Maricopa County Justice System Annual Activities Report Fiscal Year 2001-02 A Typical Workday for the Maricopa County Justice Systems Means* . . . • 315 adults booked into jail • 7,559 total adults in jail • 406 juveniles in detention • 27,894 meals served to juvenile and adult detainees • 390 adult inmates transported to a court appearance • 1,000 hearings scheduled in Superior Court • 381 residents appear for jury duty (to Superior, Justice, and most Municipal Courts) • 965 adults in the community under officer supervision pending trial • 25,140 adults in the community supervised by probation officers after sentencing • 115 new felony cases filed • 458 total cases filed with Superior Court • 6,275 court documents filed • 25,000 pieces of paper filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court • 140,000 hits on website to access Court docket information • $269,000 spent for detaining adults • $1.3 million spent in the overall County criminal justice system. The behavior of 2% of the region’s population (70,000 people) cause the entire workload for the criminal justice system. * daily average of statistics for fiscal year 2001-02 Welcome to the Annual Activities Report on efforts of the justice and law enforcement agencies of Maricopa County government. This report highlights activity from July 2001 through June 2002, which proved to be one of the more dynamic years in recent history. In order to meet growing demands and a changing environment, system partners responded with creative and fiscally sound innovations that lay the foundation for improved justice services through the 21st century. National Experience in 2001 Levels of victimization and criminal activity increased in 2001 for the first time since the early 1990s. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, residents experienced approximately 24.2 million crimes in 2001. For every 1,000 persons there was one rape or sexual assault, two assaults with injury, and three robberies. With fewer than half of the total crimes reported to police, 16% of the property crimes and 46% of the violent crimes were solved, down from 18% and 50% respectively in 1999. Murder was the offense cleared most often, with burglary cleared the least. Of cases in 2001, 18.6% involved defendants younger than eighteen. Nearly half the arson cases were attributed to juvenile offenders. In examining the 12 million crimes reported to law enforcement in 2001, 12% were violent crimes and 88% property crimes (as captured by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program). Larceny-theft was the crime most frequently perpetrated, exceeding seven million offenses. The monetary value of stolen property totaled $17.1 billion, with motor vehicle theft representing the greatest monetary loss. Slightly more than one-third of the reported stolen property was recovered. than the population increase. This region absorbed a 3% increase in the crime rate over the prior year. Of the 14 states in the West category, Arizona had the fourth highest increase in the rate of crime per 100,000 persons, following Wyoming, Colorado, and California. Crime index categories where Arizona rates increased significantly were murder and non-negligent manslaughter (up 7.7%), robbery (up 14.2%), and motor vehicle theft (up nearly 17%). During the 1990s, the number of jail inmates per 100,000 residents increased across the country from 163 to 222. This year, 23 of the 50 largest jail jurisdictions had a decrease in population over the last year while Maricopa County saw a 5% increase. Nineteen of the 50 largest jail systems operated above capacity, with Maricopa County having the third highest over-capacity rate (134%). Please see page 5 regarding the new jails under construction. Trends for Maricopa County differ from those seen nationally. While a portion of the difference may be attributable to the growing population, which will logically require more units of public service, justicerelated needs at times increase at a higher rate than the population. Maricopa County grew by 45% between 1990 and 2000, yet Superior Court criminal case filings grew by more than that during only half the time (FY97 to FY02). This phenomenon poses unique challenges to the Maricopa County justice system, with the increased need rarely met with commensurate increases in regional revenues. Table of Contents States comprising the West region, as reported by the UCR, experienced crime at a rate slightly higher Percent Change 2000 to 2001 Change in population Crime reported Adult jail inmates Juvenile detention Total Superior Court filings Adult criminal filings Civil filings Domestic relations filings Juvenile delinquency petitions Total case dispositions Orders of Protection Superior Court trials Adults on probation Juveniles on probation Total restitution, fines, and reimbursement collected Total expenditures in courts National +1% +2% +2% Arizona Maricopa +3% +4% +2% +4% +6% +27% +1% +0.8% -1% +11% +7% -9% -10% -0.5% +8% -0.4% -2% +9% +14% -14% +4% +53% +21% +4% +0.6% +3% +9% +3% +6% +59% +3% Page Adult Probation 17 Budget 8 Clerk of the Court 11 Constables Correctional Health County Attorney Criminal Justice Indicators 10 14 13 3 Directory 18 Detention Facilities Propositions 400 & 411 5 Indigent Representation 16 Justice Courts 10 Justice System Highlights Juvenile Court Services Maricopa County Highlights 2 12 2 Medical Examiner Other Proposition 400 and 411 Projects Pretrial Services 14 Sheriff’s Office 15 Superior Court 9 7 13 P AG E 2 MA RI COPA COUNTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT F I SCA L Y EAR 2001 -02 Maricopa County Government Highlights of Fiscal Year 2001-02 programs, and managing for results (see next section). Maricopa and one other county shared the highest ranking for the Government Performance Project, as released in the February 2002 issue of Governing Magazine. The County Administrative Officer also received special recognition. Population growth continued to eclipse other regions. Now home to 3.2 million residents, Maricopa County faced increased demand for services during a declining economy. Managing for Results became a reality, linking all staff performance to strategic goals of the County. Maricopa County is the fourth most populous county in the nation, home to more people than 21 states. The population in Maricopa County grew by just under a million between 1990 and 2000, the greatest increase of any county. Providing services to this growing community is made more challenging by the geographic distance to be covered; Maricopa County has a land area of 9,226 square miles (84.4% unincorporated), is the 14th largest county in landmass, and exceeds the area of seven states. Many regions this size have a stable population base. But this region must continue to grow government to effectively meet the growing demand for services, even when revenues decline. Maricopa County completed two rounds of difficult budget cuts, to maintain fiscal solvency in the wake of September 11 and the recessionary economy. County leaders took prompt, decisive action after the September 11th attacks amplified the economic slowdown that had already begun. To maintain a structurally balanced budget, the Board of Supervisors approved budget-balancing guidelines one month after the attack. The guidelines encouraged departments to continue providing exceptional service yet focus on reducing travel and capital outlay, cutting overall spending, and enhancing revenues. This methodology proved better than ‘across the board’ cuts, by allowing agencies to select cuts and minimize the impact to the community. In December the Board ratified these voluntary budget reductions, which resulted in an $11.8 million mid-year adjustment and a $3.5 million increase in department revenue projections. Yet additional cuts would be necessary. As a delivery system of services for state government, Maricopa County then faced legislative changes to address the $930 million budget shortfall in State government. Approximately $20 million of the reduced County revenues resulted from cuts from the State, mainly related to health care and criminal justice. Cost shifts to the County involved Adult Probation, reduced Fill-the-Gap grants that help speed case processing, and requiring County contributions for short-term holds at the Department of Corrections, all totaling a cost shift of $6.3 million per year. Elected officials, the judicial branch, and appointed departments all tightened belts again while developing the budget for fiscal year 2002-03. To keep service levels high but reduce expenditures, base budgets were reviewed, no new projects funded, and a salary freeze imposed. Through this process, base budgets were reduced by $22.8 million. The result is a conservative FY03 budget built on pessimistic revenue projections, which places Maricopa County in a position of fiscal stability. Maricopa County government received national recognition as one of the two best-run counties in the nation. In 2001, Maricopa County was selected as one of 40 counties in the nation to be evaluated as part of the Government Performance Project conducted by Syracuse University. Issues examined for each government centered on core management activities related to financials, capital, information technology, human resources This process integrates planning with budgeting and performance measuring. All County agencies and the Courts have developed these plans over the past two years, with FY02 the first full year of implementation. Each agency identified future service issues and then developed their vision, mission, goals, and named particular business programs, activities, and services to meet those goals, along with performance measures to monitor outcomes. Each quarter, agencies track performance measures and progress toward strategic goals. Management and elected officials use this information to make informed decisions throughout the year. The overall mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities. Citizens now may be provided definitive information on how Maricopa County furthers that mission, and what they receive for their investment of tax dollars. Highlights of Fiscal Year 2001-02 Activity Within the Maricopa County Justice System The justice and law enforcement agencies of Maricopa County each hold distinctive mandates yet function as part of a system. Responsibilities of these agencies are diverse; they investigate, arrest, charge, protect, defend, heal, prosecute, supervise, fine adjudicate, mediate, test, autopsy, or detain members of this community. This was a very dynamic year for the justice system. Partners struggled to absorb increasing demands for services by reengineering system practices. Felony filings increased considerably, up 7% over the prior year, to more than 30,000. Even with streamlining case processing, an increase of 1,900 cases strained the criminal justice system and contributed to a backlog. While 800-900 of these cases were due to direct filing of felonies into Superior Court, a net growth of 4% far out-stripped population growth in the region. Criminal case processing was dramatically restructured, compressing the disposition time by hearing felonies at newly instituted Regional Court Centers, and then directly filing those felonies with the Superior Court. The Regional Court Centers (RCCs) are now fully implemented and have dramatically shortened felony processing times by combining preliminary hearings and arraignments to be heard the same day. This efficiency eliminates ten days of case delay. And for defendants sentenced at an RCC, the 30 day presentence time has been reduced to 10 days. An assessment conducted for the Administrative Office of the Courts by Greacen Associates found the revised RCC procedure highly effective, concluding a net fiscal MA RI COP A COU NTY JU STI CE SYS TEM A CTI VI TI ES REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 P AG E 3 benefit to the Maricopa County criminal justice system of approximately $2.9 million per year. Though the RCCs condensed case processing times, case flow was still slow since felonies were first filed with the Justice Courts and then transferred to the Superior Court. Beginning in May 2002, all felonies were filed directly in the Superior Court, eliminating the need to transfer cases from one court to the other. Superior Court now receives an average of 3,000 direct filed felonies a month. Issues to be addressed during FY03 include implementing changes in the Rules of Criminal Procedure mandated by the Arizona Supreme Court, which amend speedy trial requirements. These changes also impose a timeline for complex cases. And particular ramifications of the Ring v. Arizona decision are still unclear, but will require jury sentencing decisions for death-penalty cases. Agencies continued to jointly achieve system-wide goals. The Countywide strategic priority related to the justice system is to have a safe community through a streamlined, integrated criminal Key Criminal Justice Indicators FY00 Sheriff’s Office Detention Bookings Avg Length of Stay (days) Avg Daily Population FY01 FY02 %CHG 112,123 114,832 115,070 21.54 22.73 23.57 6,664 7,043 7,559 0.2% 4% 7% justice system. To further this effort, agencies have developed, modified, and met components of the following goals: • Relating to preventing crime: Develop regional strategies by FY02 for reducing juvenile delinquency, and then show a 25% reduction in violent crimes and a 10% reduction in non-violent crimes in targeted areas during a five year period ending in FY04. • Relating to the number of cases: Conduct an evaluation of which Maricopa County justice sanctions, services, and programs effectively discourage repeat offenses by FY04. With this understanding, realize a 2% reduction in felony offender recidivism rates for each subsequent year. • Relating to improving case processing: Determine what additional progress can be made to more efficiently administer active criminal cases without diminishing effectiveness, by the end of FY03, and then: ♦ Close as many cases as are opened each month by the end of FY03. ♦ Clear 90% of cases within 180 days by the end of FY03. ♦ Clear 99% of cases within 180 days by FY06. ♦ Clear 90% of complex cases within 270 days by the end of FY03. ♦ Clear 99% of complex cases within 270 days by FY06. ♦ Clear 99% of death penalty cases within 450 days (18 months) by FY06. Proposition 400 funded construction of new detention yet would sunset before Maricopa County could revenues for the costly operations. The County legislative permission, and voters approved a extension of the jail tax in November 2002. facilities rely on received 20-year Superior Court—Criminal Department Filings1 26,184 28,106 30,020 7% Terminations 22,576 27,111 28,093 4% Case Clearance Rate 86.2% 96.5% 93.6% -3% Active Pending Inventory 8,661 7,655 7,741 1% Trials 777 825 734 -11% 1 direct filing of felony complaints into Superior Court began May 2002 [please refer to the section beginning on page 5] Pretrial Services General Supervision Intensive Supervision Electronic Monitoring While the highest criticality space need over the past few years has been for detention, all facets of the criminal justice system face dramatic space constraints. During FY02, new facilities opened included the Mesa Parking Garage, the Estrella Support Building for sentenced inmates at Tent City, and the Durango Parking Center. Adult Probation Standard Supervision Intensive Supervision 620 217 — 544 362 65 609 356 78 12% -2% 20% 22,459 1,562 22,503 1,666 23,567 1,573 5% -6% Juvenile Court, Probation, Detention Petitions Filed 20,248 Juv Avg Daily Population 397 Juv Avg Length of Stay (days) 14.4 Standard Supervision 4,678 Intensive Supervision 729 19,969 404 14.2 5,186 722 18,128 406 14.8 5,012 720 -9% 0.5% 4% -3% -0.3% Note: Throughout this report, the percent change columns (%CHG) indicate the percentage increase or decrease over the prior year. The largest jail construction program in the nation continued with all projects on time and within budget. [see section beginning on page 5] Other criminal justice facilities were completed, are under development, or planned for the future. With the onset of FY03, two other facilities were complete. The Northwest Regional Court expands Superior Court and Clerk of the Court services in that region, within the Surprise City Services Complex. Cases scheduled at that facility relate to civil, family, and probate matters. The Forensic Science Center and new administrative parking structure also opened, replacing an antiquated and grossly overcrowded morgue. Two detention-related facilities will open later in FY03. The Central Services Complex (including laundry, warehouse, food factory, central plant) will serve existing detention operations in the Durango complex and fully operate once the new beds come on-line in the following year. The Juvenile Residential Treatment Center will open in early 2003, providing space for juveniles requiring substance abuse treatment. Several court facilities are envisioned in a Court Master Plan under development. Projects include co-locating Justice Courts in the MA RI COPA COUNTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT F I SCA L Y EAR 2001 -02 PAG E 4 Northwest, plans for a Northeast Superior Court Center, and a downtown Courts tower. Present economic conditions have forced a moratorium on funding future capital development needs. Plans on hold include a new administration complex, which will make space available for criminal justice needs in the downtown court complex. Efforts toward crime prevention show promising results. The County mandate related to criminal justice is reactive, yet true improvements for the future require an offensive effort to prevent criminal behavior. Crime prevention remains the only long-term solution. Proposition 400 recommended an increased commitment to innovative prevention programs. Juvenile Probation, Adult Probation, the County Attorney’s Office, and Pretrial Services have joined with County Administration to develop a multi-agency juvenile delinquency and adult recidivism prevention plan. This plan is based upon the model used in San Diego and other metropolitan areas. The effort includes developing regional strategies with the large municipalities, and committing grant dollars to regionally-identified violence prevention goals. Prevention efforts have been initially targeted to the 2% of the residents in the region who are already part of the criminal justice system, to try to lessen the risk that these persons will re-offend. The Juvenile Probation Department has funded truancy prevention and other school and community-based solutions, to surround youth with protective factors so they may overcome risks to re-offend. The Department targets geographic areas that generate the highest number of referrals to Juvenile Court. The program has been highly successful, with recidivism rates dropping from nearly 42% to 37%. The Office of Management and Budget estimated a long-term cost avoidance of more than $6.7 million. New during FY02 and for the first time in this region, probation officers for juveniles and for adults joined forces to identify instances where a child and a parent might both be interacting with the justice system. This pilot project has been initiated in three of the highreferral zip code areas. Once staff identify where parents and children in the same household are on probation, the agencies target solutions to those families as a unit. Initial responses are promising, with results to be available at the end of the fiscal year. These significant efforts and results were recognized by the American Probation and Parole Association, who awarded the 2002 Excellence in Community Crime Prevention award to the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department. This award recognizes where agencies integrate crime prevention initiatives with traditional criminal justice services. The Juvenile Probation Department will continue to work with the community and justice agencies to improve the regional quality of life. Juvenile Probation Recidivism Rates Juvenile Probation Referrals 38,844 41.8% 39,571 36,859 33,641 1996 1997 1998 41.8% 40.5% 36,726 1999 37.7% 37.2% 36,013 2000 37.3% 2001 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Felony Case Events in the Maricopa County Justice System Fiscal Year 2001-02 Bookings 69,242 defendants - 52,779 cases Initial Appearances 68,153 Filings 30,020 Case Terminations 28,093 Pleas 18,788 Trials 734 Cases Dismissed 3,753 Sentencings 24,303 Dept. of Corrections/ Juvenile Corrections (DOC/DJC) 5,545 County Jail only 50 Probation and DOC/DJC 1,184 Probation and County Jail 6,452 Probation only 9,697 Suspended sentence/ no probation 1,375 Note: The graphic portrays all events related to felony cases that occurred in fiscal year 2002. It does not track individual cases through the system so the numbers may not add. MA RI COP A COU NTY JU STI CE SYS TEM A CTI VI TI ES REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 Adult and Juvenile Detention Facilities Propositions 400 and 411 PAG E 5 Summary of Jail Taxes Collected and Expended Through June 2002 Total Expenditures Through June 2002 by Project $230,794,280 $14,984,097 The most dramatic issue facing the Maricopa County justice system over the past few years has been inadequate space for holding the increasing number of adults and juveniles needing to be incarcerated, pending case disposition. The existing capacity, approximately 5,200 adults and 350 juveniles, did not adequately support the number of defendants judicial officers ordered to be detained. Construction of detention facilities is very costly yet pales in comparison with the operation costs over the life of a facility. Jails are among the most expensive public projects to operate, with round-the-clock needs. This region supports public safety. Regardless of economic conditions, Maricopa County voters have supported the need to detain defendants when such is deemed by the Courts to be in the best interests of life and safety. Proposition 400 was approved by 69% of the voters in 1998. Then Proposition 411 was approved in November of 2002, also by 69% of the voters. Maintaining a safe environment will continue to be of prime concern, as the region continues to grow. In 1998 voters overwhelming approved Proposition 400, creating a one-fifth cent sales tax to fund new detention facilities. Maricopa County faced significant overcrowding for both adult and juvenile detention, due to unprecedented population growth in the region and no funding for capital construction to keep pace with the need. With a Master Plan developed by a team of national experts, a Citizens Committee concluded that the County needed a threephase, 15-year plan to expand jail capacity for adults by 5,100 beds and juveniles by 777 beds, and to institute a series of programs to better manage defendants through the system. The legislative authorization for the County to put this issue to the voters resulted in a scaled-down version of that plan, to construct 3,139 adult and 388 juvenile beds. The jail construction program, the largest of its kind in the nation, is on time and within budget. Construction is funded in a “pay-as-you-go” method, avoiding interest. Five projects are already completed and all others are scheduled to be on-line in FY03 (see column to the right and the graphic on page 6). Although the Master Plan recommended an ongoing tax for operations, legislative decisions capped Proposition 400 at nine years or $900 million. Since construction costs represent only around 10% of the total investment in a jail over its useful life, the Master Plan recommended continuing funding to pay for operations. Yet legislators felt the County should make do with a scaled-down version of the plan, to a nine-year tax. The Board of Supervisors adopted a fiscal policy to try to assume the operating costs over time within the general fund, and use jail tax revenues for only onetime expenses. These strategies had potential for making needed funds available without going back to the voters to continue the jail tax. Meanwhile, nearly three-quarters of the total tax collected since 1998 was dedicated to construction and other one-time costs, leaving approximately $250 million for operational costs. Total Tax Collections Thru June 2002 $313,169,829 Total Tax Dollars Currently Authorized for Collections and Spending $900,000,000 $39,990,309 $5,580,220 $54,765,967 $115,473,687 $250,000,000 $230,794,280 Available Spending Thru Prop 400 Funds June 2002 for Operating $419,205,720 Estimated Remaining Construction Costs 4th Avenue Jail Complex Lower Buckeye Jail Juvenile Detention and Courts Building Improvement/Major Maintenance Integrated Criminal Justice System 4th Avenue Jail Complex ($54.7 milion): The jail is located between 3rd and 4th Avenues, and Madison and Jackson Streets in downtown Phoenix. The approximately 560,000 square foot mid-rise building contains 1,116 pretrial maximum custody jail cells, an intake processing center, two Initial Appearance Courtrooms, two Early Disposition Courtrooms, administrative support space, and parking. A tunnel system connects the new facility with the existing Madison Street Jail and Courts. Lower Buckeye Jail ($115.4 million): The jail is located on Lower Buckeye Road just east of 35th Avenue in Phoenix. The approximately 825,000 square foot project contains 1,110 cells including 288 maximum custody adult cells, 72 minimum custody adult cells, 504 remanded juvenile cells, 210 psychiatric cells, and 36 infirmary cells. The Lower Buckeye Jail also includes intake, jail command offices, Correctional Health Services offices, a central infirmary and pharmacy, Central Services (laundry, stores warehouse/food factory and central plant), Sheriff’s Office Training Facility and Facilities Management Department Maintenance Facility. Juvenile Detention and Courts ($39.9 million): The Durango facilities are located south of Durango Street between 27th and 35th Avenues in Phoenix. The approximately 270,000 square foot project contains 220 rooms, 12 new courts, and judicial suites and associated office space for support staff and related functions. A Residential Treatment Facility located at the corner of Durango and 35th Avenue includes approximately 28,000 square feet and 48 beds. Building Improvement/Major Maintenance ($14.9 million): These costs are associated with renovating or replacing existing mechancal, electrical, plumbing, security, roofing, flooring, painting, and glazing systems at existing county detention facilities. These completed projects have improved operation of the existing detention facilities. Integrated Criminal Justice Information System ($5.5 million): This department is responsible for providing automated systems and information technology expertise to promote efficient sharing of case information between criminal justice agencies. This will expedite case processing, reduce redundant data input, and ultimately enhance public safety. MA RI COP A COU NTY JU STI CE SYS TEM A CTI VI TI ES REPORT FI S CAL YEA R 2001-0 2 P AG E 6 Summary of Proposition 411 Taxes and Use of Taxes But the economy slowed, then September 11 hit and the economy pitched to recession levels. County revenues declined significantly due to the slowing of the economy, September 11 and the resulting recession, and the Arizona State Government budget crisis. Sales tax growth slowed, even worse in Arizona than nationally. Customary effects of a recession are that property tax revenues flatten and demands for County services increase. County mandated maintenance of effort contributions for detention needs escalated since 1999, to $101 million in FY02. Significant losses occurred in the County health system, and State budget balancing efforts shifted additional costs to the County. Juvenile Facility Operational Costs Food, Clothing, and Other Supplies/ Services 19% Use of Extended Jail Tax Funds * Youth Supervisors and Other Staff 81% Construction/ Renovation 5% Juvenile Operations 21% Adult Facility Operational Costs Food, Clothing, and Other Supplies/Services 25% Adult Operations 74% Meanwhile, detention operational costs increased. Detailed planning by transition teams for adult and juvenile facilities showed that the actual detention operational costs for the new jails would greatly exceed preliminary forecasts in the Master Plan. This was due mainly to increases in detention officer salaries and costs for correctional health care. All totaled, Maricopa County would need an additional $100 million per year to fully operate the new detention facilities. Detention Officers and Other Staff 75% * Once Adult/Juvenile operations and construction/ renovation are fully funded, consideration will be given to funding programs that reduce the expense of adult and juvenile facilities. To ensure public safety in the region, Maricopa County voters approved Proposition 411 which continues the existing jail tax. Once County financial planners realized it would be impossible to pay for new detention facility operations without a dedicated revenue stream, the County returned to the State Legislature for authority to request of voters that they continue the jail tax. House Bill 2313 became law. On November 5, 2002, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 411. This tax extension will begin upon expiration of the existing jail tax levy, and may continue up to 20 years. Even cutting all non-mandated services and raising taxes to the limit would only provide enough County revenues to cover one-third of the $100 million per year needed. Completed facilities would sit vacant or be only partly utilized. As an administrative delivery system of services for state government, Maricopa County has 97% of its functions mandated by state or federal government. Cutting all non-mandated services and raising property taxes to the limit (the only revenue source controlled by the Board) would generate only $33 million per year, far less than the $100 million needed to operate the new detention centers. Current detention population figures indicated that all existing plus new facilities must be operated to meet the need. Approximately 72% of Proposition 400 revenues will pay for construction of detention facilities, and 95% of Proposition 411 jail tax revenues will fund operations. Proposition 400 revenues presently generate $103 million per year and have been used to support one-time expenses since the tax Jail Expansion Program Construction Comple tion Time s Mesa P arking Garage Estrella Support Building M ar-00 Se p-99 M ay-01 Complete De c-00 Complete Fourth Avenue Jail Jackson Street Storm Sewer Oct-00 Durango P arking Structure Complete Jul-01 M ay-01 Durango Utility Relocation Oct-00 De c-02 Complete Jul-01 Fe b-01 Lower Buckeye Adult Detention Se p-03 Oct-00 Lower Buckeye Central Services De c-02 Jul-01 Durango Residential T reatment Center De c-02 Jun-01 Durango Juvenile and Courts Fe b-04 Jul-01 Southeast Juvenile Jan-99 Nov-03 Apr-01 Jun-99 Dec-99 Jun-00 Dec-00 Jun-01 Se p-03 Dec-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 Dec-03 MA RI COP A COUNTY JU STI CE SYS TEM A CTI VI TI ES REPOR T FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 would sunset. The Board of Supervisor Resolution on Proposition 411 stipulates that revenues will support needs in the following priority order: • first, maintaining and operating the adult and juvenile detention facilities. • second, constructing or renovating facilities. • third, programs to reduce the expense of adult and juvenile facilities. Once Proposition 411 becomes effective, revenues are projected at approximately $132 million annually, with operational costs absorbing the vast majority of collections (see graphic page 6). Proposition 411 revenues will be collected beginning in 2007. However, the new facilities will be on line in 2003, with detention expenses of $100 million per year. Operational funding set aside from Proposition 400 totals $250 million (see page 5). Therefore four years will pass before the new tax is effective, yet only 2.5 years of funding will be available. Maricopa County leaders continue to pursue improvement in the criminal justice system. Recognizing that we may not ‘build our way out of the problem,’ Maricopa County will lead an interagency effort to seriously target Status of Other Proposition 400 Projects at Close of Fiscal Year 2001-02 Implement an Integrated Criminal Justice Information System: This project will provide reliable data more quickly for sound case and jail population management decisions. Progress includes completing: • seven computer interfaces to an integration computer. • four data exchanges between agencies. • a shared development lab for agencies. • designing a single point for case number assignment. ICJIS has been recognized by state and national entities as one of the more aggressive and comprehensive information integration efforts in the country. Develop Regional Centers for Courts Not-of-Record and/or Reduce Transports to Justice of the Peace Courts: Justice and Superior Courts are consolidating early felony proceedings to improve case processing. These three Regional Court Centers (Northwest, Downtown, Southeast) are reducing processing times for all pretrial stages, also saving jail days. Beginning in May 2002 all felony cases are filed directly with Superior Court, through these Centers. For more information see pages 2 and 9. Implement Differentiated Case Management: Some actions that contributed to reducing the active caseload more than 1,000 cases from last year and over 2,500 from two years ago were: Civil Department judges acting in an “overflow” capacity to try criminal cases from case transfer, the direct filing of felonies into Superior Court, improved management information, and 24-hour Initial Appearance Court. Consolidate Criminal Divisions to a Common Location: Moving the Southeast criminal divisions to downtown facilities has not been pursued. Yet downtown criminal divisions have been colocated. And Probation Revocation proceedings are now consolidated downtown, which significantly reduces inmate transports [also applies to prior initiative]. PA GE 7 crime prevention, the only true means to reduced public investment for the future (see page 4). County leaders will also continue to identify ways to streamline case processing and otherwise improve efficiencies in the criminal justice system. The Board Resolution on Proposition 411 states, “The County will continue a commitment to reduce crime and improve functioning of the criminal justice system, in order to reduce the expense of adult and juvenile jail facilities. The projects identified in Proposition 400 . . . will receive high priority consideration for general fund or other allocations, balanced against other priorities identified during annual budgetary reviews.” Citizens continue to monitor County implementation of new detention facilities and programs. Review of detention needs has always been a partnership between County government and citizens. In 1997, the Citizens Advisory Committee on Jail Planning held 19 public meetings on the crisis and received information from hundreds of citizens and nationally recognized jail experts. Presently a Citizens Jail Oversight Committee meets bi-monthly to ensure that promises made in 1998 through Proposition 400 are kept, and will ensure proper implementation of Proposition 411. Expand Pretrial Release Supervision: General and intensive supervision of defendants out-of-custody has expanded, with intensive levels including electronic monitoring for up to 100 defendants. Judges are ordering electronic monitoring more extensively (averaging nearly 80 per day). Certain defendants undergo drug testing and treatment. Staff now cover the 24-hour Initial Appearance Court, and future steps may include implementing adversarial bail review hearings within 72 hours of arrest. Enhance Substance Abuse Evaluation and Programming: The Reach Out Program assesses jailed, non-violent probationers with substance abuse problems and determines their level of treatment need. During the fiscal year, Reach Out staff completed 1,528 clinical assessments and made possible the release of 737 probationers to outpatient, halfway houses, and residential treatment. A similar program initiated in 2001 screens mentally ill substance abusers and attempts to place them with proper case management. Of 195 screened during FY02, 54 were released from custody to programming. Expand Drug Court: Early Disposition Court targets low-level drug offenders (Proposition 200 cases) and welfare fraud cases, at Downtown and Southeast sites. Track II Drug Court addresses first time possession offenders, where jail is not an option yet aggressive court supervision is needed. Expand Community Based Programs for Juveniles: The Status Offender Alternative Response (SOAR) program provides crisis intervention for children and families in lieu of detention. Juvenile Drug Court is implemented and refined. School Violence Prevention and Outreach programs continue. Electronic monitoring ensures compliance of juveniles out-of-custody, up to 125 at a time, as does drug diversion, home detention, and day reporting. Crime prevention continues as a focus, by partnering with other county agencies (see more Juvenile Court info on page 12 and crime prevention section on page 4). MA RI COPA COUNTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT F I SCA L Y EAR 2001 -02 PAG E 8 Justice System Agency Budgets While many high population areas maintain a relatively stable population, service need, and revenue base, Maricopa County government must attempt to keep pace with the growth in this region. This becomes most challenging with the justice system. Budget priorities of the Board of Supervisors have consistently focused on the high criticality needs related to health care and criminal justice, while balancing those needs against other responsibilities. The fundamental community services related to health and safety have received the bulk of any available budget growth since the mid-1990s. The justice system is also the arena offering the greatest potential for efficiencies and improvements, as the system continues to grow. The economic downturn of the prior and the current fiscal year caused unprecedented need to do more with less. This comes while agencies are 'gearing-up' for the new detention facilities to become operational (see pages 2 and 5). For fiscal year 2002-03, the net Maricopa County budget is $2.37 billion. The budget for the criminal justice agencies comprises 19.6% of the total county budget, a slight decrease from 21% the prior year. FY03 Adopte d Budge t by Departm ent General Funds Detention Funds With the events of September 11th and a general downturn in the economy, Maricopa County's Board of Supervisors took mid-year action to deal with a forecasted structural imbalance in the FY 2001-02 budget (see page 2). On October 15th, Board members approved the FY 2001-02 Budget Balancing Policy Guidelines and Plan. One element of this plan was for County departments to submit voluntary expenditure budget reductions and revenue enhancements. In total, the Maricopa County justice system reduced their FY 2001-02 appropriations by $1,047,483. FY02 Mid-year Voluntary Reductions General Fund Adult Probation $141,500 Clerk of the Court 66,086 Constables 10,100 Correctional Health 0 County Attorney 335,677 Indigent Representation3 100,774 Justice Courts 17,990 Juvenile Probation 150,000 Medical Examiner 7,500 Sheriff's Office 0 Superior Court2 102,400 Total $932,027 Special Revenue $0 62,456 0 0 0 0 53,000 0 0 0 0 $115,456 Total $141,500 128,542 10,100 0 335,677 100,774 70,990 150,000 7,500 102,400 $1,047,483 5 Grants/Other Funds Aggre gate Annual Budge ts for all M aricopa County Jus tice Age ncie s Sheriff’s Off ice A dult Probation County A t torney Superior Court Juvenile Probation Indigent Rep Clerk of t he Court Corr Health Justice Courts M edical Examiner Constables General Funds Grant Funds $500M $400M $300M $ 324M $ 263M $ 287M $ 365M Other Funds $ 407M $ 429M $ 436 $ 465M $200M $100M $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 Millions of Dollars $100 $120 $M $140 FY 96 FY 97 FY98 FY99 FY 00 FY 01 FY02 FY03 FY03 Adopted Budget by Department General Detention Grants1 and Total Funds Funds Other Funds Sheriff’s Office $37,139,909 $85,953,950 $17,136,037 $140,229,896 0 41,973,567 56,184,531 Adult Probation 14,210,964 County 42,352,207 0 10,395,192 52,747,399 Attorney 2 41,595,611 0 9,757,277 51,352,888 Superior Court Juvenile 11,608,350 14,784,146 20,179,814 46,572,310 Probation 3 41,455,394 0 1,666,221 43,121,615 Indigent Rep Clerk of the 21,020,241 0 8,510,881 29,531,122 Court Correctional 0 21,267,325 1,241,935 22,509,260 Health4 Justice Courts 15,710,924 0 1,475,273 17,186,197 Medical 3,888,275 0 0 3,888,275 Examiner Constables 1,573,243 0 0 1,573,243 Total $230,555,118 $122,005,421 $112,336,197 $464,896,736 Jail Tax Revenues and Expenditures FY01 FY02 FY03 $95,333,000 $103,017,791 $101,691,796 Revenue Expenditures Capital Facilities Development 69,618,279 232,997,678 249,325,795 Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) 1,900,000 4,682,763 4,541,898 Other Jail Tax 9,376,325 17,020,497 26,955,666 1grants are primarily from state agencies Pretrial Services, a segment of the Superior Court 3effective in FY03, funding for Judicial Mandates was budgeted with Indigent Representation 4includes hospitalization budget 5on this chart, general fund amounts include detention fund appropriations 2includes MARI COPA COU NTY JUS TI CE SYSTEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 Superior Court PA G E 9 To comply with speedy trial rules the Superior Court reengineered how felony cases are initiated, collapsing lower court locations from nineteen to three and the number of hearings from multiple to one. Agency Information Major Events/Changes The Superior Court provides a public forum for dispute resolution and court services so that the public may realize timely, fair, and individualized justice. The Regional Court Centers (RCC) are now fully implemented, and have dramatically shortened felony processing times by handling preliminary hearings and arraignments on the same day. This efficiency eliminates ten days of case delay. For defendants sentenced at an RCC, the 30– day presentence waiting period has been reduced to 10 days. Superior Court Filings by Department - FY02 Total Filings 119,277 Fam ily Court 25% Crim inal 25% Juvenile 15% Civil 26% Mental Health 2% Probate Tax 6% Court 1% Superior Court Case Filings by Department FY00 FY01 FY02 %CHG Civil 31,258 28,052 31,188 11% Criminal 26,184 28,106 30,0201 7% Family Court 28,551 30,695 29,894 -3% Juvenile 19,439 18,984 18,016 -5% Probate 6,414 6,569 7,047 7% Mental Health 1,518 1,640 2,104 28% Tax Court 1,043 1,140 1,008 -12% Total Filings 114,407 115,186 119,277 4% 1direct filing of felony complaints in Superior Court began in May 2002 Filings: Adult criminal filings continue to increase. The Court received more than 30,000 filings this last fiscal year, a seven percent increase over the prior year. As indicated on page 2, approximately 3% of the FY02 new felony filings can be attributed to direct felony filing into Superior Court, which became effective May 2002. The Court disposed of over 28,000 cases in FY02. Felony Case Filings by Class of Felony FY99 FY00 FY01 Class One 169 191 151 Class Two 3,987 4,270 4,028 Class Three 3,869 3,941 4,224 Class Four 10,184 10,779 11,653 Class Five 1,775 1,707 1,812 Class Six 4,328 5,296 6,238 Total 24,312 26,184 28,106 FY02 205 3,962 4,867 12,614 1,817 6,555 30,020 %CHG 36% -2% 15% 8% 0.3% 5% 7% Case Processing Times continue to improve. The end of the fiscal year saw the Court terminating 80% of its active cases within 150 days, a six percent improvement over July 2001. The Court also terminated 84% of active cases within 180 days, an improvement of two percent over July 2001. The Downtown RCC began handling felonies from ten Justice Courts in August; the Glendale RCC began operation in October; the Southeast RCC began handling felonies from all the Southeast Justice Courts in December. During the upcoming fiscal year, the three RCCs should handle nearly 20,000 felonies. Direct Complaint Program: Starting in May, all felonies were filed directly in the Superior Court, thus eliminating the need to transfer cases from a Justice Court to the Superior Court. Superior Court now receives an average of 3,000 direct filed felonies a month. Limited Jurisdiction Court Coordination: Effective July 2002 and in response to an Arizona Supreme Court administrative order, Presiding Judge Colin Campbell oversees the Justice and Municipal Courts as well as the Superior Court. Plans are underway to increase coordination and efficiencies by sharing administrative resources between Justice Court Services and Superior Court Administration. Initial Pretrial Conferences (IPTC): Experience has shown that settlements occur most often at scheduled court hearings. In October, the court advanced IPTCs from 56 days after arraignment to 35 days. This change advanced settlement and plea negotiations by almost a month in many cases. In July, the Court initiated an IPTC Center composed of two commissioners. The Center now handles IPTCs, changes of plea, and settlement conferences formerly heard by the manager judge program. The Probation Revocation Center was also implemented in July of 2002, along with the IPTC Center. The PR Center handles all initial probation revocation proceedings and disposes of many cases, freeing up divisions for more trial work. Final Trial Management Conferences: Despite effective early case management efforts, many cases still settle just prior to trial. This frustrates jurors screened and selected and wastes court time. In February, the Court launched a major effort to hold final trial management conferences, in most cases, just before the scheduled trial. These conferences should advance settlements and eliminate wasted resources. 9000 Active Crim inal Cas e Inve ntory 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 Jul-98 Jan-99 Jul-99 Jan-00 Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 MARI COPA COU NTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FI SCAL YEAR 20 01 -02 P AG E 10 Justice Courts Justice Courts worked with the Superior Court to usher in unprecedented improvements in managing community justice needs. Agency Information Filings and Terminations FY00 FY01 FY02 %CHG The 23 justice courts are limited jurisdiction courts that process DUI, criminal traffic, civil traffic, misdemeanor, civil, small claims, forcible detainer, domestic violence and injunction against harassment cases. Driving Under Filings the Influence Terminations 6,859 7,383 9,369 27% 4,068 6,507 7,931 22% 34,498 19,751 21,999 11% Major Events Criminal TrafficTerminations 27,776 17,428 19,060 9% Filings 158,138 154,950 155,291 0.20% Terminations 146,412 144,279 146,430 1.50% Filings 22,853 23,618 23,086 -2% Terminations 23,177 21,464 19,133 -11% Filings 18,089 16,661 15,2792 -8% Terminations 16,900 16,394 17,066 4% Justice Courts began a major reorganization and retooling effort in FY02. Significant components include: • • Filings Civil Traffic Shifting early felony processing to Superior Court. Reorganizing Justice Court Services with appointment of a presiding judge, a court administrator, and a deputy court administrator. The courts have been grouped into four regions with the appointment of a regional leadership judge and regional court administrators. Misdemeanor Felony Instituting new cost control reports to allow Justice Court Services to better manage the budget, and establishing review teams to help courts streamline operations. Filings 17,600 17,665 19,045 8% Small Claims Terminations 17,482 16,529 17,489 6% • Coordinating misdemeanor calendars to reduce system transport costs for in-custody defendants. Forcible Detainer Filings 59,743 68,787 75,663 10% Terminations 58,589 66,961 74,848 12% • Instituting a caseflow management program to reduce pending case inventory in the DUI, misdemeanor, and criminal traffic areas. The DUI pending caseload was reduced 74%, misdemeanors reduced 51%, and criminal traffic reduced 31%. Filings 17,422 20,125 25,074 25% Other Civil Terminations 17,839 17,543 21,415 22% • • Establishing a temporary drug court for extreme DUI cases at three justice courts co-located downtown. • With State agencies’ involvement, initiated an insurance fraud prevention program. • Enhancing technology to transfer data to a central domestic violence repository. • Improving collections of unpaid fines by establishing a garnishment program and capturing state tax refunds. Filings Terminations Filings 5,405 5,600 6,068 8% Orders of Protection Terminations 5,185 5,461 5,947 9% Injunctions Filings 5,200 4,779 4,990 4% Against Harrassement Terminations 4,986 4,659 4,836 4% 2 Direct filing of felony complaints into Superior Court began May 2002 FY01 Trials Criminal Traffic Misdemeanor Civil Total 150,000 100,000 NonJury Jury Total 536 31 567 508 19,873 20,917 FY02 NonJury Jury 951 1 509 262 5 19,878 22,459 37 20,954 23,672 66 Total 1,017 10 272 5 22,464 81 23,753 50,000 Other Proceedings Small Claims Hearings/Defaults Small Claims (w/Hearing Officer) Civil Traffic Hearings Felony Preliminary Hearings1 Initial Appearance Order of Protection Review Hearings Injunctions Against Harassment Review Fugitive Complaints Juvenile Hearings Search Warrants Issued 1 FY01 4,099 2,332 4,188 1,264 10,623 818 858 0 0 3,020 FY02 4,030 2,729 4,560 1,481 9,640 987 934 1 17 3,192 Harrassement Orders of Protection Other Civil Forcible Detainer Small Claims Felony Misd. Civil Traffic Criminal Traffic DUI 0 %CHG -2% 17% 9% 17% -9% 21% 9% 1% 17% 6% Direct filing of felony complaints began in May 2002. Preliminary hearings after that date were set in Superior Court and are not reflected here. Constables Agency Information Constables are elected to serve criminal and civil process of the 23 Justice Courts. Their duties include: executing and returning writs of possession, restitution, and execution; serving orders of protection and orders prohibiting harassment; and serving criminal and civil summons and subpoenas. The impact of legislation increasing user fees is reflected in the FY02 data. Now revenues more closely approximate cost recovery. 1,200,000 Fees Received by Constables 800,000 400,000 0 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 MARI COPA COU NTY JUS TI CE SYSTEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 Clerk of the Court P AG E 11 Documents related to all adult cases filed in fiscal year 2001-02 were electronically scanned, and nearly two million minute entries were distributed by e-mail. Agency Information The Clerk of the Superior Court provides court-related records management, as well as financial and family support services to the public, the legal community, and the Superior Court. Case File Documents1 FY01 FY022 FY99 FY00 Civil 389,200 313,020 408,790 409,276 Family 608,400 445,307 510,293 586,328 Juvenile 253,181 249,984 241,470 265,112 Criminal 512,508 381,990 495,144 462,426 Probate/MH 107,059 120,723 92,588 99,671 Total 1,870,348 1,511,024 1,748,285 1,822,813 %CHG -20% -27% The Clerk of the Superior Court has researched and implemented a number of other technology projects that help the office work more efficiently, involving case exhibits and communications with the legal community. -1% -26% 13% -19% Northwest Court: The Clerk of the Superior Court worked with the Superior Court to plan for, staff, and open the new facility in Surprise, dramatically improving access for residents in that area. 1 refers to documents filed in a case after the initial file has been opened certain FY02 figures appear artificially decreased due to implementation of a new court case management system and an electronic imaging system 2 New Cases Initiated 40 ,00 0 Civil Criminal Appeals Family Probate/Mental Health Juvenile 30 ,00 0 20 ,00 0 10 ,00 0 0 FY 9 9 FY 0 0 FY 01 and enhances efficiency. The full cycle from the Clerk’s Office, through the Public Defender Records System update, and distribution to Public Defender attorneys is regularly completed in three days (versus one to two months previously). This has improved the timeliness of office records and statistical reporting. In addition, many of the general business minute entries are no longer printed by the office at all, saving paper as well as labor. FY 0 2 Major Events Electronic Document Management System (EDMS): Over the past few years, the Clerk’s Office has been working with a consultant to develop a master plan for design, procurement, and implementation of an EDMS. Document scanning for all 2002 adult criminal cases is underway, and integration with the new iCIS case management system is nearly complete. A pilot project has been underway since December 1, 1997, where all Probate Department documents filed since that date have been imaged and are available electronically. With expansion of the project into other areas, the EDMS will allow additional automated routing (workflow) and storage of these electronic images. Most importantly, this system will provide the back-office automation required to implement electronic filing of Superior Court documents. A pilot e-filing project is in the planning stage, and is intended to support three new complex civil litigation courts planned for 2003. Electronic Delivery of Minute Entries: The Clerk of the Superior Court continues to expand electronic delivery of minute entries. About 150 law firms/agencies, representing 2,000 attorneys, have registered for electronic receipt of minute entries. The Public Defender’s Office is the largest County agency to benefit from this expedited delivery system. Not only are minute entries received significantly sooner than before, they are sorted and later distributed electronically within the Public Defender’s Office. This reduces manual effort Other Workload Indicators FY00 FY01 FY022 %CHG Marriage licenses issued 13,144 14,600 12,234 -16% Passport applications 36,164 33,383 24,180 -28% 12,471 12,280 12,219 -0.50% 1,806,554 1,845,042 1,434,020 -22% 6,941,812 5,062,711 3,409,208 -33% 1,372,132 - Notary bond applications processed Documents docketed Images microfilmed3 Document pages scanned3 Exhibits processed Minute entry pages distributed (paper) Minute entry pages distributed (electronically) Total minute entry pages distributed Number of RFR payments processed Amount RFR payments 3 101,854 120,779 109,976 -9% 5,089,970 804,022 914,675 14% 0 1,331,874 1,938,759 46% 5,089,970 2,135,896 2,853,434 34% 58,923 67,671 60,824 -10% $5,735,345 $9,092,695 $9,239,148 2% reflects the shift in business processing from paper and microfilm to electronic documents and scanning Report Information Please excuse minor differences in data reporting between agencies, due to the point in time when data is captured and different definitions. Also agencies do not all deal with the same cases; Superior Court criminal cases include both County Attorney and Attorney General filings, and Indigent Representation and the County Attorney have cases at Justice Courts and the Superior Court. In percent change columns (%CHG), the number indicates the percentage increase or decrease over the prior year. For questions or suggestions regarding this report, contact Trina Lambert (506-1310). For information regarding departmental reporting and data please contact representatives listed on the last pages. MARI COPA COU NTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FI SCAL YEAR 20 01 -02 PA GE 12 Crime prevention efforts appear to be contributing to fewer referrals to the Juvenile Court and fewer commitments to the Department of Juvenile Corrections (see page 4 for related information). Juvenile Court Services Agency Information Major Events Juvenile Court Services provides information, services, and programs to county residents so they can solve problems associated with juvenile crime. Symposium about Schools Are For Education noT worrY (SAFETY): In September 2002, the County and Juvenile Probation Department cohosted the Second Annual Symposium on School Safety. This event is part of a series offered via grant sponsorship from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Symposium brings together teachers, principals, school administrators, police, probation officers, and specialists in the fields of threat assessment, bullying, and related topics, to develop partnerships and plans that enhance school safety. The Juvenile Probation Department administers community-based prevention programs, formal diversion in collaboration with the Court and the County Attorney, and Community Justice Centers and Committees, as an extension of restorative justice. The Department also manages two detention facilities with a 357 bed capacity, is planning for a major facility expansion, and supervises youth placed on probation by the Court. Petitions Filed with Juvenile Court FY99 FY00 FY01 Delinquency1 13,852 17,428 16,783 Direct File as Adult N/A N/A 368 Dependency 1,169 989 982 Adoption 970 930 1,000 Severance 574 406 2792 Other 690 495 557 17,255 20,248 19,969 Total 1 FY02 %CHG 15,026 -10% 335 -9% 1,033 5% 945 -6% 2932 5% 496 -11% 18,128 -9% 6% of this change is due to new processes regarding handling citations 2 FY01 & FY02 severance filings have decreased because no new severance petition is required if there is already a dependency filed (as per change in law) Juvenile Detention Average Daily Population Average Daily Capacity Average Daily % Over Capacity Avg Length of Stay (Days) FY00 FY01 397 404 FY02 %CHG 406 0.5% 330 357 357 0% 20% 14.4 13% 14.2 14% 14.8 1% 4.2% Average Daily Juvenile Probation Population FY00 FY01 Standard Probation 4,678 5,186 Intensive Probation 729 722 Total 5,407 5,908 396 FY02 5,012 720 5,732 %CHG -3% -0.3% -3% 288 -27% Juvenile Community Service Hours Completed FY00 FY01 FY02 226,888 182,823 166,744 %CHG -9% Juvenile Compliance with Diversion Consequences FY00 FY01 Consequences Given 16,754 10,928 Completed on Time Eventual Compliance Did not Comply JAG Center: Three years ago, the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department obtained a grant from the Governor’s Office to provide services to at-risk youth in Glendale. The purpose of the grant was to provide services in middle and elementary schools. The ultimate goal was to expand the services from strictly school-based to a community-based alternative center. This goal was achieved when Westside Social Services opened the doors of the JAG Center (Juvenile Alternatives in Glendale) in December of 2001. The primary goal of the JAG Center is to divert productive youth that may exhibit initial signs of pre-delinquent behavior. It offers families in the West Valley the option of a time out (up to 23 hours) for their children, individual and family case management, development of comprehensive action plans, personal development groups, pre-employment mentoring, and referrals to outside services. The JAG Center’s goals are to enhance family relationships, improve the self-esteem of children, introduce basic employment skills, and increase positive behavior. Juvenile Population vs. Referrals Juveniles Committed to the Department of Juvenile Corrections FY00 FY01 FY02 %CHG 451 The highlight of this year’s Symposium was a specialized ‘Art, Essay and Poetry’ contest on school safety. Local personalities presented certificates and prizes to a dozen winners chosen from over 1,000 entries, which wall-papered the meeting room. The work of the winners will be displayed on a calendar being developed as part of a public outreach and awareness component of the grant, that will include information for parents if their child demonstrates problem behavior. FY02 10,632 13,157 3,292 9,306 1,414 8,842 1,726 125 208 64 Note: consequences may include community service, participation in educational programs or counseling programs, and restitution P opulation Ages 8 -17 Referrals (delinquent, incorrigibility) 600,000 400,000 200,000 8.1% 8.2% 7.5% 0 FY00 FY01 FY02 Ju ve n ile C om plian ce with Probation C on se qu e n ce s FY02 Did not Comply 1% Eventual Compliance 16% Completed on time 83% MARI COPA COU NTY JUS TI CE SYSTEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 Pretrial Services P AG E 1 3 Electronic monitoring of Criminal Court defendants has shown a steady increase in use since the program began in early 2000. Based on that success, a request has been submitted to use a Global Positioning System (GPS) to enhance supervision and provide the Court with further release alternatives. Agency Profile Major Events Pretrial Services, an agency of Superior Court, has five primary responsibilities: 1. Conduct background checks on arrested defendants, which involves interviews and information verification for persons booked into the Maricopa County Jail System. 2. Provide standard, intensive, and electronic monitoring services for defendants released to Pretrial Services and secure that defendant’s appearance in court. 3. Track defendants who fail to appear. 4. Refer defendants to needed social services, including drug treatment. 5. Complete Bond Modification investigations and reports for the Court. Conducted 38,177 interviews of arrested defendants in the Maricopa County Jail System. Expanded services and personnel to the Southeast Complex, to accommodate growth in the Regional Court Center. Implemented a new drug testing process using random scheduling, which results in cost savings without a compromise in service. Modified policies and procedures, as well as internal forms, to conform with best practices identified through research of areas throughout the country. Modified countywide Release Forms to a standardized document (eliminating 56 versions), realizing a significant cost and space savings. Instituted a pilot project to evaluate the efficacy and value of a Bail Review Unit. Began the RFP process for a drug treatment provider, requiring builtin performance measures and seamless collaboration with Adult Probation for better service and cost savings. Submitted a request to use a Global Positioning System (GPS) to enhance electronic supervision and provide the Court with further release alternatives. Researched, and will continue to pursue, technological aids to enhance financial information used in setting bonds and determining indigency. Began developing a more technologically integrated Pretrial Automated Case Tracking System, to be implemented in FY03. Pretrial Services General Supervision Intensive Supervision Electronic Monitoring Total 1,200 FY00 FY01 FY02 %CHG 620 218 543 327 64.1 935 610 339 77.5 1,027 12% 4% 19% 10% 838 Total De fe ndants on Pre trial Supe rvis e d Re le as e 800 400 0 FY00 FY01 County Attorney FY02 The County Attorney’s Office prosecuted more than 9,000 juvenile petitions and 30,000 felony cases in fiscal year 2001-02, a 7.8% increase over the previous year. Agency Information Major Events The County Attorney’s Office provides criminal prosecution, victim services, crime prevention, and legal counsel for county government, on behalf of the people of Maricopa County. • Adult Felony Filings by Offense Type FY01 Homicide 217 Sexual Assault 91 Child Molestation 366 Robbery 722 Aggravated Assault 2,675 Burglary 1,629 Arson 42 Vehicular Theft 1,619 DUI 3,049 Theft 840 Drug Related 11,025 Other Offenses 6,136 Total 28,411 Source: County Attorney Information System FY02 279 90 377 831 2,546 1,738 41 2,167 3,121 860 11,613 6,970 30,633 %CHG 29% -1% 3% 15% -5% 7% -2% 34% 2% 2% 5% 14% 8% • The Office participated in implementing the three Regional Court Centers, designed to promote the efficient handling of felony preliminary hearings. This effort included a complete “reengineering” of early case processing for filing direct complaints into Superior Court. The Probation Violation Bureau was put into operation in the fall of 2001, to improve the prosecution of cases involving probationers who are facing Petitions to Revoke probation. The Probation Violation Bureau handled over 8,000 cases in FY02. Adult Fe lony Cas e Filings 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jul00 Oct00 Jan01 Apr01 Jul01 Oct01 Jan02 Apr02 MA RI COP A COU NTY JU STI CE SYS TEM A CTI VI TI ES REPORT FI S CAL YEA R 2001-0 2 P AG E 14 Medical Examiner The Medical Examiner’s Office completed 94% of all case reports within 90 days during fiscal year 2001-02, a significant improvement over prior years. Agency Information Caseload Summary The Office of the Medical Examiner makes a public inquiry and investigation to determine the cause and manner of death when that death is unattended, unnatural, or suspicious (approximately one-fifth of all deaths in Maricopa County). FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 %CHG Number of Cases % of Autopsies Performed 3,858 62% 3,790 61% 3,983 60% 4,153 60% 4% - Accident 1,266 1,208 1,362 1,454 7% 330 326 343 417 22% Natural 1,774 1,763 1,784 1,736 -3% Suicide 417 413 413 452 9% 53 72 75 82 9% - - 6 12 - Upon completion of the investigation, the Medical Examiner will issue a report of findings of any contributing factors and cause of death, and a determination as to the manner of death. Manner of death is designated in one of five categories: accident, homicide, natural, suicide, and undetermined. Homicide In cases involving criminal investigation and prosecution, a copy of the final report is sent to the law enforcement agency and County Attorney’s Office. When a case involves public health or safety, results are reported to the Public Health Department and safety regulatory boards. Pending Undetermined 4,100 Unlike a coroner, who is an elected official and usually not required to be a medical doctor, a medical examiner is a licensed physician specializing in pathology, with a sub-specialty in forensic pathology. 4,000 Major Event 3,700 In October 2002, the Office moved to a new 57,000 square foot Forensic Science Center at Jefferson and 7th Avenue. This specially constructed, state of the art facility replaced an antiquated, 11,500 square foot facility designed for Medical Examiner needs of the 1970s. Case Completion (% Closed in . . . ) FY98 FY99 45 Days 23% 48% 90 Days 60% 89% Correctional Health FY00 41% 84% FY01 43% 75% M e dical Exam ine r Cas e s 4,200 3,900 3,800 3,600 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY02 62% 94% Correctional Health Services has been awarded a federal grant of $982,000 to implement a comprehensive Telemedicine Program in the Maricopa County jail system. Agency Information Encounters by Visit Type Correctional Health Services provides medical, dental, and mental health services to inmates in the adult and juvenile detention facilities operated by Maricopa County. Counseling 55,120 Dental 18,364 Major Event The jail telemedicine system will integrate with Maricopa Medical Center and the Arizona Telemedicine Network, using video technology to expedite patient visits. The agency’s goal is to develop the model jail telemedicine program in the nation. FY02 Medical Doctor Nursing Psychiatry X-Rays 66,633 247,115 12,944 5,214 Note: statistical data prior to FY02 is not included due to incomplete reporting of encounters from clinics MARI COPA COU NTY JUS TI CE SYSTEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 PAG E 1 5 The average daily population in Maricopa County jail facilities for fiscal year 2001-02 reached 7,559, up 11% from fiscal year 1998-99. This trend affirms the need to open and operate new jail facilities as soon as possible. Sheriff’s Office Agency Information The Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement, jail detention, and crime prevention services to the public. Inmate Population High Count FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 Date 8/29/1998 6/25/2000 9/23/2000 6/2/2002 Population 7,202 7,129 7,454 8,168 %CHG 10% Book ings FY99 Bookings by Agency Local Police Federal County State Self Surrenders City Court Justice Court Superior Court Total FY00 FY01 FY02 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 94,378 92,601 90,116 90,781 1,772 1,699 1,160 1,192 5,522 6,233 6,632 6,934 229 232 230 235 %CHG 0.7% 3% 5% 2% 10,407 7,979 11,926 10,934 2,296 1,540 2,499 2,725 2,326 1,839 2,269 2,269 116,930 112,123 114,832 115,070 -8% 9% 0% 0.2% FY01 11.66 22.27 62.59 4.10 22.73 FY02 11.88 22.38 59.76 4.67 23.57 Ave rage Le ngth of Stay by Type Sentenced Agency Hold Pretrial 80 60 %CHG 2% 0.5% -5% 14% 4% Other 40 20 0 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 Note: In FY02 5.5% of all bookings involved INS holds, with the average length of stay for these holds at 42.3 days. Ave rage Daily Jail Population 8,000 Average Length of Stay by Type (in days) FY99 FY00 Pretrial 8.48 8.59 Sentenced 25.50 28.38 Agency Hold 53.51 52.20 Other 2.38 5.22 Total 21.46 21.54 D a ys 118,000 116,000 114,000 112,000 110,000 108,000 Other Workload Indicators 7,500 FY01 7,000 6,500 Bonds/Fines Processed Net Canteen Sales 6,000 FY 99 FY00 FY01 Average Daily Population by Category of Offense FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 %CHG %CHG $10,684,559 $10,603,670 -0.8% $2,976,241 $3,717,226 25% 8,966,218 10,181,648 14% Warrants Received 38,841 50,290 30% Civil Process Received 47,535 43,580 -8% 21,692 1 65% 1 57% Meals Served FY 02 FY02 Subpoenas Received 35,710 Felony 4,987 5,095 5,394 5,779 7% Misdemeanor 1,307 1,124 1,234 1,207 -2% Subpoenas Served 13,428 Agency Hold 480 421 392 545 39% Tax Bills Collected 17,086 14,701 -14% $10,937,555 $3,573,631 -67% 20,370 21,466 5% 3,114 3,312 6% 133 CY00 179,844 85,801 156 CY01 201,378 92,803 17% %CHG 12% 8% Other 26 24 23 28 22% Total 6,800 6,664 7,043 7,559 7% 2 Tax Bills Amount Dom Violence Orders Rec'd Posse Members Inmate Transports to Justice & Superior Court Reserve Members 105,000 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 911 Calls Received Calls for Service 1 increase due, in part, to direct filing 2 incompatibility with the Maricopa County Treasurer's computer system has affected MCSO ability to accurately reflect commerical tax bills New Programs for Inmates Inmates Transported Superior Court Justice Court FY99 70,286 19,607 FY00 73,591 20,110 FY01 79,526 17,429 FY02 %CHG 18% 93,5271 7,9261 -55% Total 89,893 93,701 96,955 101,453 1 21,029 5% inmate transports to the 23 Justice Courts dramatically lessened due to direct filing of those cases to one of three Regional Court Centers • ADEPT is offered to inmates to educate them about the physical, emotional, and familial impact of abusing alcohol and drugs. • Universal Spirit Quest is offered to male inmates and focuses on recovery from child sexual abuse and breaking the cycle of abuse. • Volunteers from local technical schools teach inmates basic computer skills in the new computer labs at Towers, Durango, and Estrella Jails. MA RI COPA COUNTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT F I SCA L Y EAR 2001 -02 P AG E 16 Indigent Representation The case-weighting study initiated in fiscal year 2001-02 assesses agency workload, producing an empirical method of measuring the amount of work required by staff on different types of cases. This will lead to a uniform method of defining, counting, and weighting cases. Agency Information Case Assignments The offices of Indigent Representation provide legal defense services to indigent defendants in the following instances: • Criminal proceedings including felony, misdemeanor, probation violation, appeals, post-conviction relief, and cases in which defendants oppose extradition. • Juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. • Witnesses in criminal cases, when assigned by the court. • Indigent individuals at risk of a loss of liberty in civil mental health proceedings. • Those involved in civil child dependency or severance proceedings. Public Defender To provide constitutionally mandated legal representation to indigent individuals in the most cost-effective manner, Maricopa County created three in-house defender offices and maintains a limited number of contracts with private attorneys. Multiple offices are necessary to address legal conflicts of interest that arise primarily because of prior representation by attorneys of co-defendants, victims, or witnesses. Serious Crimes Against Children 1 Other Felonies 1 FY00 FY01 FY02 49,084 51,427 54,601 159 115 147 300 283 343 20,764 22,117 22,924 %CHG 6% 28% 21% 4% Probation Revocations 2 11,469 12,340 13,751 11% Homicides 1 Misdemeanors 2 Delinquencies 3 Juvenile Appeals 4 Appeals 4 Post-Conviction Reliefs 4 Mental Health 5 Other Statistics Jury Trials - Trial Division Percent Felony Cases Closed within 180 Days of Arraignment or Assignment In FY02, Indigent Representation contracted with The Spangenberg Group to conduct a case-weighting study. The purposes of the study were to assess agency workload, produce an empirical method of measuring the amount of work that is required by staff on different types of cases, and to develop a uniform method of defining, counting, and weighting cases so that the offices can establish and maintain reasonable caseload and performance standards. During this past fiscal year, the Offices continued to integrate Managing for Results (MFR) into everyday business practices and planning. MFR has been substantially integrated into case tracking mechanisms and financial/budgeting procedures. Significant effort also went into developing employee performance plans that linked the office-wide and County-wide goals to individual employee plans. In FY02, staff began work on the Indigency Screening Project, focusing on financial screening processes to ensure the offices’ attorneys are assigned only to clients truly entitled to publicly-funded counsel. The project also deals with reimbursement options for clients who cannot afford to hire their own attorney, but can contribute to the cost of the public representation they receive. Office s of Indige nt Re pre s e ntation Fe lony Cas e As s ignm e nts in FY02 Public Defender 71% Legal Defender 16% Legal Advocate 3% Contract Counsel 10% Public Defender Trial Division Cases Opened vs. Cases Terminated Adjusted New Felony Assignments Felonies Closed 3,399 9,831 4,366 9,259 28% -6% 112 469 127 489 86 448 -32% -8% 1,024 1,113 1,036 1,690 1,506 1,771 45% 5% 513 688 575 -16% Unk Unk 91% - 128 125 108 -13% Other Felonies 1 Probation Revocations 2 5,717 123 3,826 304 5,557 74 3,637 310 5,820 105 3,988 267 5% 42% 10% -14% Misdemeanors 2 Dependencies Severance Recertification Legal Advocate Major Felonies Other Felonies Probation Revocations Appeals Post-Conviction Reliefs Dependencies 6 20 725 97 622 327 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 310 14 729 100 693 1,506 65 668 68 73 299 326 8 603 91 758 2,297 82 944 102 53 239 274 -43% -17% -9% 9% 53% 26% 41% 50% -27% -20.% -16% 17 7 1 Unk Unk 507 N/A N/A 95 11,772 11,635 13,944 82 39 47 23 21 24 2,445 1,794 3,086 62 75 0 3,266 3,251 4,694 54 33 31 334 315 347 44 39 29 5,008 5,443 4,993 454 625 693 -86% 20% 21% 14% 72% -100% 44% -6% 10% -26% -8% 11% Average Case Length (days) - Trial Div. Legal Defender Major Events 3,757 9,917 Major Felonies 1 Severance 6 Recertification Sexual Predators 7 Office of Contract Counsel Major Felonies 2nd Chair Death Penalty Felonies Sexual Predators 7 Delinquencies 8 Appeals Post-Conviction Reliefs Mental Health Dependency Probate 1 Assignments resulting in no complaint being filed are not counted. No credit is taken for early case transfers to other IR departments. Cases with dispositions of withdrawal due to conflict or retention of private counsel are counted as full cases unless withdrawal or retention occurred prior to arraignment or this office withdrew due to workload, in these instances, no credit is taken for the case. 2 P.V. and Misdemeanor private counsel and withdrawal cases receive no credit. 3 Report and Review cases receive only half credit. No credit is taken for cases withdrawn from due to excessive workload or because no complaint filed. 26,000 21,000 16,000 11,000 6,000 1,000 4 No credit is taken for cases withdrawn from due to excessive workload or because no complaint filed. PCRs and Appeal/PCRs are counted by CR# rather than by number of petitions. 5 No deductions are made from gross case assignments. 6 FY99 and FY00, dependency unit part of the Public Defender's Office. Entire unit moved to Legal Advocate's Office for FY01. Percent change is from FY00 to FY02. 7 In FY02, the Office of the Legal Advocate accepted responsibility for Sexual Predator cases. These cases had previously been assigned to contract attorneys through the Office of Contract Counsel. FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 8 No credit is given to contract counsel for additional petitions in Juvenile matters. This is a count of juveniles assigned to private counsel through disposition. MARI COPA COU NTY JUS TI CE SYSTEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 Adult Probation P AG E 1 7 Due to reductions in State aid, the Adult Probation Department is unable to continue levels of supervision ordered by the Court. With cuts already approved and more to come, it is certain that at least 2,500 offenders in the community will be terminated early from probation, no longer under correctional supervision. Agency Information Adult Probation has the following duties: • Managing offender risk by enforcing Court orders. • • • • Encouraging probationers to engage in pro-social change, lawabiding behavior, and personal accountability under general and intensive supervision. Providing presentence reports to assess offender risk/needs in order to help guide Court decisions and to apply the appropriate level of service. Working in community partnerships to provide crime prevention and intervention services. Facilitating victim involvement and restorative justice services. Average Daily Population on Supervision FY99 FY00 FY01 Standard Probation 20,837 22,459 22,503 Intensive Probation 1,580 1,562 1,666 Total 22,417 24,021 24,169 FY02 23,567 1,573 25,140 %CHG 5% -6% 4% 1 Early Completion 30% Full Term Completion 31% Restorative Justice Indicators FY00 Community Service Hrs Restitution Collected 1 Victim Satisfaction 1 FY02 61% %CHG -2% FY01 FY02 %CHG 903,051 864,242 -4% $7,536,386 $8,425,867 $13,849,014 39% 897,326 52% 49% 54% Turnover Rate: In fiscal year 2002, the turnover rate for new officers was 26%. A market study of comparable salaries was completed in June and showed new probation officer salaries were 19% below market value. Additionally, 52% of departing staff cited pay the most common reason for leaving, much higher than the county average of 34%. Day Reporting Centers (DRCs) began in 1992 to help reduce jail overcrowding. Due to the success of Reach Out, Work Furlough, and other programs, participation in the Day Reporting Center dwindled. These factors, plus budget cuts, led to closing the DRCs at the end of the fiscal year. Probation revoked, sentenced to Department of Corrections Percent of Standard and Intensive Probationers Successfully Completing Probation FY99 FY00 FY01 63% 65% 62% The Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts urges probation offices to retain as many staff as possible by using local funds, which would be County general fund dollars and probation fees. The Maricopa Department will take all action possible to avoid a reduction in force. Particularly in this growing region, the Court will continue to require probation supervision as a viable and economical sentencing option. Reach Out and Day Reporting Centers: FY02 was the first year the Reach Out program was fully operational. The program identifies probationers who are serving a jail term and are in need of substance abuse treatment. If eligible, probationers are released early from jail and transported to the treatment program. In FY02, 737 probationers were released to treatment, resulting in 25,077 jail days saved. Probation Term inations By Type Revoked to DOC1 39% Budget Cuts: In addition to contributing voluntary mid-year budget reductions, the Department faced a considerable reduction in State aid. Approximately 59% of Department funding is from these sources. To help manage the State budget deficit, the Legislature reduced funding for Adult Probation functions statewide, which resulted in a cut to the Maricopa County Department of $2,776,214 and 125 full-time positions. These reductions are permanent and effective January 1, 2003. 9% of victims who have opted to be notified of probationer activity Major Events Staff Safety: Chief Justice Jones issued Administrative Orders related to officer safety. These orders will direct Probation Departments throughout the state in developing policies and training related to the use of force, officer safety training, and firearms standards. A Maricopa County Adult Probation workgroup developed a plan to comply with the new Administrative Orders. They completed tasks from developing forms for medical and psychological evaluations, to identifying which staff will be authorized to carry handcuffs, batons, O.C. spray, and firearms. Court Reports: Adult Probation achieved a nearly 99% on-time rate for submitting Presentence and Combination reports to the Court (up from 95% in FY01). The number of continuances due to late reports reduced from 944 in FY01, to 252 in FY02. Research: Since 1998, Adult Probation has used the Offender Screening Tool (OST). In June 2002, studies were completed that showed the OST – plus the shorter version MOST (Modified Offender Screening Tool) -- did a good job differentiating between offenders who are low, medium, or high risk. This strengthened confidence in using tools to help determine appropriate supervision levels, and to identify treatment needs or intervention strategies to reduce recidivism. Adult Probation and Arizona State University obtained a research grant from the National Institute of Justice to study recidivism of sex offenders. Analysis of the data found that: • 98% of sex offenders under Adult Probation supervision were not arrested for a new sexual offense. • 87% of sex offenders were not arrested for any new criminal offense. • 73% of sex offenders were not revoked to prison and did not abscond. A research project conducted on terminated probationers produced valuable information. Some findings include: • 61% of probationers participated in a treatment program while on probation. • 75% successfully completed the treatment. • If the probationer successfully completed an education program, 88% of the time he or she did not go to prison. • If the probationer successfully completed a treatment program, 92% of the time he or she did not go to prison. Presentence Reports FY99 Reports Completed Late Reports to the Court (%) FY00 FY01 FY02 %CHG 14,067 15,097 18,888 19,397 N/A 3% 5% 1% 3% - MA RI COPA COUNTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT F I SCA L Y EAR 2001 -02 P AG E 1 8 Directory of Maricopa County Agencies Information related to justice and other Maricopa County agencies may be accessed through www.maricopa.gov. This Internet site provides information on hundreds of County services. The “Courts/Legal Matters” section provides links to various Maricopa County justice services, including adoptions, victim services, court calendars, case histories, jury duty information, filing fees, lawyers and mediators, marriage licenses, passports, small claims, and legal forms. The Clerk of the Superior Court provides direct access to the court docket which is used extensively, with 4.2 million hits each month. The “Public Safety” section links citizens to law enforcement-related information on such things as reporting a crime, bad check enforcement, block watch, child abuse, child support, crime statistics, domestic violence and drug prevention, fingerprinting, gang and hate crimes program, hazardous material and illegal dumping reporting, warrants, and victim services. To access any County agency or personnel via telephone, you may call the switchboard at 602/506-3011. Justice Agencies Adult Probation Department Barbara Broderick, 602/506-3262 Chief Probation Officer West Court Building 111 South Third Avenue, 3rd Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2204 www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/adultPro Department Information 602/506-7249 Graffiti Hot Line Hate Crimes Hot Line Slum Lord Hot Line Investigations Division Juvenile Division Eastside Westside Law Enforcement Liaison Major Crimes Division Pretrial Division Southeast Regional Cntr Speakers Bureau Victim Services Division 602/506-7327 602/506-5000 602/506-SLUM 602/506-3844 480/962-8002 602/455-3877 602/506-3411 602/506-5840 602/372-7250 602/506-2600 602/506-3411 602/506-8522 Clerk of the Superior Court Michael K. Jeanes, 602/506-3676 Clerk of the Superior Court 201 West Jefferson, 2nd Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.maricopa.gov/clkcourt Department Information 602/506-3360 Durango Facility 602/506-3360 Family Support 602/506-3762 Financial Services 602/506-8571 Juvenile Div – Durango 602/506-4494 Juvenile Div – Southeast 602/506-4494 Old Court House 602/506-7400 (marriage licenses, notary bonds, passports, probate registrar) Correctional Health Services Dr. Joseph Scalzo, Director www.maricopa.gov/corr_health Department Information 602/506-2906 County Attorney’s Office Richard M Romley, 602/506-3411 Maricopa County Attorney County Administration Building 301 West Jefferson, 8th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.maricopacountyattorney.org Department Information 602/506-3411 Administrative Division County Counsel Division Criminal Trial Division 602/506-5508 602/506-8541 602/506-1145 ICJIS Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems John Doktor, Director General Information 602/506-7906 Indigent Representation Public Defender Jim Haas, Public Defender 602/506-8200 11 West Jefferson Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.pubdef.maricopa.gov General Information 602/506-7955 Appeals Juvenile – Durango Juvenile – Southeast Mental Health Trial Groups Downtown Trial Groups Mesa 602/506-8220 602/506-4230 602/506-2033 602/344-5856 602/506-7711 602/506-2200 Legal Defender Robert Briney, Legal Defender General Information 602/506-8800 Legal Advocate Susan Sherwin, Legal Advocate General Information Adult 602/506-4111 Juvenile 602/506-5379 Office of Contract Counsel Mark Kennedy, Director General Information 602/506-7228 Justice Courts Michael Lester, Associate Presiding Judge Limited Jurisdiction Courts 602/506-7106 www.justicecourts.maricopa.gov www.maricopa.gov/constable General Information 602/506-8530 Buckeye Justice Court 623/386-4822 Justice of the Peace G. M. Osterfeld Constable Murel Stephens Central Phx Justice Court 602/506-1168 Justice of the Peace C. Steven McMurry Constable Armando Saldate Chandler Justice Court 480/963-6691 Justice of the Peace Ron Johnson Constable J. Kevin Jones East Mesa Justice Court 480/985-0188 Justice of the Peace R. Wayne Johnson Constable Bill Taylor East Phx #1 Justice Court 602/506-3577 Justice of the Peace Adelita Villegas Justice of the Peace-Elect C.A. Mendoza Constable John Powers East Phx #2 Justice Court 602/266-3741 Justice of the Peace Michael R. Orcutt Constable Annette Clark Gila Bend Justice Court 602/506-1589 Justice of the Peace Joe B. Getzwiller Constable Carol Sly Constable-Elect Billy Joe Spurlock Glendale Justice Court 623/939-9477 Justice of the Peace Quentin Tolby Constable Bill Stout Maryvale Justice Court 623/245-0432 Justice of the Peace Andy Gatelum Constable Frank Canez North Mesa Justice Court 480/926-9731 Justice of the Peace Lester Pearce Constable Tony Martineau MARI COPA COU NTY JUS TI CE SYSTEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 North Valley Justice Court 623/915-2877 Justice of the Peace Kenneth Warren Justice of the Peace-Elect Gerald Ashton Constable Phil Hazlett Northeast Phx Justice Crt 602/506-3731 Justice of the Peace Jacqueline McVay Constable Doug Middleton Northwest Phx Justice Crt 602/395-0293 Justice of the Peace Barbara Watkins Constable Robert Weaver Peoria Justice Court 623/979-3234 Justice of the Peace Lex E. Anderson Constable Ronald Myers Scottsdale Justice Court 480/443-6600 Justice of the Peace Gerald J. Porter Constable Frank Outcalt South Mesa Justice Court 480/926-3051 Justice of the Peace Tom Freestone Constable Harrel Boyster South Phx Justice Court 602/243-0318 Justice of the Peace Pamela C. Gutierrez Constable Clarice Davis Constable-Elect Jimmie Munoz Tempe East Justice Court 480/967-8856 Justice of the Peace John Ore Constable Joe Arredondo Tempe West Justice Court 480/350-9442 Justice of the Peace Victor “Mike” Wilkins Constable Don Calender Tolleson Justice Court 623/936-1449 Justice of the Peace Joseph “Pep” Guzman Constable Alfredo Gamez West Mesa Justice Court 480/964-2958 Justice of the Peace Clayton Hamblen Constable Fred Arnett P AG E 19 West Phoenix Justice Court 602/256-0292 Justice of the Peace Rachel Carrillo Constable Joe Reyes Wickenburg Justice Court 602/506-1554 Justice of the Peace John Henry Constable Amy Travers Constable-Elect Glenn Gill Juvenile Probation and Detention Cheryln Townsend, 602/506-2638 Chief Juvenile Probation Officer 3125 West Durango Phoenix, Arizona 85009 or 1810 South Lewis Mesa, Arizona 85210 www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/juvenileprob General Information 602/506-4011 Court Information - Durango - Southeast Durango Detention Southeast Detention 602/506-4401 602/506-2544 602/506-4280 602/506-2676 Medical Examiner Dr. Philip Keen, Director General Information 602/506-3322 Sheriff’s Office Criminal Invest. Bureau 602/256-5494 Patrol Bureau 602/256-1822 Special Operations Bureau 602/256-1822 Superior Court Colin F. Campbell, 602/506-3837 Presiding Judge Central Court Building 201 West Jefferson, 4th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov General Information 602/506-3204 Civil Court 602/506-1497 Conciliation Services 602/506-3296 Criminal Court 602/506-8575 Domestic Violence Prevention Center 602/506-5553 Family Court 602/506-1561 Jury Commission/Assembly 602/506-JURY Juvenile Court 602/506-4533 Law Library 602/506-3461 Mental Health Court 602/506-3354 Pretrial Services 602/506-8500 Penny Stinson, Chief Pretrial Services Officer Probate Court 602/506-3668 Self-Service Center 602/506-SELF www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ssc/info/ gen_info.asp Southeast Court (Mesa) 602/506-2020 Tax Court 602/506-3009 Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff 602/506-1801 100 West Washington – 19th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.mcso.org General Information 602/256-1000 Administration Bureau 602/256-1300 x4400 Custody Operation Bureau 602/256-1894 Custody Programs Bureau 602/256-1815 New Jail Construction 602/256-1074 Custody Support Bureau 602/256-1816 Other County Officers Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Don Stapley, 602/506-7431 Chairman Supervisor Fulton Brock, 602/506-1776 District 1 Supervisor Andy Kunasek, 602/506-7562 District 3 Supervisor Max Wilson, 602/506-7642 District 4 Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, 602/506-7092 ------------------------Fran McCarroll, 602/506-3766 Clerk of the Board Ross Tate, 602/506-1585 County Auditor Assessor’s Office Star Call Center Kevin Ross, County Assessor General Information 602/506-3406 Recorder’s Office Helen Purcell, County Recorder General Information 602/506-3628 Karen Osborne, Elections Director General Information 602/506-1511 602/506-3535 602/506-1511 David Sobieski, Director For information from 602/506-3011 Assessor, Elections, Recorder, Treasurer Superintendent of Schools Sandra E. Dowling, Superintendent General Information 602/506-3866 Treasurer Doug Todd, Treasurer General Information 602/506-8511 MA RI COPA COUNTY JU S TI CE SY STEM ACTI VI TI ES REP ORT F I SCA L Y EAR 2001 -02 PA GE 2 0 Other Maricopa County Departments County Management David R. Smith, 602/506-3098 County Administrative Officer Sandra L. Wilson, 602/506-2468 Deputy County Administrator Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch, 602/506-6609 Chief Public Health Officer Linden E. Thatcher, 602/506-5887 Chief Information Officer Robert Williams, 602/506-0129 Chief Public Works Officer Tom Manos, 602/506-3561 Chief Financial Officer William C. Scalzo, 602/506-2930 Chief Community Services Officer Animal Care and Control Ed Boks, Director General Information 602/506-2772 Capital Facilities Development Heidi Birch, Director General Information 602/372-2320 Chief Information Office Linden E. Thatcher, Chief Information Officer General Information 602/506-5887 Communications Office Al Macias, Director General Information 602/506-7063 Community Development Isabel McDougall, Director General Information 602/240-2210 x200 Emergency Management Robert Spencer, Director General Information 602/506-6623 Equipment Services Fentress Truxon, Director General Information 602/506-8692 Facilities Management Steve Conner, Director General Information Tom Manos, Chief Financial Officer General Information 602/506-3561 Flood Control District Michael S. Ellegood, Chief Engineer and General Manager General Information 602/506-1501 Public Health Dr. Johathan Weisbuch, Director General Information 602/506-6609 Research and Reporting Ken Anderson, Manager General Information 602/506-1600 Risk Management Peter Crowley, Assistant Risk Manager General Information 602/506-4062 Housing Jim Satterwhite, Director General Information 602/257-1113 Human Resources General Information Solid Waste Management Ash Madhok, Director General Information 602/506-7060 602/506-3233 Stadium District Human Services Rich Marshall, Director General Information William C. Scalzo, Director General Information 602/462-6400 602/506-5911 Telecommunications Library District Harry R. Courtright, Director General Information 602/506-2894 Nancy Bozich, Director General Information 602/506-7908 Total Compensation Maricopa Integrated Health System Administration Health Information Srvcs MIHS Health Plan Maricopa Medical Center Outpatient Services 602/344-5011 602/344-8500 602/344-8700 602/344-5011 602/344-5356 Mike Schailberger, Director General Information 602/506-1249 Transportation Tom Buick, Director & County Engineer General Information 602/506-8309 Materials Management Wes Baysinger, Director General Information 602/506-3967 Office of Management and Budget Sandra Wilson, Deputy County Administrator General Information 602/506-7280 602/273-1411 Environmental Services Al Brown, Director General Information Finance Department 602/506-1141 Parks and Recreation William C. Scalzo, Chief Officer and Director General Information 602/506-2930 Planning and Development Joy Rich, Director General Information 602/506-3301 Public Fiduciary Richard T. Vanderheiden, Public Fiduciary General Information 602/506-5922 December 2002 For additional copies call 602/506-6473