hours
completed
by supervised
crews: 5,993
$ Total
number
of CS hours
completed:
270,704

8

Special
Learning
Needs (SLN)
average
caseload: 48
C SLN
probationer’s
average
I.Q.: 71.3
C 39% of SLN
probationers
in treatment
C 66% of SLN
probationers
employed
C 12% SLN
probationers
in
educational
activity
C CS hours
completed:
178

Benefits to
Community:
Community
Protection
Victim and
Community
Restoration
Offender
Accountability
and
Rehabilitation
9

SPECIAL LEARNING NEEDS (SLN) - This specialized caseload
was established in 1972 to address the needs of
probationers with IQ scores of 78 and below. The goal of
the SLN caseload is to assist probationers to obtain
community services for which they are eligible. These
services enhance their educational/vocational potential
and stabilize their lifestyles. Officers supervise
probationers with special learning needs in a way that
balances concerns for the protection of the community
while helping to maximize their potential through
specialized resources. Officers are the liaisons between
SLN probationers and the appropriate community agencies. Supervision balanced
with control and treatment is pursued so that probationers can work on satisfying
the conditions of probation while becoming productive members of the community.
Probation works in Arizona - Tina, a 56-year-old probationer
with special learning needs, a history of crack cocaine addiction,
and a prior narcotic conviction was placed on the SLN caseload
following a petition to revoke for drug use. The probation officer
referred her to counseling and Narcotics Anonymous (NA)
meetings. She was tested regularly for drugs. Tina struggled with her addiction
but kept attending counseling. After a few months, she had a serious relapse,
and the probation officer arrested her. While in jail for 60 days, Tina attended
counseling, Bible classes, and renewed ties with her family. She thanked the
probation officer for arresting her and forcing her to face the consequences of
her choices. After Tina’s release, the probation officer supplied her with bus
passes so she did not miss her counseling, NA meetings, or Bible classes. More
than a year after her release from jail, Tina is still clean and sober. She recently
began giving talks about her addiction and recovery at Cottonwood de Tucson
and church groups. In January, Tina will enroll at Pima Community College to
continue her education.

The SLN program continued to play a vital role in meeting the special needs of the
probationers and the communities where they reside. The program is unique in the
community correction profession and continues to improve the services it provides.
This caseload requires officers with patience and a willingness to help an underserved population. The teams currently assigned to this caseload are commended
for making the community safer by their efforts to help these probationers change
their lives.

BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY - Community protection, victim restoration, and offender
accountability and rehabilitation can be achieved when offenders are placed on
probation rather than sentenced to prison terms. Supervising probationers in a
community setting requires balancing community protection and safety with victim
and community restoration, while requiring offender accountability and competence.
Probationers are deprived of certain freedoms. They are mandated to maintain
employment or attend school, and other conditions deemed appropriate by the court
and supervising officers. When probationers violate any of the conditions, more
restrictive and punitive sanctions may be imposed. As evidenced by the descriptions
of these caseload types and services, the community and its citizenry benefit directly
from the supervision provided by officers and staff of the Adult Probation Department.

East Division
8180 East

Field Supervision
East Division
Employee Listings

Broadway
Blvd.

Tucson, AZ
85710
520-290-1535

Ron Dominguez, Division Director
Rosie Vasquez, Administrative Assistant

Ralph Avella, Unit Supervisor
Rocky Dotzler, Sr. Probation Officer
Ted Forgach, Sr. Probation Officer
Karen Fulton, Probation Officer
Lisa Garland, Sr. Probation Officer
Dave Hawke, Sr. Probation Officer
Patrick Stevenson, Probation Officer

Michael Bartling, Unit Supervisor
Elaine Bates, Sr. Probation Officer
Dan Brooks, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Julie Brown, Sr. Probation Officer
Eric Fast, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Wendy Goller, Sr. Probation Officer
Rick Hornback, Sr. Probation Officer
Linda Landry, Sr. Probation Officer
Tony Perez, Sr. Surveillance Officer
David Pickle, Sr. Probation Officer
Pamm Pope, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Joe Puglia, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Jim Smith, Sr. Surveillance Officer

Don Johnson, Unit Supervisor
Dan Brown, Sr. Probation Officer
Joanne Brown, Sr. Probation Officer
Ken Clayton, Probation Officer
Chris Lester, Sr. Probation Officer
Kelly Pesano, Sr. Probation Officer
Michelle Robertson, Sr. Probation Officer
Gene Sweeney, Sr. Probation Officer
Cris Spiegel, Unit Supervisor
Harrison Blackwell, Sr. Probation Officer
Rex Bowersox, Sr. Probation Officer
Malcolm Colquitte, Sr. Probation Officer
Mike Cook, Sr. Probation Officer
Scott Greene, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Greg Johnson, Probation Officer
Tony Lopez, Surveillance Officer
Lisa Piña, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Kevin Shearer, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Jamie Stuck, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Donna Van Vlack, Surveillance Officer
Leo Vidal, Sr. Probation Officer

$ Geographic
area served:
East of
Country
Club, the
Davis
Monthan
Military Base
and Wilmot
Road
$ Number of
POs: 24
SOs: 12
Managers: 5
$ Total
number of
staff: 42
$ Training
hours
completed by
staff: 1,441
$ Average
number of
hours per
staff: 34.3

Employee assignments as of June 30, 2001

10

South Division
2695 E.Ajo Way

Tucson, AZ
85713
520-740-4800

Field Supervision
South Division
Employee Listing
Ruben Castro, Division Director
Yvonne Federico, Administrative Assistant

$ Geographic
area served:
South of
Broadway and
West of Davis
Monthan
Military Base
and Wilmot
Road

$ Number of
P0s: 38
S0s: 20
Staff: 4
Managers: 8

$ Total number
of staff: 70

$ Training
hours
completed by
staff: 4,486

$ Average
number of
hours per
staff: 64

Barbara Druke, Unit Supervisor
Cathie Cravens, Sr. Probation Officer
Phil Grajeda, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Corey Higgins, Surveillance Officer
Lois Jones, Sr. Probation Officer
Rosanna Kent, Sr. Probation Officer
CeCe Roger, Surveillance Officer
Arlene Verdugo, Sr. Probation Officer
Connie Wills, Sr. Probation Officer
Bill Edris, Unit Supervisor
Martha Esquivel, Probation Officer
Adria Fernandez, Sr. Probation Officer
Ramon Garate, Probation Officer
Ed Gilligan, Probation Officer
Jay Gospoderak, Probation Officer
Ignacio Moreno, Sr. Probation Officer
Ron Gary, Unit Supervisor
Alina Avitia, Administrative Assistant
Helena Bailey, Sr. Probation Officer
Harold Dominguez, Sr. Probation Officer
Felipe Espino, Surveillance Officer
John Fulton, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Hugo Gonzalez, Sr. Probation Officer
Sandi Horen, Sr. Probation Officer
Gerald Hudy, Surveillance Officer
Sue Johnson, Sr. Probation Officer
Mariana Madrid, Surveillance Officer
Peggy McCarthy, Sr. Probation Officer
Paula Schlecht, Sr. Probation Officer
Mary Jo Gasparro, Unit Supervisor
Alex Alcantara, Probation Officer
Steve Armenta, Sr. Probation Officer
Dave Bertelsen, Sr. Probation Officer
Brandee Hammond, Sr. Probation Officer
Mark Maish, Probation Officer

Employee assignments as of June 30, 2001

11

Phillip Shelley, Unit Supervisor
Russ Adamski, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Ellis Barnes, Program Specialist
Bill Bartlett, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Kimi Golembieski, Litigation Support II
Kevin Kingsley, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Charlie Kreitner, Sr. Probation Officer
Tom Paulos, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Leroy Proctor, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Reuben Robles, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Ruben Rosales, Sr. Probation Officer
Gail Young, Probation Support Specialist
Beth Shy, Unit Supervisor
Karen Berry, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Dave Fernandez, Sr. Probation Officer
Sandy Fuller, Surveillance Officer
Chuck Hanks, Sr. Probation Officer
Richard Hernandez, Sr. Surveillance Officer
David Jurado, Surveillance Officer
Steve Kachur, Sr. Probation Officer
Eddie Lopez, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Trina Miller, Surveillance Officer
Darrell Reeves, Sr. Probation Officer
Ray Valenzuela, Sr. Probation Officer
Pattye Tolliver, Unit Supervisor
Cecil Argue, Sr. Probation Officer
Bill Castaneda, Sr. Probation Officer
Tom Jackson, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Lisa Lewis, Sr. Probation Officer
Ed Lowery, Sr. Probation Officer
Kathy Martinez, Sr. Probation Officer
Judy Raetzman, Sr. Probation Officer

West Division
1931 & 1951

Field Supervision
West Division
Employee Listing

West Grant Rd.

Suites 180 &
310
Tucson, AZ
85745
520-624-0973

Carl Sheets, Division Director
Melissa Robles, Administrative Assistant

Cathy Cermak, Unit Supervisor
Teri Abrams, Sr. Probation Officer
Georgette Berry, Sr. Probation Officer
Sonia Card, Surveillance Officer
Jill Layton, Surveillance Officer
Ricardo Ortiz, Sr. Probation Officer
Gail Petersen, Probation Officer
Richard Romero, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Steve Schmidt, Sr. Surveillance Officer
George Smigelski, Sr. Probation Officer
Peter Somerlik, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Troy Spence, Sr. Probation Officer
Jeff Knox, Unit Supervisor
Dale Bennett, Surveillance Officer
Kathy Bennett, Sr. Probation Officer
David Harper, Sr. Probation Officer
Charles Johnson, Sr. Probation Officer
Jimmy Jones, Probation Officer
Kevin Nonaka, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Candi Ortiz, Sr. Probation Officer
Jennifer Santa Cruz, Probation Officer
Craig Lundberg, Unit Supervisor
Jeremy Byrd, Probation Officer
Melissa Edwards, Probation Officer
Patsy Munoz, Administrative Level I
Lisa Nowacki-Hubble, Probation Officer
Jaime Reyes, Probation Officer
Tony Sanell, Sr. Probation Officer
Gilbert Serna, Probation Officer
Jeff Steger, Probation Officer
Art Waterman, Sr. Surveillance Officer

Dan Montaño, Unit Supervisor
Robert Artuz, Probation Officer
Ed Bernal, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Bob Bonilla, Sr. Probation Officer
Rene Castro, Surveillance Officer
Ray Forsythe, Sr. Probation Officer
James Gomez, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Carmen Harper-Young, Sr.Probation Officer
Gary Nakamoto, Sr. Probation Officer
Mike Walters, Sr. Probation Officer
Rob Nixon, Unit Supervisor
Bob Amerson, Probation Officer
Colleen Collins, Sr. Probation Officer
Richard Duncan, Sr. Probation Officer
Larry Escobedo, Sr. Probation Officer
John Joiner, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Chris Mallams, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Rosa Maria Peralta, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Suzanne Reeves, Sr. Probation Officer
Jamie Tribolet, Probation Officer
Gene Riddle, Unit Supervisor
Ben Davis, Sr. Surveillance Officer
Gloria Espinoza, Sr. Probation Officer
Mary Rogers, Probation Officer
Patricia Romero, Probation Officer
Jane Swivel, Unit Supervisor
Karen Barrins, Administrative Assistant
Carl Formby, Sr. Probation Officer
Larry Huff, Sr. Probation Officer
Keith Kanzler, Sr. Probation Officer
Laura Lindberg, Sr. Probation Officer
Laura Martinez, Administrative Assistant
John Sutton, Sr. Probation Officer
Richard Walitshek, Sr. Probation Officer

$ Geographic
area served:
West of
Country Club
and North of
Broadway

$ Number of
POs: 41
SOs: 14
Staff: 3
Managers: 8

$ Total
number of
staff: 66

$ Training
hours
completed by
staff: 4,741

$ Average
number of
hours per
staff: 71.8

Employee assignments as of June 30, 2001

12

Fiscal year 2000-01 was marked by increased workloads in reception duties, a greater
volume of radio calls, and the word processing of reports for court and data entry, which
rose 12 percent from the previous year. Remarkably, this increased production was
completed by staff who experienced an unusually active turnover rate, multiple vacancies
in three of the four offices, and an almost continuous series of temporary personnel
who filled vacant positions. While temporary workers were assigned primarily to reception
duties and data entry, it was also necessary to employ temporary dispatchers. Use of
scheduled overtime became a necessity to provide radio dispatch coverage.
Amidst daily production and cross-training of personnel, staff was successful in
accomplishing tasks that supported the department’s mission of serving, protecting,
and restoring victims and the community while assisting probationers to become lawabiding and productive citizens. Highlights of those tasks were:
•Spanish–speaking staff translated victim letters, phone calls, interviews, and office
visits with probationers.
•Supervisors taught money management classes to probationers.
•Receptionists verified probationer payment of court-ordered restitution and probation
fees by stamping a notice on monthly report forms, which alerted the probation officer
to address the noncompliance of court-ordered assessments.
•Staff at each of the four offices reconciled the drug testing monthly invoices and
verified the office billings with the department’s Finance Unit. Designated staff
distributed daily drug test results to officers.
•Downtown support staff reorganized the case file records storage area on the 3rd floor
of the Superior Court building. This long-term project involved coordination and
cooperation with the Superior Court Facility Management staff and the Pima County
Records/Archive Center.

OFFICE VISITS - During 2000-01, support staff
facilitated 143,843 probationer office visits at
the four locations, representing a 7 percent
increase from the previous year. The South and
West offices handled the highest number of
probationer visits with 51,087 and 46,024,
respectively.
DRUG TESTING - This reporting period marked the
first full year of drug testing being contracted.
The department contracted with Treatment
Assessment Screening Center (TASC), which
offered the following services:
•
•
•
•

13

Monitored probationers who provided urine samples at the TASC facility;
Picked-up urine samples at probation offices;
Provided a call-in system for probationers to use in randomly determining when
they should report for drug testing; and
Reported daily test results and lists of probationers who did not comply with
the random call-in notification process.

The volume of drug testing was impacted by a reduction program to meet overall
departmental budget goals. Approximately 62,000 tests were completed. From these
tests 3,001, or 4.8 percent were positive for drug use. The following table shows the
drug test totals completed for Drug Involvement Reversal through Education Control
and Treatment (DIRECT) caseloads, standard field, and Intensive Probation cases.
Program

# of Tests Completed

# of Positiv e Tests

Percentage of Postiv es

DIRECT

11,748

419

4

Standard
Field Cases

30,563

1,941

6

IPS Cases

19,722

641

3

Drug testing results were used to verify
probationers’ compliance with court orders to
live drug free. The annual percentage rate of
positive tests has ranged from 5.7 to 4.8. This
fiscal year’s overall positive rate of 4.8 percent
remained consistent with the historical
percentage of positive tests. Probation
officers used the positive test results to
identify treatment needs and to make case
management decisions.

Probation works in Arizona - During the reporting period, 3,034 letters
were mailed to victims, requesting information about losses incurred
from criminal offenses. The department’s clerk assigned to manage
victim facts maintained essential information in a Victim Registry
database. To obtain complete victim and restitution information, the
clerk communicated with the County Attorney’s Victim Notification Unit and the
Clerk’s Office of the Superior Court. Cooperative meetings were held where
interdepartmental staff compared and shared updated information. In January, the
department’s clerk and office supervisor attended a Tucson conference aimed at
improving community and court-wide victim services.
Working together, interdepartmental staff ensured better delivery of services to victims.
With the County Attorney’s Victim Notification Unit granting the department access to
its database, the clerk generated victim worksheets that were supplied to investigating
probation officers. Development of this procedure contributed to officers’ efficiency
as it reduced redundant practices. Now, officers verify the victim data entered by the
clerk who also produces the victim letters.

Support
Staff
facilitated
143,843
probationer
office visits
during fiscal
year
• 62,000
drug tests
completed
• 3,001 or
4.8% test
positive for
drug use
• TASC
provided
daily reports
of testing
results
Victim
Services
• 3,034
letters
mailed to
victims
• Victim
Registry
database
maintained
• Network
created

among the
Clerk’s
Office,
County
Attorney
and
department
to better
serve victims

14

Radio
Communication
Center

• Criminal
history
records
checks
completed:
8,379

• Total radio
transactions
performed:
87,929

• Number of
arrest
notifications
completed:
1,536

• Number of
Probation
violation
arrest checks
made: 1981

• Number of
arrest holds
placed: 506

• Office
supervisor
saves
department
$23,510 by
maintaining
testing
equipment
and providing
telephone
reprogramming
and repairs.

15

Support staff strives to handle victim restitution matters accurately and attentively.
When a probation officer investigated a fraud-related case with 300 victims, the
clerk working with victim information organized the data and provided various lists
to the officer.
R ADIO C OMMUNICATION C ENTER - The fiscal year
confirmed that the Communications Center’s staff
is dedicated especially in light of the critical staff
shortages. Employees at the center were pleased
to have one from their ranks named as the Employee
of the Year for 2001. Lead Dispatcher Mike Harayda
was congratulated by his colleagues on a job well
done. See page 25 for details.
As employees were granted access to the Rolodex
database this fiscal year, the Radio Communication
personnel assisted officers by confirming
absconders’ or other probationers’ physical
descriptions, aliases, scars, marks, and tattoos. In
one specific instance, a staffer responded to a
Tucson police officer’s call requesting information
on a subject being questioned. The TPD officer
believed the subject was an absconder and wanted
confirmation. Using the Rolodex database, the staffer acknowledged that the subject
was on probation by confirming that he had a unique tattoo on the back of his neck.
Consequently, the absconder was arrested not only for a warrant, but also for providing
false information to a police officer.

AUTOMATION ADVANCES - Implementation of digital photography of offenders during the
presentence process influenced the workload of support staff. In consultation with
the Superior Court’s Information Technology Services Division, support staff developed
procedures for the proper use of the digital camera. Defendants’ digital photos are
taken by intake support staff. Additionally, the expanded use of electronic mail resulted
in nearly instantaneous delivery of presentence reports. Reports, previously delivered
via courier, are sent now via e-mail to prosecuting attorneys and to probation officers
in satellite offices.

Probation works in Arizona - Office Supervisor Ray Lekawa is
recognized for providing maintenance, repair and calibration of the
breathalyzer units resulting in a cost savings to the department and
taxpayers. The department saved $15,000 this fiscal year. Mr. Lekawa
also provided training on the proper use of the breathalyzer to staff
at Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, Tucson City Court Probation,
Pima County Adult Diversion, and the Pima County Jail. In addition, Office Supervisor
Lekawa reprogrammed and repaired the telephones at the West office. After being
trained by the vendor, he was given access to the telephone database to make
changes and repairs. Cost savings amounted to $8,510. Special appreciation goes
to Mr. Lekawa for providing these services in addition to his regular duties as office
supervisor.

Operational Services
Division
Employee Listing

Operational
Services
2695 E.Ajo
Tucson 85713
520-7404800
8180 East
Broadway
Blvd.
Tucson
85710
520-290-1535

Theresa Springer, Division Director
Rosemary Broduer-Mendez,
Dispatch Supervisor
Cynthia Brunk, Lead Dispatcher
Casey Camacho, Lead Dispatcher
Mike Harayda, Lead Dispatcher
Nancy Custer, Dispatcher
Diana Jacome, Dispatcher
Cirra Miller, Dispatcher
Walter Retting, Dispatcher
Vince Speitel, Dispatcher
Lisa Shumaker, Dispatcher

Ray Lekawa, Office Supervisor - West
Molly Hernandez, Litigation Support II
Jessie Vasquez, Litigation Support II
Rena Winters, Litigation Support II
Julie Sirrine, Litigation Support II

Yolanda Harris, Office Supervisor
Downtown
Rosa
Donaldson,
Litigation
Support II
Betsy Jennings, Office Supervisor - South
Maria Escobedo, Litigation Support II
Mike Fleming - Litigation Support I
Jaci Kornelle, Litigation Support II
Ernestina Rodriguez - Litigation Support I
Xochitl Montoya, Litigation Support II
Francisca Sepulveda - Litigation Support I
Debra Pike-Slaughter, Litigation Support II
Sheila Hampton - Litigation Support II
Marsha Hutchison - Litigation Support II
Sheila Ramon, Litigation Support II
Melissa Lopez - Litigation Support II
Shelly Welsh, Litigation Support II
Dona Spencer - Litigation Support II
Anna Vidal, Litigation Support II
T.G. Wallace - Litigation Support II
Sue Williams - Litigation Support II
Jamie Perry, Office Supervisor
Downtown
Jo Fontenot, Office Supervisor - East
Josie Camacho, Litigation Support II
Paul Neuwirth, Litigation Support II
Susan Corrales, Litigation Support II
Deanna Franson, Litigation Support II
Virginia French, Litigation Support II
John Wilcoxon, Litigation Support II
Harold Helies, Litigation Support I
Amanda Kelley, Litigation Support I
Jan Lomen, Litigation Support II
Edna Ortiz, Litigation Support II
Jami Sanchez, Litigation Support II
Leticia Soto, Litigation Support II
Susan Tyler, Litigation Support II

110 West
Congress St.
Tucson
85701
520-740-3800
1951 & 1931
W. Grant Rd.
Tucson
85745
520-624-0973

•Downtown
staff: 17

•East office
staff: 3

•South office
staff: 18

•West office
staff: 4

•Manager: 7
•Total

number of
staff: 49

•Training

hours
completed
by staff:
1,422

•Average
Employee listing as of June 30, 2001

number of
training
hours per
staff: 29

16

The Planning and Development Division staff
oversee and deliver a variety services to the
department’s employees, to probationers, and to
the greater community. The seven areas of service
include:
• Automation
• Training and Education
• LEARN - Education Services
• Juvenile Transfer Services
• Volunteers and Interns in Probation
• Publications
• Special Projects, new program development

AUTOMATION - The division’s director and other court staff continued working on the
internal offender database, Rolodex, and the APETS (Adult Probation Enterprise
Tracking System) projects. Both automation projects have the common outcome of
the compatible sharing of data - the internal database among employees of the
department and the APETS among statewide criminal justice agencies.
TRAINING AND EDUCATION - Under the Arizona Supreme Court’s Council on Judicial
Education and Training (COJET) mandate, all employees are required to complete 16
hours of training. During the reporting period, staff completed more than 15,000
hours of training. The training officer, training coordinator and administrative assistant
provided and supported these training programs.
• Officer orientation and initial training - Upon employment new officers are
required to complete a 6-week orientation/initial training program which includes
completion of the Arizona Probation Officer Certification Academy and the
department’s Tactics for Officer Safety and Survival (TOSS) course.
• Officer safety - Training components cover the continuum of control including
crisis management through verbal communications; hands-on tactics, the use of baton
and OC spray; and the optional 48-hour firearms’ program for those electing to carry
a weapon.
• Officer training - On going training for officers is offered in the areas of
presentence investigations, case management, supervision operations, search and
seizure, TOSS/CMS refresher courses and other specialized programs.
• General training - Training staff provided sessions on ethics, sexual harassment,
and cultural diversity. Twice a year, the department and Pima County Juvenile Court
training units cosponsor a week-long training event, offering general courses required
to meet mandates.
Departmental employees provided training locally and at the state and national level.
More than 70 employees conducted in-house training. Several officers and staff
contributed to the Arizona Probation Officer Academy, the Arizona Institute for
Intensive Probation and the Judicial Staff Conferences for nonjudge, nonofficer
personnel.
Probation works in Arizona - The community is served through an
educated work force who receives training on safety and the supervision
of probationers. Well-trained officers and staff provide yet another layer
of protection for the community.
17

Officers are trained to impact probationers’ lives in ways that can result in their
compliance with court orders. Additionally, officers are asked to oversee the
probationers’ lifestyle changes that enable them to complete their probation terms
while restoring victims and the community. The probation work force will continue to
complete the necessary training, which makes them effective and efficient public
employees. They are committed to serving and protecting the community and its
citizens.
LEARN’s Education Services -The department’s Literacy, Education and Resource
Network (LEARN) program provides a broad spectrum of educational programs for adult
and juvenile probationers, their families and other adult, at-risk members of the
community. Classes in the program emphasize improving literacy skills, earning a General
Education Diploma (GED), improving English proficiency, and training in cognitive and
other life skills areas.
LEARN was established in 1988 as part of a pilot project by the Administrative Office of
the Arizona Supreme Court (AOC). As the pioneer probation department in the state
to require the completion of literacy or GED programs as a condition of probation,
Arizona was the first to provide on-site education services for probationers through
various LEARN labs throughout the state. To date, about 1,700 students have earned
GEDs; approximately 450 students have completed the literacy program. Nearly 600
adults have improved their English skills through the Adult Probation Department’s
LEARN program.
In the reporting period, LEARN served 593 adults and juveniles who completed more
than 12 hours of academic classes at three labs in probation satellite offices. Year-end
statistics indicated a total of 973 students were served. The following provides
highlights of those served from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001.
• Of the 593 students recorded by Arizona Department of Education, 183 students
(38.3 percent) received GED diplomas.
• More than 30 students received scholarships to Pima Community College.
• Seventy-one students graduated LEARN’s Cognitive Skills program.
• LEARN provided Job Readiness workshops for the Department of Economic Security.
Two-week workshops were held with 106 students participating.
• LEARN offered life skills workshops in parenting and HIV/AIDS awareness classes. A
total of 56 adults participated in parenting and 217 took HIV/AIDS classes.
• Volunteers donated 684 hours of service to the LEARN program.
The Cognitive Skills program motto is
“Change thinking, change behavior.”
Departmental staff under the leadership of
the Cognitive Skills program coordinator has
offered classes to probationers since April
1998. As of February 2001, a total of 234
students has been enrolled. Nearly 75
percent, or 174 students, successfully
completed the course work and graduated
from the program.

•Employees
earned
15,304
training
hours
•More than
70
employees
contributed
to training
staff
LEARN
•1,700
students
have earned
GEDs since
program’s
inception
•973
students
served
through
LEARN
•183
students
received
GED
diplomas
•More than
30 students
granted
scholarship
to Pima
Community
College
Cognitive
Skills
Program
•234
offenders
completed
program
during
reporting
period

18

Two
graduations
honored 71
probationers
in Cognitive
program
LEARN
Collaborations
• 21 DES Job
Readiness
Workshops
served 106
participants
•56 parents/
probationers
attended
parenting
sessions
presented by
Parents
Anonymous
• 217
offenders
completed
HIV/AIDS
workshops
Juvenile
Services
•In FY 98-99,
9 of 10
juvenile
transfers on
probation
revoked to
prison; in FY
00-01, 4 of
10 were
revoked

•30 to 40
juvenile
transfers on
probation
each month
•More than
75% received
treatment
19

During fiscal year 2000-01, certified instructors taught two 18-week courses for two
hours, twice a week. Two graduations were held to honor the 71 probationers who
completed the programs.

Probation works in Arizona - LEARN’s program practices
included these collaborative efforts with other organizations
throughout the community:
• DES Job Readiness Workshops - LEARN continued its educational
programming with employment and job skills training with the
Department of Economic Security’s JOBS program. Staff conducted
21 training workshops, and 106 DES participants were served.
• Parents Anonymous - Young fathers and couples were the focus of four, 6-week
grant-funded sessions on parenting presented by Parents Anonymous of Tucson; 56
adults attended. LEARN anticipates a continued partnership with Parents Anonymous
through 2002.
• Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation - At the continued request of the DIRECT
program, LEARN sponsored a series of HIV/AIDS workshops offered; 217 probationers
were mandated to take the workshop as a condition of probation.
• Altrusa International, Inc., of Tucson – For more than 12 years, the Altrusa Club
has supported the LEARN program. In 1994, a special scholarship fund was established
with the Pima Community College Foundation for graduates of LEARN. More than
160 graduates have been given the opportunity to continue with higher education
because of this collaboration.
• Pima Community College – The college’s Assessment Center test proctors conducted
GED exams monthly, at one of the three LEARN labs. Students completed the exam
in two, daylong sessions in the familiar surroundings of their own school. The
Center also awarded scholarships to GED and ESOL graduates.
• Network for Adults with Learning Difficulties - LEARN and Pima Community
College Adult Education initiated a series of collaborative meetings to identify needs
and compile a list of county resources for adults with learning difficulties.
• Pima County Workforce Investment Board – LEARN’s program coordinator is a
member representing Title II Adult Education. In addition to working on various
committees, the coordinator chairs the subcommittees for eligible training providers
and the dislocated worker.
JUVENILE TRANSFER SERVICES - Supervising
juveniles on adult probation presented the
organization
with
behavioral,
developmental and mental health
challenges for a population that exists
outside the rubric of programs for
specialized caseloads.
The probation program coordinator and
officers assigned to supervise juveniles
transferred or sentenced to adult
probation made adjustments to program practices and guidelines in an effort to protect
the community and restore victims while holding juvenile transfers accountable.
Additionally, the department is committed to provide services that allow officers to
guide and shape pro-social behavior through a continuum of sanctions and services in
partnership with the community.

Probation works in Arizona - The department and the community
benefitted from the volunteer services of citizens in Pima County and
students earning academic credit. Volunteers and interns in Probation
(VIP) invested their time and efforts in various divisions of the
organization. They provided nearly two thousand hours of service
during the reporting period.
Division staff supervised the efforts of high school students who worked with the
department during summer vacations. Courts are Us, a summer youth work program,
afforded students the opportunity to positively experience the criminal justice system
by working in the Adult Probation Department under the auspices of the Superior
Court. This marked the eighth year of the department’s participation in this
worthwhile program.

Planning & Development
Division
Employee Listing
James Meyer, Division Director
George Baum, Training Officer
Rafaela de Loera, Training Coordinator
JoAnne Pope, Administrative Assistant

Annabea McKinley, Probation Program Coordinator

•VIPs provided
nearly 2,000
hours of
service during
reporting
period

Planning &
Development
2965 E.Ajo Way
Tucson, AZ
85713
520-740-4800
LEARN South
520-740-4895
LEARN East
8180 East
Broadway Blvd.
Tucson, AZ
85711
520-290-6736
LEARN West
1951 W.
Grant Road
Tucson, AZ
85745
520-205-7832

Deborah Tinajero, Probation Program Coordinator
Susan Barlow, Instructor/Site Coordinator
Susan Enholm, Instructor/Site Coordinator
Rebecca Gray, Instructor/Site Coordinator
Shanon Easterday, Instructor
Julie Gray, Instructor
Anne Geiger, Cognitive Skills Instructor
Chris Nybakken, Cognitive Skills Coordinator
Lisa Klukosky, Cognitive Skills Instructor
Lorraine Arvizu, Administrative Level 1
Sandra Cruz, Administrative Level 1
Kathleen Thomas, Administrative Level 1

Employee assignments as of June 30, 2001

•Total number
of staff: 17

•Training hours
completed:
1,234
•Average
number of
training hours
per staff: 72.6

20

The Office of Administration provided the
following services:
• budget, accounting, and procurement
• human resources, research, data analysis and
tracking of Community Punishment Program
funding and referrals
• restoration to the victim and the community
These duties were performed by employees
who reported directly to the Chief Probation
Officer and Executive Director.

HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES - Due to major budget cutbacks, the department experienced a
decrease in recruitments from previous years and as a result, only 19 new employees
came aboard this year. Soliciting qualified applicants for these positions was a challenge
due to a strong economy and difficulty in competing with entry level salaries of other
public service agencies. Also, filling numerous vacancies was put on hold which affected
employee workloads in all areas of probation services.
In addition to handling day-to-day human resource functions, the unit’s staff participated
in numerous job fairs and coordinated several swearing-in ceremonies. In May, the unit
was consolidated with Superior Court’s Human Resources in order to streamline services
to the court.
Probation’s employee roster included 303 employees at the end of this fiscal year,
compared to 319 at the conclusion of fiscal year 1999-00.

Activ ity

Quantity

New Hire Recruitments

10

Promotional Opportunities (Competitiv e)

6

New Staff Hired

19

Staff Promoted

25

Staff as of June 30, 2001

303

FINANCIAL SERVICES - The lack of stability in state funding presented
a challenge in managing the department’s finances this year.
The financial staff worked through budget restrictions, and the
department was in the black for 1999-00.
The unit, consisting of a financial manager, principal accounting
officer, and an administrative level 1 employee, maintained a
budget of $15,498,703 in 11 separate funding sources. There
was an increase in funding of $1,243,851 from the previous fiscal
year budget of $14,254,852.
The table on page 22 breaks down the budget totals by source, personnel, and operating
costs for the 2000-01 fiscal year.
21

Budget totals
for FY 00-01
So urc e
County

Perso nnel

Opera ting

• County:
$4,543,928

To ta ls

$3,783,090

$760,838

$4,543,928

557,389

323,136

3,400,610

State Aid
Enhancement (SAE)

3,168,246

232,364

3,400,610

Intensiv e Probation

3,588,694

386,597

3,975,291

Community Punishment
Program (CPP)

882,913

142,526

1,025,439

Interstate Compact

261,421

17,441

278,862

Drug Enforcement
Adjudication (DEA)

224,028

-0-

224,028

Justice Court
Sreening/DUI Fees

60,908

2,916

63,824

120,498

39,459

159,957

50,000

-0-

50,000

Drug Treatment
Education Fund(DTEF)

193,740

395,998

589,738

• DEA:
$224,028

Other

284,990

21,511

306,501

To ta ls

$13,175,917

$2,322,786

$15,498,703

• Screening
fees:
$63,824

Probation Fees

Dept. of EducationDES/JOBS Grants
Transferred Youth

RESEARCH, EVALUATION AND PLACEMENT SERVICES - Responsibilities handled by this unit’s
staff included: conducting research, producing reports, and tracking placements and
funding for probationers receiving substance abuse and mental health treatment under
the Community Punishment Program (CPP). Due to budget restraints, the hiring of a
criminal justice research analyst was put on hold. In spite of this, the unit consisting
of a research analyst and an administrative level I employee provided statistical
information for the production of program and statistical annual reports and continued
to collect, manage and report state required data.

• Probation
Fees:
$880,525
• SAE:
$3,400,610
• Intensive
Probation:
$3,975,439
• CPP:
$1,025, 439
• Interstate
Compact:
$278,862

• DES/JOBS
Grants:
$159,957
• Transferred
Youth:
$50,000
• DTEF:
$589,738

COMMUNITY PUNISHMENT PROGRAM (CPP) - Provisions under the CPP make available a budget
to divert offenders from prison or jail and to assist in delivering various levels of
supervision and intermediate sanctions. It funds many facets of community supervision
and targets many different offender populations. Electronic monitoring, treatment
services, the DIRECT program are funded in part by the CPP.

• Other:
$306,501
TOTAL
Budget:
$15,498,703
22

• CPP
placements
up 1.5% for
fiscal year

• Money
management
classes held
for
probationers
• Enhanced
collection
efforts result
in a 43%
increase in
restitution
dollars; a
29% increase
in probation
fees
• Staff joined
others to
celebrate the
21st
Anniversary
of the
National
Crime
Victims
Rights Week,
April 22-28
• Year marks
the 25th
anniversary
of the use of
the “Victim
Impact
Statement”
in legal
documents
23

The number of CPP placements
showed a slight increase this year
(up 1.5 percent) in comparison to
fiscal year 1999-00 as evidenced by
the graph.

CPP Placem en ts
4 00
3 00

37 7
29 4 2 82

207
V ICTIM R ESTORATION U NIT -Victim 2 00
1 51
restoration remained a high
92 83
judicial priority, statewide and
1 00
31
locally. Consequently, the Victim
0
Restoration Unit, the only such
2 00 0 -2 0 01 (1 ,14 0 )
probation-based unit in the state,
DIRE
CT
continued to assess and address
Aggra vated D UI
issues related to the collection of
Serio usly M en tally Ill
court-ordered assessments.
Sp ecial L earn ing Ne ed s
Strategies continued to evolve and
were achieved via collaboration
with the Clerk of the Superior
Court and Restitution Unit of the Pima County Attorney’s Office.

317

15 3 1 60
7 6 84
28
19 9 9-2 000 (1 ,1 9 5 )
Res id e ntial
Ele ctro nic Mo nito ring
Sex O ffe nd ers

Internally, the department began conducting year-round, five-week money management
classes based on a recognized curriculum. Based on staff’s voiced needs, classes were
tailored accordingly and offered at each satellite office at various hours—mornings,
lunch time, evenings, and Saturdays. Also offered were classes for probationers on
specialized caseloads, as well as classes for Spanish speakers. These classes were
taught in tandem by probation staff—professional and support.
As a result of enhanced collection efforts since fiscal year 1997, the department has
achieved a 43 percent increase in restitution, 29 percent increase in probation fees,
and an overall increase of 28 percent, while experiencing only a 4 percent increase in
total cases.
In a continuing response to Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket’s appeal to the Arizona judiciary
to expand their efforts in the pursuit of victim-related issues, the unit’s staff joined
crime victims, service providers, criminal justice and allied professionals to
commemorate the 21st anniversary of the National Crime Victims’ Rights Week during
April 22 through 28. To further demonstrate the department’s dedication to the plight
of crime victims, the unit’s staff, in partnership with the Community Service Program,
adopted a two-mile stretch of roadway from Mission Road to Sorrell Lane. The first
clean up was conducted on April 22 to “kick off” National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.
Five additional probationers, who created victims in the commission of their crimes,
contributed to National Crime Victims’ Rights Week by assembling more than 300 black
and while lapel ribbons, a symbol of support of the victims of crime. These ribbons
were worn by probation staff during this week of tribute.
This year marked the 25th anniversary of the “victim impact statement”—the voice of
the victim—a powerful tool that allows victims to define the harm they endured as a
result of crime. It was, in fact, a chief probation officer in California in 1976 who
observed that victims of crime received no services and implemented the practice of
providing victims the opportunity to voice the impact of their victimization.

Administrative Services
Employee Listing

Administrative
Services
110 West
Congress
Tucson, AZ
85701
520-740-3800

Don R. Stiles, Chief Probation Officer
Diane L. McGinnis, Executive Director
Becky Raymond, Administrative Level 1
Mary Rios, Research Analyst
Linda Seidel, Executive Assistant
Laura Wellner-Pate, Project Coordinator
Jim Casanova, Human Resources Director (Resigned 3/2001)
Diana Torres, Human Resource Specialist
D’Andrea Willliams, Human Resources Specialist (Resigned 4/2001)
Debbie Yauch, Human Resources Manager
Roseanne Grant, Financial Manager
Johanna Bliss, Principal Accountant
Dianna Rodriguez, Administrative Level 1
Barbara Johnson, Unit Supervisor
Leona Powers, Administrative Level 1
Employee listing as of June 30, 2001

• Total
number of
staff: 15
• Number of
training
hours
completed
by staff:
538

•Average
number of
training
hours per
staff: 35.8

24

Employee recognition is one of the ways the Staff Relations Committee (SRC) furthers
its goal of creating and maintaining an organization that is conducive to individual
growth, creativity, and fulfillment. SRC members continued to foster goodwill among
staff by sending birthday, get well, and condolence cards. In addition, they sponsored
the first-ever, “Staff Appreciation Day,” as part of the nationwide Probation Recognition
Week. Committee members arranged for a catered lunch at each satellite office, and
distributed department mouse pads as a way of thanking staff for their commitment
and hard work. Committee members continued the practice of selecting a staff member
for its monthly “Excellence Award.” Employees nominated their peers, and members
of SRC met each month to select an Excellence Award recipient. At the beginning of
2001, members also selected the 2001 Employee of the Year, Line Officer of the Year
and Supervisor of the Year. Employees selected for recognition were:
Employee of the Year -Michael Harayda
Lead Dispatcher Mike Harayda’s apparent
lack of stress has made him legendary in the
department. Mention his name, and one will
invariably hear officers singing his praises.
During a year of under staffing, each
dispatcher worked additional shifts.
Michael worked more than his share, and
kept everyone smiling. He is motivated,
knowledgeable, helpful, and considerate.
Michael possesses abundant patience.
Working in the Communications Center is often a high-pressure job. Michael is the
calming influence in a room where activities can change suddenly and drastically. He
has the ability to get everyone to stop and chuckle at just the right moment, relieving
some of the pressure and allowing coworkers to continue their duties with a better
frame of mind. Michael is described as “one of the most unflappable staff members to
ever pass through the department’s doors.”
Officer of the Year - Michael Bartling
Senior Probation Officer Mike Bartling is
an ideal team player. Whether it is
covering a caseload for an absent officer,
teaching, or simply delivering photocopy
paper, his willingness to help others is
unparalleled. He does what is necessary
to get the job done without focusing
on typical “probation officer” duties.
Michael is meticulous about supervising
his caseload. He focuses on assessment
collection and is consistently one of his
unit’s top producers. He is dependable
and his decisions are sound. Michael explains that his favorite part of the job is “the
positive impact one can have on people’s lives.” Officer Bartling has provided training
at several probation conferences and has co-facilitated at the Intensive Probation
Supervision Institute. As if that were not enough, Michael has often participated in
“Operation Safe Streets,” a program of numerous law enforcement agencies
collaborating to reduce gang-related activities.
25

Supervisor of the Year - Barbara Lynn Druke
Unit Supervisor Barbara Druke’s background and
education make her a valued member of the
department. She exemplifies high standards in both
conduct and ethics, and she expects no less from
her team. Because of abundant experience in both
criminal justice and social sciences, Barbara is often
the person to contact for information on “what’s out
there.” She solicits advice and suggestions. In team
meetings, everyone’s input counts. Barbara has not
forgotten what it is like to be a front-line officer.
Ms. Druke’s dedication and service to the community
are second to none. She is a volunteer member of
the Foster Care Review Board. Barbara spends countless hours at a local hospital,
cuddling babies who need extra love and attention. Both Barbara and her husband
have spent past Thanksgivings feeding the homeless. They have also been involved
in Teen Court since its inception. She was an advocate with the Victim Witness
program.
Barbara genuinely cares for her co-workers. She makes “care packages” for
team members who stop smoking, and she showers new babies with gifts and
love. Her team, along with others who have worked with her, is constantly
inspired by Barbara.

Hall of Fame

Bill Johnson
Years of Service: 28

Jim Meyer
Years of Service: 26

Jim Casanova
Years of Service: 2.3

Hall of Fame
Meritorious distinction of dedicated service by the
department’s leadership hallmarked the exodus of a handful of
managers during the last two fiscal years. Their combined years
of service to the court and the community equaled 110.3. These
leaders, whether directors like Bill Johnson, Jim Meyer and Jim Casanova or
unit supervisors like Ted Magladry, Mike Saunders and Bill Stead, forged the
history of the department while positively impacting present practices.
Adult Probation has benefitted from their experiences, expertise, and hard
work in a variety of ways. Their impact has extended to most areas of the
organization, from the Assessment Center and Field Divisions to the development and implementation of professional human resources programming
practices, ending with the creation and installation of a statewide automation system for tracking probationers.
The face of probation in Pima County has aged and become wiser, more
effective and efficient due to their belief and pledge to the mission of the
department. The valued efforts of these leaders are acknowledged and celebrated daily throughout the organization through the work of probation.

Ted Magladry
Years of Service:11

Mike Saunders
Years of Service: 26

Bill Stead
Years of Service: 27

26

Dear Mr. Stiles,
Hello, my name is Kathleen, I’m 20 years old, and I’m clean and sober! Which I
know is amazing for someone my age, these days. And I thank God for that everyday.
And I have a lot of gratitude for Intensive Probation.

These
incidents
represent
kind and
caring
interventions.
They are
examples of
just another
day in the
life of
probation
and
surveillance
officers.

27

A year ago I was a “tuff girl,” thinking I was the best mom in the whole wide world.
See, Mr. Stiles I have a wonderful 3 year old son who is my best friend. Who I
should have devoted my all to, but didn’t. I grew up in a drug world with divorced
parents, an addicted father who would emotionally abuse me. This man did drugs
so openly he would snort them right out of school pictures. He has done and sold
drugs for as long as I can remember, and finally I found us doing them together. He
finally got put on probation after being caught and has now made a 180 degree
turn around. I know all the things I’ve witnessed over the years has had a direct
effect on my old belief that “drugs are great, and they make you money.” I never
knew anything different until now.
I remember my first interview with Sr. Probation Officer Troy Spence and I was
asked, “What makes you think that you can make it?” My reply was, “Well, people
who don’t make it are people who think they have to and I know I can make it
because I want to.” The day I was sentenced to probation was the beginning of
“Life” for me. Not the life that I thought was normal - drugs, violence and alcohol.
I mean I really started a new life!! One without all this negativity. I know life is
about being sober and being a mom, feeling my emotions and his as well. He is my
little buddy; I have created a bond with him that I will never let go, NEVER!!!
Troy and Surveillance Officer Jill Layton have been hard at times, well actually a
lot of times, but that’s their job. Most important they have treated me like a
human being, not like a criminal. Once I told Jill that I was afraid of studying a
certain course in college, but I told her I was afraid that no one would trust a
felon. She told me something that I will remember the rest of my life. She said,
“Kathleen, a felony is what you did; it is not who you are.” Those words with other
words of encouragement have given me the will to go on with the rest of my life.
I owe a lot to Probation without it, I know I would be dead or in prison. Probation
to me is steps normal people take everyday: pay bills, be organized, and know
some sort of authority. My experience with Probation has been the most important
thing that has helped me realize that I AM WORTH IT!
I have completed outpatient drug counseling. I chair AA meetings and soon I will be
starting a North side chapter of Crystal Meth Anonymous. I respect myself, my
family, Troy Spence, Jill Layton and of course you for conducting such a great
program. I have been clean for a year now and I feel great. Drugs can never give
me this high I feel today; this is natural, and it’s because I believed in myself the
way Troy and Jill have believed in me all along. Thank you for being part of who I
am today, and God bless you. Thank you for your time.
Signed
Kathleen

Caring Interventions - Probation Officer Gail Petersen had an office appointment with a probationer who had failed to report earlier in the month. The probationer, a recovering alcoholic, had been struggling with the loss of his marriage
and children, child support issues, and financial problems. The officer had been
advised by other department employees who had contact with the probationer
that he was not doing well and appeared to be suffering from depression. Officer
Petersen was shocked to see the probationer had lost 30 pounds in about 4-6 weeks.
He had lost his job and was facing eviction. He was lethargic and tearful and
admitted he had attempted suicide three times in the past weeks. He was hearing
voices. The probationer had sought help at a mental health agency, but because
he was not enrolled in the state’s indigent health care system, he was referred to
a health clinic, having to wait for an appointment.
Officer Petersen has a mental health and addictions counseling background; she
requested assistance from Sr. Probation Officer Ray Forsythe, who has a similar
background. She contacted her valuable connections at the VA Hospital. Officers
Forsythe and Petersen transported the probationer to the hospital where he was
admitted immediately. While the probationer was hospitalized, Officer Petersen
was busy arranging the removal and storage of his personal belongings; she and
Officer Forsythe made preparations for the probationer to enter a halfway house
upon his release. The probationer was discharged five days later with medication
and nutritional supplements. When he reported to Officer Petersen, he looked 100
percent better and expressed sincere gratitude for the officers’ caring intervention. Officer Forsythe commented, “Gail could have arrested the probationer or
just told him to go to the VA Hospital, and she would have been doing her job. But
by going a little further, she probably saved his life.”
A few days later, Probation Officer Jamie Tribolet, who is also a licensed counselor, had an initial appointment with a probationer who had a significant history of
substance abuse, domestic violence, depression, and suicide attempts dating back
to his adolescence. He presented as shaky, tearful, depressed, and admitted to
recent cocaine use. Officer Tribolet assessed the probationer to determine what
he needed most – drug detoxification or mental health crisis treatment. The officer called a local residential treatment facility and arranged for the probationer
to be admitted.
Officer Triolet and Probation Officer Jimmy Jones, who also works at the West
office, transported the probationer to the center, relaying information about the
patient to the intake worker. Officer Tribolet also contacted the probationer’s
mother, advising her of his status. His mother expressed gratitude for the caring
intervention. He was able to get on track with mental health, substance abuse
and domestic violence counseling and random urine testing. He thanked Officers
Tribolet and Jones for their help.

It may not
be what
they
planned for
their day,
but
without
hesitation,
officers go
the extra
mile, get
involved and
ultimately
make
positive and
significant
impacts on
the lives of
probationers.

28

29

1

Lina Rodriguez

25

Cindy Jorgenson

2

Charles Harrington

26

Edgar Acuña

3

Kenneth Lee,
Associate Presiding

27

Christopher Browning

28

Paul Tang

4

Stephen Villarreal

5

John Quigley

6

Charles Sabalos

7

Leslie Miller

8

John Davis

9

Michael Brown

10

John Leonardo,
Presiding

11

Jane Eikleberry

12

Deborah Bernini,
Juvenile Presiding

13

Patricia Escher

14

Richard Nichols

15

Michael Alfred

16

Howard Hantman

17

Hectory Campoy

18

Richard Fields

19

Clark Munger

20

Nanette Warner

21

John Kelly

22

Michael Cruikshank

23

Gordon Alley

24

Ted Borek

Pro Tem Paul Banales
Pro Tem Frank Dawley
Pro Tem Howard Fell
Pro Tem Elizabeth Peasley-Fimbres

Justice Court
Precinct 1

Robert Gibson

Precinct 2

Luis Castillo, Presiding

Precinct 3

John Casey

Precinct 4

Carmen Dolny

Precinct 5

Jim Green

Precinct 6

Paul Simon

Precinct 7

Charles Shipman

Precinct 8

Susan Bacal

Precinct 9

Vacant

Positions as of June 30, 2001

Adult Probation Department in Pima County
Don Stiles
Chief Probation Officer

Jim Casanova, Human Resources (resigned 3/2001)
Roseanne Grant, Finance

Linda Seidel
Executive Assistant

Diane McGinnis
Executive Director

Ed Espinoza, Director
Assessment Center Division

Ron Dominguez, Director
East Division

Ruben Castro, Director
South Division

Carl Sheets, Director
West Division

Laura Wellner-Pate, Project Coordinator
Research and Evaluation
Barbara Johnson, Victim Restoration

Assessment Center: Presentence Investigations
Treatment Contracts & Screenings

Field Supervision:

Standard
Intensive Probation
Sex Offender
DIRECT
Absconders/Warrants Unit
Special Learning Needs
Seriously Mentally Ill
Electronic Monitoring
Aggravated DUI
Domestic Violence
Justice Courts
Inter/Intra & Interstate Compact
Drug Court
Community Service

Theresa Springer, Director
Operational Services Division

Operational Services Division: Clerical Support/Records

Jim Meyer, Director

Training & Staff Development /Special Projects/LEARN
Juvenile Services/Automation/New Program Development
Volunteers and Interns in Probation/Publications/Grants

Planning & Development

Radio Communication Center/Dispositions/Record Checks

30

THE POPULATION OF PIMA COUNTY1
Pima County was created in 1864 and is the second largest county in Arizona. As of April
1, 2000, the population of Arizona was 5,130,632, with Pima County accounting for 16.4
percent at 843,746. Of this total, the City of Tucson represents 57 percent of the population
at 486,699; Oro Valley—29,700; Marana—13,556; South Tucson— 5,490; and Sahuarita—3,242,
with 305,059 people residing in unincorporated areas.

Jurisdic tio n
Pima Co unty
A riz o na
United States

2000 Census

1990 Census

Net Chang e

% Chang e

843,746

666,880

176,866

26.52

5,130,632

3,665,339

1,465,293

39.98

281,421,906

248,709,873

32,712,033

13.15

Pima County’s population has expanded by 59 percent since 1980, compared to a 103
percent increase in Maricopa County. Arizona’s population grew 89 percent during the
past twenty years while the nation’s population expanded by 24 percent. It is estimated
that approximately 56,500 people moved to Pima County last year and 42,650 individuals
relocated out of the county. Current projections estimate the population of Pima County
will be 1,031,627 by the year 2010. In the past decade, Arizona’s population grew three
times faster than the rest of the nation, becoming home to more than 5.1 million people.

ECONOMIC PROFILE - The civilian labor force in Pima County is approximately 387,600 people
(about 45 percent of the population) and the unemployment rate has remained low due
to the influence of tourism, education and retirement. The median household income is
$32,544. The percentage of persons in Pima County living below the poverty level is 16.2
percent and 15.5 percent in Arizona overall. This percentage is above the national rate of
13.3.

ETHNICITY

AND

RACE - Hispanics constitute 29.3 percent of the county’s total population

compared to 25.2 percent for the state and 12.5 percent for the nation. Native Americans
accounted for 3.2 percent, African Americans ~ 3.0 percent; Asian/Pacific Islanders ~ 2.0
percent and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders ~ .01 percent. In addition, 3.2 percent of
the population considers itself to be two or more races.

AGE AND GENDER - The median age of Pima County residents is 35.7, with 51.1 percent
females and 48.9 percent males. Of the total households in Pima County, 25.3 percent are
occupied by retired persons.

1

31

Sources: Population Handbook, Pima Association of Governments; U.S. Census Bureau

THE CRIME RATE
Index of Crime
United States 1995-2000
Rate per 1000,000 Inhabitants

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

5,275.9
5,086.6
4,930.0
4,619.3
4,266.8
Unavailable

2

DEFINITIONS
Crime Index: Murder, sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle
theft.
Violent Index: Murder, sexual assault, robbery and
aggravated assault.
Property Crime: Theft, burglary, and motor vehicle
theft.

Juvenile Transfer Requirements: At least 14
years old, charged under any one of a select set
of felony classes outlined under A.R.S. §13501(B), and whose cases were filed with the
Arizona Superior Court in Pima County.

VIOLENT CRIME - Arizona’s 1999 murder, burglary
and theft rate was at least 30 percent higher
than the nation’s. The state’s murder rate is
ranked seventh nationally (40.4 percent higher
than the national rate). It is projected Arizona’s
number of violent crime offenses will increase
by 3.6 percent statewide by 2004, Pima County’s
by 9.4 percent compared to Maricopa County’s
less than 1 percent anticipated rise. This year, Arizona experienced 291,668 violent crime offenses
(including arson) compared to 274,307 in 1999. (Pima County had 59,500 offenses.)
PROPERTY CRIME RATE - Arizona ranks third in
comparison to other states with a property
crime rate 42.8 percent higher than the national
rate. Although the state historically has a high
rate, all counties experienced a decrease over
the last five years. It is projected Pima County
could see a small decrease in this rate through
2004, with the rest of the state experiencing
less than a 5 percent increase.
Source: Crime Trends in Arizona: 1990-1999 and
Beyond, April 2001.

2

32

JUVENILE CRIME
During the past ten years, the percent of juvenile arrests in proportion to adult arrests remained
fairly constant, ranging from a low of 20.8 percent in 1999 to a high of 23.9 percent in 1993. Overall,
the number of arrests has declined since 1996. The table below depicts arrests by population from
1995 to 1999.

All Arrests

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Adult

77.2

76.8

77.1

78.4

79.2

Juv enile

22.8

23.2

22.9

21.6

20.8

In the Superior Court in Pima County during this reporting period, 98 juveniles were sentenced to
probation supervision compared to 84 the previous year. Although these numbers are small in
comparison to other sentencing populations,
minors have a major operational and financial
impact on the department. This is due to their
behavioral, developmental, and educational
requirements, which are significantly higher than
those of adult offenders. Treatment costs
exceeded budget allocations this year by $29,000.

TRENDS IN DISPOSITIONS
CRIMINAL DISPOSITIONS DURING 1995 - 2000 - During
the 2000 calendar year, there were 4,636 criminal
dispositions in the Arizona Superior Court in Pima
County. This represents a decrease of 11 percent
from the previous year but an overall 8.67 percent
increase over the past six years. The chart to
the right depicts the growth in criminal
dispositions during a six-year period.3

As of June 30, 2002, there were 26,054
inmates incarcerated in Arizona prisons.4 In
calendar year 2000, more than 2,500 (55.4
percent) of all criminal dispositions resulted
in a sentence to Adult Probation, with 3.4
percent of the defendants receiving a
concurrent sentence to the Department of
Corrections.

33

3

Arizona Superior Court in Pima County

4

Department of Corrections

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS
Assessment Center staff produced 3,550 presentence sentence reports this year, which presents a
decrease of 82 from the previous year but a4.87 percent increase over the past five years. Since
1996, the number of reports produced have declined slightly each year except in fiscal year 1998-99,
when 4,122 reports were produced.
Presentenc e Repo rts Co mpleted
Fisc al Year

# o f Repo rts

Fisc al Year

# o f Repo rts

1996-1997

3,383

1998-1999

4,122

1997-1998

3,776

1999-2000

3,632

2000-2001

3,548

JAIL REDUCTION PROJECT
In an attempt to reduce the cost of incarceration for taxpayers, the Assessment Center’s Jail Reduction
Project was implemented in January 2001. Its focus was to reduce the total number of days defendants
are in custody between the change of plea and the sentencing date (from 31 days to 27). With this
reduction, the county saved $79,000 during a six-month period. Although data is not yet available, at
the current rate of court participation, the county could realize a savings of $211,200 next fiscal year.

DEFENDANT DEMOGRAPHICS
The following table provides percentages, which compares gender, ethnicity, age, and offense
classification of defendants sentenced to probation in 1996 to those sentenced in 2001:

Charac teristic s o f Defendants
Sentenc ed to Pro batio n

1996:
To tal: 1,867

2001
To tal: 3,141

79.0% / 21.0%

79.3% / 20.7%

W hite

48%

44%

African-American

10%

10%

Hispanic

38%

41%

Nativ e American and other

4%

5%

Age: Less than or equal to 25

41%

36.9%

Felony

91.3%

82.1%

Misdemeanor

8.7%

17.8%

Male/Female

34

PROBATION CASELOAD INFORMATION
During the fiscal year 2000-01, officers supervised 7,218 probationers. Below is a brief description of
various supervision caseloads and the type of probationers assigned. Highlights for the year are also
described.

INTENSIVE PROBATION SUPERVISION (IPS) SERVICES - As a statutorily-mandated, prison-diversion program,
IPS provides highly structured, control-oriented supervision which is a cost-effective alternative to
prison. Twenty-five probationers are supervised by a two-person team, with contacts averaging
between two and four times a week. Drug education and treatment is mandatory for offenders
placed on IPS. There were 654 active IPS probationers at the beginning of the year, and 590 at the
conclusion.
Officers supervised an average of 611 probationers each month and 919 were under IPS supervision
throughout the year, with 429 probationers successfully completing the program. A total of $571,756
in court-ordered assessments was collected, with 88.9 percent of probationers employed. In addition,
167,662 hours of community service were completed. Only 3 percent of drug/alcohol tests conducted
on probationers supervised on IPS produced positive results.

FIELD SUPERVISION SERVICES - Officers selectively and proactively intervene with offenders to reduce
the likelihood of future criminal activity. State law mandates that the department have an overall
average of 60 probationers per officer with at least one monthly contact. Treatment, education, and
community service hours are completed by the offenders as ordered by the Judge.
This division began the year with 3,941 probationers and ended it with 3,952. Throughout the year
6,537 total probationers were supervised with a monthly average of 4,080. These officers collected
a monthly average of more than $86,268 in probation fees and more than $128,544 in restitution.
Probation supervision was revoked for 320 probationers, but 1,203 successfully completed their
probation term.

INTERSTATE COMPACT SUPERVISION - This is a mandated program which supervises probationers from
other states under the same conditions and standards as probationers sentenced to field supervision
in Pima County. On July 1, 2000, there were 221 supervised cases. By June 30, 2001, this number
increased by seven. During the year, 364 total probationers were supervised, with 214 requests for
transfer investigations.
COMMUNITY PUNISHMENT PROGRAM (CPP) - A state-funded source designed to divert select probationers
from prison while enhancing probation services, CPP finances treatment, education, and electronic
monitoring services. CPP dollars contributed to the supervision of probationers dealing with substance
abuse, sex offenses, mental illness, and special learning needs.
Educational services were provided to 692 probationers, 224 received electronic monitoring services,
and polygraph tests and/or counseling services were provided to 138 probationers on sex offender
caseloads. CPP provided services and supervision to 1,795 offenders.

ELECTRONIC MONITORING - This unit is a component of the Community Punishment Program and is a
valuable supervision tool designated for high-risk offenders. In addition to enhanced accountability,
probationers are able to continue employment, education and counseling opportunities. Two hundred
and twenty-eight probationers were placed on electronic monitoring this fiscal year.

35

DRUG INVOLVEMENT REVERSAL THROUGH EDUCATION CONTROL AND TREATMENT (DIRECT) - With a balanced
approach of control and treatment, this drug abuse intervention program was designed as a costsaving, viable alternative to incarceration. Thirty-five probationers are assigned to two-person teams.
Six teams supervised 347 probationers; approximately 30 percent (104) successfully completed the
program, and were reassigned to standard probation caseloads.
SPECIAL LEARNING NEEDS - This caseload addresses the needs of probationers with IQ scores of 78 and
below. The goal is to assist them to obtain community services, enhancing their educational/vocational
potential, and stabilizing their lives. An average of 40 probationers was supervised by a two-person
team who made at least two contacts per month, one in the office and the other in the field.
SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL - This program assists offenders with serious mental health issues. There is a
range of 80 to 100 probationers supervised by two 2-person teams, with at least two contacts made
per month, one in the office and the second in the field. This year, the average caseload was 52 with
98 percent of the probationers participating in treatment. Of the total caseload 61 percent gained
employment, and 19 percent were enrolled in an educational program.
SEX OFFENDERS - Officers provided specialized, intensive supervision and control of sex offenders to
prevent further victimization. Defendants attend mandatory treatment sessions in addition to adhering
to very strict contact requirements. This year, a total of 353 sex offenders was supervised in the
unit, representing an increase of 151 over the previous year. There are three standard 2-person
teams with caseloads ranging between 35 and 40 probationers, three IPS 2-person teams with caseloads
ranging between 20 and 25 probationers, and one maintenance caseload.
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT - The officers working this caseload provide a secure, treatment-based
supervision program for probationers with longstanding drug problems who are not able to remain
abstinent in the community. They provide intensive surveillance, intervention, and enforcement to
enhance public safety in an effort to promote long-term behavioral change. This year there was a
slight reduction (3 percent) from last year in the average combined monthly caseloads (153 to 149).
DRUG COURT - The judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, probation case manager, and treatment provider
work as a team to implement an intensive, cooperative, one-year program to encourage and promote
drug-free lifestyles. Seventy-five participants graduated this year, with 223 defendants participating
in the program.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - The goal of this unit is to stop violence and enhance the safety of the victim,
children, other family members, and the general public. In addition, officers work at holding the
perpetrators accountable while working toward rehabilitation through specialized domestic violence
treatment and other referrals. The unit supervised 205 probationers at any given time during the
reporting period.
ABSCONDERS/WARRANTS UNIT - The primary focus of the unit is to apprehend probationers who have
absconded from supervision. Officers work closely with local and national law enforcement agencies
to accomplish this goal. During the reporting period, 505 absconders were apprehended and returned
to justice.
GROWTH IN PROBATION CASELOADS - During the fiscal years between 1995 and 2001, the number of
probationers on active caseloads fluctuated between growth spurts and decreases. The following
table depicts these fluctuations and shows an increase of 3.47 percent in active cases during the
seven-year period.
36

GROWTH IN PROBATION CASELOADS
During the fiscal years between 1995 and 2001, the number of probationers on active caseloads
fluctuated between growth spurts and decreases. The following table depicts these fluctuations
and shows an increase of 3.47 percent in active cases during the seven-year period.

37

Fisc al Year

Number
o f A c tive Cases

Fisc al Year

Number
o f A c tive Cases

1995

6,976

1998

7,654

1996

6,843

1999

8,570

1997

6,925

2000

7,472

2001

7,218

PROBATION OUTCOMES
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - The Administrative Office of the Arizona Supreme Court has identified and
developed performance measures in accordance with the statutory reporting requirements established
by the Arizona Legislature. The measurements below depict the percentage expected by the Supreme
Court and the percentage and totals achieved by the Department during the year. The department is
pleased to present that it continues to meet or exceed almost all established performance measures.

Measure

State Goal %

Department %

INTENSIVE PROBATION SUPERVISION
% of probationers paying court-ordered restitution.

73

74

% of probationers paying court-ordered probation fees.

74

76

% of probationers testing negative for prohibited substance use.

78

75

% of probationers completing court-ordered community service.

71

77

% of probationers paying court-ordered restitution.

64

68

% of probationers paying court-ordered probation fees.

63

65

% of probationers completing court-ordered community service.

58

60

FIELD SERVICES SUPERVISION

TERMINATION TYPES
The following table measures termination types - the final outcome of probation. It should be noted
that some probationers receive early release due to performing well on probation. Of the total
number of active cases, only .03 percent of probationers were convicted of a new crime.

Outc o me

Number/Perc ent

Outc o me

Close Interest

376

(11.03%)

Rev oked to Jail

Early Termination

437

(12.83%)

Terminated

Successful Terminations

421

(12.36%)

Death

Negativ e Terminations

82

(2.4%)

Rev oked to DOC

699

(20.52%)

Number/Perc ent
86

(2.52%)

1,261

(37.02%)

44

(1.29%)

Total Terminations during Fiscal Year: 3,406

38

PROBATION BENEFITS COMMUNITY
COLLECTIONS - Probationers are required to pay court-ordered restitution, fines and fees, which are
a part of the conditions of probation imposed by the court. These funds are used to compensate
victims of crime and to maintain and enhance probation services. This year, $3,743,645 was collected,
a decrease of 1 percent over the previous year. This decrease is attributed to the reduction of 254
defendants this year.
Fisc al Year

To tal Co llec ted

1996-1997

$2,664,135

1997-1998

$2,932.659

1998-1999

$3,542,606

1999-2000

$3,819.830

2000-2001

$3,743.645

COMMUNITY SERVICE - A condition of probation requires the performance of community service hours.
During this year, thousands of hours were produced by probationers, but 270,704 hours were
completed by probationer work crews under direct officer supervision. Calculated at the minimum
wage, the community received $1,394,126 in free labor.

EDUCATION

AND

EMPLOYMENT - Research reveals that education and employment are key factors in

the successful completion of probation. During the reporting period, a grand total of 973 adult and
standard probation versus incarceration (both prison and jail).

COST EFFECTIVENESS
There is major societal concern
regarding the rising cost of
incarceration in the United States.
The chart to the left compares the
national daily cost per capita of
supervising a defendant on intensive
and standard probation versus
incarceration (both prison and jail).

39

Annual Report Committee
Lorraine Arvizu, George Baum, Elizabeth Dalgleish, Rafaela de Loera, Errol Dimenstein,
Susan Enholm, Yvonne Federico, Mike Fleming, JoAnne Pope, Melissa Robles, Linda
Seidel, and Laura Wellner-Pate

Contributions from
Michael Bartling, Rosemary Broduer-Mendez, Ruben Castro, Cathy Cermak, Ron
Dominguez, Barbara Druke, Ed Espinoza, Ron Gary, Barbara Johnson, Diane McGinnis,
Annabea McKinley, Jim Meyer, Mary Rios, Carl Sheets, Phil Shelley, Theresa Springer,
Don Stiles, Deborah Tinajero, Menachem Turchick, and Laura Wellner-Pate
Statistical Summary by Laura Wellner-Pate
Photos by George Baum
Cover and special graphic effects by JoAnne Pope
Annual Report by Rafaela de Loera
Printing by Pima County Printshop on recycled paper