Maricopa County Justice System Annual Activities Report Fiscal Year 2010 Welcome to the Maricopa County Justice System Annual Activities Report. This report highlights activity from July 2009 through June 2010. A Typical Workday for the Maricopa County Justice System Means* . . . 330 adults booked into jail 8,039 total adults in jail 270 juveniles in detention 29,385 meals served to adult and juvenile inmates 576 adult inmates transported to court appearances 260 residents appeared for jury duty (to Superior, Justice, and most Municipal Courts) 1,860 adults in the community under officer supervision pending trial 31,973 adults in the community supervised/monitored by probation officers after sentencing 3,296 Courts cases filed in Justice 138 new felony cases filed 766 total cases filed with Superior Court 13,456 court documents filed in Adult Court 34,349 pieces of paper filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court $636,939 adults spent for detaining $2.08 million spent in the overall County criminal justice system * daily average of statistics for fiscal year 2009-2010 During Fiscal Year 2009-10, Maricopa County justice system partners incorporated more evidence-based practices into their work in order to prevent crime and reduce recidivism. They also increased collaboration with internal and external agencies in order to leverage resources and to eliminate gaps and duplication in services. National Experience Violent and property crime rates in 2009 were at the lowest rates since first recorded in 1973, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey. In the last 10 years, the overall violent crime rate fell 39 percent and the property crime rate declined by 29 percent. Arizona‟s violent index offense rates also declined from 2000 to 2008, according to the FBI‟s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The factors responsible for lowering crime rates are complex and cannot be attributed to a single cause, according to national experts. It is estimated that the increased use of incarceration in the 1990s contributed to a 25 percent decrease in crime cites the PEW Center on the States. During the 1980s and 1990s, the political system enacted “tough on crime” approaches that led to numerous legislative actions designed to increase sentences and prison populations. The result was a dramatic increase in the number of people in prison, jail and on community supervision. The United States incarcerates far more people than any other country in the world, according to PEW. Across the nation, 1 in 100 adults are incarcerated in prison or jail and 1 in 31 adults are under some form of correctional control (prison, jail, probation or parole). Along with the surge in the number of people incarcerated was a surge in the amount of money spent on corrections. In the last twenty years, state spending of general funds on corrections increased by over 300%, according to a 2009 report by the Vera Institute of Justice Centers. Unfortunately, the effect of incarceration on crime is subject to diminishing returns as more and more people are incarcerated, as per the PEW Center on the States and at The Sentencing Project. While violent criminals should be incapacitated through incarceration, the over-reliance on incarceration as a crime control strategy is ineffective and comes at large financial and social costs. The extremely high recidivism rate of offenders leaving prison is an example of the limitations of relying on incarceration as a crime control strategy. Over two-thirds of released prisoners are rearrested within three years of release, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Since over 95 percent of adults incarcerated in prison or jail are released back to the community, the high failure rate of offenders when released causes a tremendous financial burden to the criminal justice system and a great deal of hardship for the communities to which these offenders return. National trends in crime prevention focus on facilitating the successful re-entry of offenders back into the community. These re-entry efforts address the needs people have when released from prison and jail in order to stabilize their lives and prevent them from committing crimes. Among the many issues that ex-offenders face when released back to the communities that make it hard for them to succeed are low levels of education, poor employment prospects, substance abuse and alcohol problems, physical and mental health disabilities, mental health issues and the need for treatment, limited access to transportation, etc. Re-entry efforts help increase the capacities of communities to meet the needs of the re-entering offender population in order to promote community safety. Incorporating evidence-based programs including re-entry efforts into the array of services offered through the criminal justice system results in increased public safety, increased costsavings, and reduced demand for prison, jail, and detention beds. Table of Contents Page Adult Probation 14 Adult Probation, Pretrial Services 15 Budget 5 Clerk of the Court 8 Constables 7 Correctional Health 11 County Attorney 16 Criminal Justice Indicators Directory Public Defense Services (Indigent Representation) 3 19-20 13 Justice Courts 7 Justice System Highlights 2 Justice System Planning & Information 17 Juvenile Court Services 9 Juvenile Probation Dept 10 Maricopa County Highlights Medical Examiner Proposition 400 and 411 Projects 2 11 3-4 Sheriff’s Office 12 Superior Court 6 PAGE 2 Maricopa County Government Highlights of Fiscal Year 2010 Population and economic growth slow; Maricopa County cuts budget while keeping up with increased demand Maricopa County, Arizona, is the Nation‟s fourth largest county in terms of population - over 4 million by 2009, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Twenty-five cities and towns are located in Maricopa County. Its largest city, Phoenix, is the County seat and State Capital. Out of the Nation‟s 3,141 counties, Maricopa County had the greatest population increase between 2000 and 2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, in 2008, indicators pointed to a dramatic slowdown in the population and economic growth of Maricopa County. Data from the Census shows Arizona‟s population growth as a whole slowed to 1.6%, less than half of the 2006 growth rate. Many indicators, such as water hookups and arrests, point to an actual decrease in Phoenix‟s population. As population growth slowed, so did economic growth. Facing revenue shortfalls, Maricopa County reduced costs and maximized efficiencies in FY10, while continuing to provide high levels of service to the community. Conservative budget strategies kept the County financially healthy despite Arizona‟s economic turmoil. 2005-2010 County Strategic Plan The 2005-2010 Maricopa County Strategic Plan contains a set of strategic priorities and goals that establish a roadmap of what the County aspires to achieve. The first strategic priority is to ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system that strives to reduce crime rates and meet growing law enforcement and detention requirements. Highlights of Progress/Achievements for Strategic Priority 1— Safe Communities A review of the FY10 Annual Accomplishments Report highlights the following efforts of Maricopa County towards achieving “Safe Communities.” In support of Maricopa County‟s Crime Prevention Plan, the Gila River Indian Community provided $100,000 to partially fund Justice System Planning and Information‟s contract with Arizona Women‟s Education and Employment (AWEE) to provide an employment readiness and placement program for adult ex-offenders from the South Mountain area of Phoenix. The purpose of the program is to reduce recidivism rates among ex-offenders. During the first full contract year, AWEE enrolled 94 ex-offenders and placed 38 in employment. At six months post-enrollment, program participants experienced only a 7% recidivism rate. Education is an intricate key in reducing crime and assisting adult offenders. In FY10, MCAPD‟s Education Program exceeded every State and Federal Department of Education established educational core goal: 70% success rate in helping students achieve gains in education classes; 98% success rate in helping students obtain employment; 87% success rate in helping students obtain their GED; and 94% success rate in helping students enroll in post-secondary education. Maricopa County Adult Probation Department was the recipient of the Edward Byrne Prison Initiative Re-Entry Grant in late 2009. Prison inmates with a consecutive probation sentence upon Arizona Department of Corrections release are contacted prior to their release to make pre-release plans. Once released, these probationers are assigned to one of the seven highly trained re-entry probation officers for critical needs to be addressed. MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Maricopa County Justice System Highlights of Fiscal Year 2010 While each justice and law enforcement agency within Maricopa County is tasked with distinctive mandates, all must function as part of a system. Agencies‟ responsibilities are varied: they investigate, arrest, charge, protect, defend, heal, prosecute, supervise, fine, adjudicate, mediate, test, autopsy, or detain members of the community. History of Propositions 400 and 411 In the mid-1990s, Maricopa County asked for authorization to go before the voters for funding in recognition of the need for additional jail facilities, more programs to better manage defendants through the system, and programs to stem the tide into the jails. Although legislators scaled down the request, primarily by removing operational costs, Proposition 400 was put before the voters in 1998. This one-fifth sales tax was approved by 69% of the voters to be collected for nine years or until it collected $900 million. County financial planners realized it would be impossible to pay for new detention facility operations without a dedicated revenue stream, so the County returned to legislators for authority to request voters to continue the jail tax up to 20 years after expiration of the first tax. Proposition 411 was approved in November of 2002, also by 69% of the voters. The detention facilities were completed in FY05, with construction funded in a “pay-as-you-go” method. Master Planning Continued for Superior Court The Superior Court Master Plan, formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 2005, is to establish the ten year (20052015) space needs for the Superior Court. The primary objective is “To evaluate existing court facilities and future needs, and to develop criteria for optimal delivery of court services for all Maricopa County residents.” Several court facilities are envisioned in the Superior Court Master Plan. Projects include integrating the Downtown Superior Court Complex including the addition of a Court Tower, centralizing criminal court downtown. The remodeling of the basement in the Central Court Building was completed in FY09, to house and accommodate the high volume case loads in the Regional Court Centers (RCC) and Early Disposition Courts (EDC). Planning for expansion, the property adjacent to the Southeast Facility was acquired. Additionally, the Desert Ridge Justice Court and Highland Justice Court became operational in January 2009. A major step in implementing the Superior Court Master Plan was accomplished in FY09. Demolition began to make way for the construction of the County‟s new Downtown Court Tower on the Southwest corner of 1st Ave. and Madison St. As the second half of the fiscal year transpired, the site was cleared and construction began. Through all of FY10, the Downtown Criminal Tower has begun to take shape. All structural steel was installed and concrete floor decks were installed on each level. The projected date for opening is still on target for the second half of FY12. Agencies Worked to Achieve System-Wide Goals Criminal justice agencies worked jointly towards achieving the county-wide strategic priority of ensuring safe communities and a streamlined, integrated criminal justice system, which included the following activities: Agencies continued to research evidence-based practices and to incorporate these programs within Maricopa County and to ensure that existing programs also are evidence-based. Agencies continued to focus on expediting and improving case processing. PAGE 3 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Agencies partnered with the U.S. Attorney‟s Office for the District of Arizona in sponsoring the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee Reentry Initiative, which is a community based, stakeholder led coalition to promote the successful reintegration of former inmates in order to reduce crime and recidivism, and increase public safety. Status of Other Proposition 400 Projects at Close of Fiscal Year 2010 Implement an Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Agencies focused on the effective management of the jail population while balancing public safety as evidenced by the successful implementation of House Bill 1476. This Bill allows the Court to adjust a person‟s length of probation if the person has qualified for earned time credit by exhibiting positive progress toward goals. The Bill also provides financial incentives to probation departments to reduce the number of probationers revoked to prison. According to the Administrative Offices of the Courts, Maricopa County reduced the number of probationers revoked to prison by 29% from FY08 baseline levels to FY10. The mission of Maricopa County Integrated Criminal Justice Information System to provide automated systems, electronic data exchanges, and information technology services so that justice and law enforcement agencies can more efficiently share information when processing criminal cases. Progress includes: Maintenance and operation of more than forty data exchanges integrated with justice networks, using hardware and software to replace paper and manual processes. Key Criminal Justice Indicators FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG 130,979 130,041 120,462 -7% Sheriff’s Office Detention Bookings Avg Length of Stay (days) Avg Daily Population 25.8 25.8 25 -3% 9,265 9,219 8,039 -13% Superior Court—Criminal Department Filings 41,036 37,152 34,538 -7% Terminations 38,137 39,671 38,889 -2% Case Clearance Rate 92.9% 106.8% 112.6% — Avg Monthly Active Pending Inventory 12,209 11,430 11,342 -1% 953 952 743 -22% Trials Pretrial Services (monthly averages) General Supervision 772 635 545 -14% Intensive Supervision 1,290 1,113 1,066 -4% Electronic Monitoring 255 265 249 -6% Adult Probation (monthly averages) Standard Supervision 29,891 25,994 23,994 -8%1 Intensive Supervision 1,092 968 813 -16% 1 In previous years Unsupervised was included with Standard Probation. Juvenile Court, Probation, Detention Petitions Filed 20,585 19,311 18,293 -4% 335 282 270 -4% Juv Avg Length of Stay (days) 14 13 13 0% Standard Probation (daily avg) 4,154 3,929 4,106 5% Intensive Probation (daily avg) 531 416 394 -5% Juv Avg Daily Population Note: Throughout this report, the percent change columns (%CHG) indicate the percentage increase or decrease over the prior year. Maintenance and enhancement of software applications, including eWarrants, eFiling, Justice Web Interface (JWI), and Criminal History Dispositions which is now extended to Adult Probation Offices in Arizona Counties through the Arizona Supreme Court. Addition of geographic information system capability to JWI, and extension of JWI to US Courts nationwide. More than six hundred million data transactions processed annually in secured networks, supporting efficient case processing by participating stakeholders. Develop Regional Centers for Courts Not-of-Record and/or Reduce Transports to Justice of the Peace Courts The Regional Court Centers (RCC) and the Early Disposition Courts (EDC) continue to expedite case processing, handling nearly 32,000 cases this last fiscal year. Along with felony complaints being filed directly with the Superior Court, the RCCs and EDCs consolidate preliminary hearings and arraignments into a single event and location, reducing in-custody defendant jail days. Almost 50 percent of the RCC cases and 75 percent of the EDC cases are resolved in those Courts. Implement Differentiated Case Management Capital and complex cases are identified and separately managed early in the process. Capital cases are heard by a group of specially designated judges. At the beginning of FY10, there were 117 active capital cases in the Court. There were 84 active capital cases at the end of the fiscal year, even though 35 new capital cases were filed during the year. Under the direction of the Criminal Department Presiding Judge, and with the support of the Arizona Supreme Court Capital Case Task Force, the Court continued to utilize a number of initiatives to improve the caseflow management of capital cases. Initiatives include weekly administrative meetings to manage scheduling conflicts among the judicial officers and lawyers who handle capital cases, and the implementation of capital case management judges who focus on ensuring that capital cases are adhering to Supreme Court time standards. As a result, 68 capital cases were resolved in FY10, which is the largest number of capital cases to be terminated in one year in this Court‟s history. PAGE 4 Status of Other Proposition 400 Projects at Close of Fiscal Year 2010 Court leaders examined the use of master calendaring in other large metropolitan jurisdictions as a method to reduce unnecessary court proceedings, improve time to disposition, and gain other system-wide efficiencies while maintaining a focus on providing justice in all cases. In December 2008, the Court implemented the Master Calendar Pilot Project, which involved one Initial Pretrial Conference commissioner and one of the three regular trial groups assigned to downtown. In FY10, the Court analyzed the Master Calendar Pilot Project and decided to adopt that case management methodology throughout most of the Criminal Department. The results of the Department-wide implementation of the Master Calendar Project included the following: 1) a case clearance rate of close to 113%, the highest rate in more than a decade; 2) a decrease in the percentage of dispositions by trial; 3) an increase in juror utilization which improved goodwill among jurors and also translated into a cost savings by requiring fewer jurors to report to Court. The Criminal Department leadership will continue to monitor the key metrics of the Master Calendar and make adjustments when necessary. The DUI Center continues to operate with 3 commissioners handling all cases that only involve DUI charges at the felony level. This separate track provides efficiencies for the Court, prosecutors, indigent defense, private counsel, expert witnesses, and law enforcement. A comprehensive Mental Health Court has been instituted to monitor seriously mentally ill defendants under a single judicial officer early in the system and to stabilize mentally ill defendants more quickly. The summonsed initial appearance calendar was created to take some pressure off both defense attorneys and prosecutors. It continues to operate 3 days a week and enables caseflow progress without requiring attorney appearances. The Probation Violation Center is located in the basement of the Fourth Avenue Jail, which provides fewer inmate transport challenges and preserves the accessibility of these court proceedings to the public and interested parties. This Court handles arraignments for virtually all probation revocation petitions and a majority of the violation and disposition hearings. In FY10, more than 11,200 probationers were arraigned through this process, which enabled trial judges to spend more time hearing trials. Eliminate Unnecessary Court Proceedings A calendar exclusively for defendants summonsed to court on felony complaints was established to free attorneys‟ time to devote to other cases and relieve the pressure on the Regional Court Centers and Early Disposition Courts. The Department-wide implementation of the Master Calendar included the consolidation of cases to downtown Phoenix from the Southeast Regional Facility. In December of 2009, the cases assigned to the Southeast Regional Facility were transferred downtown. This transition not only shifted more cases into the Master Calendar framework, but also marked the first time in nearly twenty years that all felony trial divisions of this Court were located in downtown Phoenix. Consolidate Criminal Divisions to a Common Location When the Downtown Court Tower is completed, the Court will have the capacity to consolidate more criminal divisions to the downtown MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 court complex. Downtown criminal divisions and probation revocation proceedings have already been consolidated downtown, which significantly reduces inmate transports. In FY10, the Court closed the RCC Glendale facility, which caused the related cases to be assimilated into the RCC Downtown facility. And in December of 2009, the criminal trial divisions at the Southeast Regional Facility were transferred downtown and most of the cases were transitioned into the Master Calendar. Expand Pretrial Release Supervision & Jail Court Functions The Initial Appearance (IA) Court expanded demand for additional information on previously non-interviewed and non-researched cases in its continued effort to make the most informed release decisions. The Supervised Release component has expanded services to include intensive supervision ranging from random drug/ alcohol testing and treatment to electronic monitoring. Intensive monitoring now is utilized by the Court more frequently than general supervision. Electronic monitoring supervision ranges from traditional home curfew enforcement to the more sophisticated Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) tracking. The IA Court continues to expand its Search Warrant Center program, offering law enforcement officers a reliable central location to obtain search warrant reviews 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Enhance Substance Abuse Evaluation and Programming The Reach Out Program continues to assess jailed, non-violent probationers with substance abuse problems to determine their level of treatment need. During FY10, staff conducted 812 clinical assessments and made possible the early release of 119 probationers to outpatient and/or residential treatment. This represents 3,853 jail days saved. Residential treatment placement continues to be impacted by limitations imposed by treatment providers, most notably construction of new facilities and a shift from grant funding to Regional Behavioral Health Authority funding for new placements. Reach Out is collaborating with the Custody Management Unit in an effort to further increase treatment options for jailed offenders in order to address their substance abuse needs and increase jail releases. Expand Drug Court Drug Court, presided over by Commissioner James Morrow, handles approximately 500 probationers post sentencing. The program receives some federal grant funding for prescription drug abuse and opiate specific treatment and recovery support services as well as medical management for opiate addiction. The program is a minimum of one year during which time the participants receive drug treatment, on-going supervision and interaction with the Drug Court Judge. Upon successful completion of the Drug Court Program, the defendant is granted an early termination from probation and if the offense is undesignated, it will be designated a misdemeanor. Enhance Community Supervision and Detention Alternatives for Juveniles The Juvenile Electronic Technological Surveillance (JETS) Program began in the spring of 2009. The JETS Program monitors youth by using Global Position Satellite (GPS) units. The GPS units provide the Court with additional information regarding the youth‟s compliance with the court orders. The GPS units are able to monitor youth in multiple locations which allows for knowing the locations of the youth while at home, at their place of employment, attending school or attending court ordered treatment programs. The GPS unit allows youth to be in the community while awaiting their court hearings; this has resulted in a reduction of youth who are detained in the juvenile detention facilities. The GPS unit also protects victims by creating exclusion zones around areas that pertain to the victim where the youth is not allowed to be. PAGE 5 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Justice System Agency Budgets Aggregate Annual Budget For All Maricopa County Justice Agencies $900 M M i l l i o n s The Board of Supervisors continues to focus budget priorities on the criminal justice system, while balancing those needs against other responsibilities. As caseloads generally declined in FY 2009-10, it offered great opportunities for efficiency and improvement to be realized. For fiscal year 2009-10, the total Maricopa County budget was $2,136,275,386. The budget for the justice system agencies comprised 35.9% of the total County budget, a slight decrease from 36.3% the prior year. $800 M $700 M $600 M $500 M $400 M $300 M $200 M $100 M $0 M FY02 FY03 General Fund FY04 FY05 FY06 Detention Fund FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Grants/Other Funds FY10 Adopted Budget by Department General Funds Detention Funds Grants/Other Funds Sheriff’s Office Adult Probation Superior Court County Attorney Indigent Representation Juvenile Probation Correctional Health Clerk of Superior Court Justice Courts Medical Examiner Constables Justice System Planning 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 Millions of Dollars FY10 Adopted Budget by Department General Funds Adult Probation $ 18,940,960 30,056,139 - 10,888,868 40,945,007 Constables 2,403,317 - - 2,403,317 Correctional Health 3,049,876 48,804,659 42,818 51,897,353 County Attorney 56,599,487 - 18,646,618 75,246,105 Indigent Representation 71,858,542 - 2,691,561 74,550,103 Justice Courts 14,488,923 - 8,136,541 22,625,464 378,242 1,458,856 Juvenile Probation 16,449,965 33,651,118 9,658,343 59,759,426 Medical Examiner 6,659,432 - 218,615 6,878,047 Sheriff’s Office 62,324,473 183,677,997 24,828,936 270,831,406 Superior Court 62,531,673 - 14,834,923 77,366,596 $385,275,986 $266,133,774 $108,888,183 $ 760,297,943 Justice System Planning & Info Total 1 Grants are primarily from state agencies. $ Total - Clerk of the Superior Court $ 58,854,159 Grants1 and Other Funds Detention Funds $ 77,795,119 1,837,098 PAGE 6 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Superior Court Specialty Courts are helping set probationers back on the right track. The Mental Health Department oversees Mental Health Court, the Rule 11 calendar, and is monitoring pretrial case processing for seriously mentally ill defendants. Additionally, there is the Family Violence Court, Drug Court, DUI Court, Spanish DUI Court, and a court for juveniles transferred to Adult Probation. Agency Information The Superior Court provides a public forum for the resolution of disputes and court services so that the public may realize individualized justice in a timely, fair, and impartial manner. Superior Court Case Filings by Case Type FY08 51,191 42,611 52,028 23,391 5,997 2,543 1,131 177,892 Civil Criminal Family Court Juvenile Probate Mental Health Tax Court Total Filings FY09 68,649 FY10 74,110 38,266 35,905 51,442 21,325 5,568 3,091 1,989 190,330 50,087 20,273 5,469 3,077 3,382 192,303 %CHG 8% -6% -3% -5% -2% 0% 70% 1% handling more than 20,500 new cases in FY10. This is a decrease of almost 2,000 cases compared to the number of filings in RCC in FY09. Initial Appearance (IA) Court is a 24 hour a day, seven day a week court located within the Fourth Avenue Jail that sets bonds on newly arrested defendants and those arrested on warrants. IA Court commissioners: 1) review new arrests for probable cause; 2) review bond amounts on defendants arrested on warrants; 3) schedule cases for disposition; 4) advise defendants of their rights; 5) appoint attorneys to represent defendants when appropriate; and 6) evaluate defendants‟ mental health needs. More than 64,500 defendants were seen in IA Court during FY10, which is a decrease from just over the 71,000 defendants seen in FY09. Search Warrant Center in the IA Court offers around the clock service to law enforcement officers requesting search warrants. By statute, law enforcement officers can appear before any magistrate in Maricopa County to obtain a search warrant and other orders. In FY10, the IA Court reviewed 8,272 search warrant requests. That is a 19% increase from FY09, representing an increase of more than 1,300 search warrant requests. A special summonsed initial appearance calendar frees attorneys for other work. Both the EDCs and the RCCs used to handle defendants who were summonsed to appear. The appearance rate on summonsed defendants has increased recently, but only averages around 50 percent. A calendar strictly for summonsed defendants was started in the summer of 2005. The summonsed IA calendar does not require the presence of attorneys, thus allowing both the County Attorney and Public Defender to focus on preparing for cases where defendants are more likely to appear. Felony Case Filings by Class of Felony Class One FY07 254 FY08 244 FY09 183 FY10 182 %CHG -1% Class Two 4,169 4,911 5,586 5,379 -4% Class Three 5,365 5,239 4,895 4,281 -13% Class Four 16,576 17,044 13,865 12,689 -8% Class Five 1,969 2,054 1,889 1,619 -14% Class Six 10,266 11,544 10,744 10,388 -3% Total 38,599 41,036 37,162 34,538 -7% Major Events Early Disposition Court (EDC) handles drug-related offenses. EDC was initiated in 1997 after passage of Proposition 200, which required treatment rather than jail as a possible sanction for low–level drug possession charges. More than 11,100 drug cases were funneled through EDC in FY10, accounting for about a third of all felonies filed. That is 600 fewer cases than the number handled by EDC in FY09. The two EDC commissioners in downtown and the two EDC–RCC commissioners at the Southeast Regional Facility resolve most simple possession and drug use cases in approximately 20 days. EDC also handles welfare fraud matters brought to the Court by the Arizona Attorney General‟s Office. Regional Court Centers (RCCs) combine multiple front-end felony proceedings to reduce time to disposition and increase efficiencies for all stakeholders. RCCs started in early 2001 with Legislative “Fill the Gap” funding. The RCCs consolidate felony preliminary hearings and arraignments on the same day. Three RCC sites (Downtown Phoenix, Mesa, and Glendale) were created and operated through FY09. In addition to expediting case processing, the RCCs helped manage the need for detention services and improve efficiency and safety for jail transports. In July of 2009, the Court decided to close the RCC site in Glendale, and shifted the related caseload to the RCC site in downtown Phoenix. This move coincided with the relocation of RCC Downtown to the basement of the Central Court Building earlier that month. This has resulted in an elimination of lease costs for the County, a reduction in jail transportation costs, and provides for greater workflow efficiencies for the Court. The two remaining RCC sites continue to reduce delay and duplication of efforts, Initial Pretrial Conferences (IPTC) were established in July of 2002. Three IPTC commissioners conduct pretrial conferences 45 days after arraignment and are available to hear changes of plea and settlement conferences in the afternoons. The IPTC ensures counsel is adequately preparing for trial by confirming that discovery has been exchanged, a plea offer has been tendered, and the offer has been seriously discussed with the client. The Master Calendar expanded in FY10 from the pilot project that started in December of 2008, to become the primary case management framework utilized throughout the Criminal Department. This methodology incorporates the Initial Pretrial Conferences with ongoing judicial management of cases through termination, while adhering to the delivery of a firm trial date that is predictable for victims, witnesses, defendants, and the lawyers. The DUI Center provides three courtrooms located together in one building that focuses exclusively on the adjudication of felony DUI cases. These courts are presided over by commissioners and improve the efficiency of managing that caseload for the lawyers, the Court, and the parties. The Probation Violation Center improves post–disposition defendant monitoring. The Probation Violation Center, established in July 2003, averaged approximately 930 probation arraignments a month in FY10. Offenders alleged to have violated the terms of their probation are managed in a consistent manner by appearing at one of two dedicated courtrooms in the lower level of the Fourth Avenue Jail. 14000 Active Criminal Case Inventory 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 PAGE 7 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 By June 2010, all 25 Maricopa County Justice Courts have implemented a new court collections program, administered by the State, which should double the collection of delinquent fines and fees in the coming year. Justice Courts Other Proceedings Agency Information There are 25 justice courts in Maricopa County that process a combined caseload of over 825,000 cases each year. Justice Court cases include civil lawsuits, in which the amount in dispute is $10,000 or less, landlord and tenant eviction actions, small claims cases, and the full range of civil and criminal traffic offenses, including DUIs. Justices of the Peace also resolve other types of misdemeanor allegations (e.g. shoplifting, writing bad checks, violating restraining orders) and, like other trial judges, also handle requests for orders of protection and injunctions against harassment. Major Events State-Wide Photo Enforcement (PE) Program and Workload: In FY10, new photo enforcement citations for speeding added 432,612 filings in Civil Traffic cases, with 56,826 of those resulting in court hearings. This legislative program began in the fall of 2008 with the installation and use of a significant number of stationary speed cameras and mobile vanmounted speed cameras throughout the freeway system in Maricopa County. The current contract between the State and the private sector camera operator expired in July 2010, with no current plans to extend the program. However, the excessive increase in citation workload for many already over-burdened Justice Courts has continued to significantly strain available resources. With the backing of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the Justice Courts were able to implement a $20 cost recovery fee to help off-set the cost of employing a significant number of on-call, temporary contract employees to help process photo enforcement citations. In addition, collaborating with the camera operator and the Department of Public Safety, the Justice Courts were able to implement an on-line “payment portal,” so that defendants could pay their fine directly through a website, avoiding a trip to court and payment of the cost recovery fee. Best Practices Committee: The Best Practices Committee was established by Presiding Justice of the Peace Administrative Order in December 2009. The stated mission of the committee is to survey and discuss issues of excellence and best practices involving court case processing, forms development and control, and other operating procedures, and then develop methods to export that excellence and best practices throughout the Maricopa County Justice Court system. Following training for the committee chair and lead staff member, and the assignment of a grant-funded Pro-Tempore Judge to provide research and professional advice, the first meeting of the Best Practices Committee was held in May 2009 and meetings continue monthly. It is anticipated that in the first year of committee activity many topics will be discussed, evaluated, and recommendations established for either policy or volunteer process in areas including pre-trial conferences, video teleconferencing for orders of protection, forms development, and other topics relating to consistent practices. FY10 Filings FY09 Small Claims Hearings/Defaults FY10 %CHG 3,167 3,139 -1% 38,465 36,187 -6% Civil Traffic (PE) Hearings Order of Protection Hearings n/a 1,111 56,826 1,145 n/a 3% Search Warrants Issued 1,339 1,720 28% Civil Traffic Hearings Filings and Terminations Filings DUI Terminations Filings Criminal Traffic Terminations Filings Civil Traffic Terminations Filings Misdemeanor Terminations Filings Small Claims Terminations Filings Eviction Actions Terminations Filings Other Civil Terminations Orders of Protec- Filings tion Terminations Injunctions Filings Against Harassment Terminations Civil Traffic Filings (Photo) Terminations FY09 11,933 11,037 66,603 68,583 FY10 10,739 10,847 50,918 55,506 %CHG -10% -2% -24% -19% 158,241 138,758 -12% 169,367 25,792 20,101 16,060 23,853 73,587 74,336 85,847 80,607 3,697 3,697 3,848 143,625 20,319 17,788 16,839 17,505 62,784 62,821 87,290 90,417 3,851 3,851 3,273 -15% -21% -12% 5% -27% -15% -15% 2% 12% 4% 4% -15% 3,848 279,508 69,763 3,273 432,612 441,549 -15% 55% 633% Note: Small Claims and Other Civil FY09 Terminations include significant data clean-up. FY09 Trials FY10 NonJury Jury Total NonJury Jury Total Criminal Traffic 286 63 349 102 45 147 Misdemeanor Civil 775 25 800 171 2 173 2,565 32 2,597 2,238 63 2,301 Total 3,626 120 3,746 2,511 110 2,621 (Continued on page 18) Constables Terminations Agency Information 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Harrassment Orders of Protection Other Civil Eviction Actions Small Claims Misd. Civil Traffic Criminal Traffic DUI Constables are elected to serve criminal and civil process of the 25 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. $2,000,000 $1,600,000 $1,200,000 $800,000 $400,000 $0 Fees Received by Constables $1,729,504 $1,740,067 $1,603,777 $1,523,747 $1,308,537 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 PAGE 8 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Clerk of the Court The Customer Service Center (CSC) was selected for the ―Best Government Customer Service‖ award in the New Times annual ―Best Of‖ issue. The publication said the CSC staff are ―attentive, helpful, and smile easily.‖ The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors recognized Clerk of the Court Michael Jeanes and the CSC staff at a formal meeting for their award for service excellence. Agency Information The Clerk of the Superior Court provides court-related records management, as well as financial and family support services to the public, legal community, and the Superior Court. The Office‟s functions satisfy over 500 state statutes and court rules. Among the Office‟s responsibilities are to: Provide public access to records of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Keep a docket. Attend each Superior Court session to record the actions of the Court. Be the first stop in initiating any Superior Court action in civil, criminal, mental health, probate, tax, family court matters, and juvenile, which includes delinquency, dependency, adoption, and severance cases. Collect and disburse court-ordered fees, fines, and victim restitution. Provide various family support services to the public. Receive, distribute, and preserve official court documents. Store exhibits for all court cases. Issue and record marriage licenses. Process passport applications. New Cases Initiated Civil Criminal Juvenile Family Probate/Mental Health Tax 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 FY08 FY09 FY10 Major Events Electronic Court Records For the past several years, the Office has been implementing an Electronic Court Record (ECR) system that enables the Clerk to receive, store, route, and make available electronic documents and eliminate the paper documents: Electronic Repository - Each month, more than 216,800 paper documents that are filed with the Office are scanned, converted to electronic format, and stored within an electronic repository. 3,364,033 documents were added to the repository in FY10. Access to these electronic documents has been granted to 35 governmental agencies. There are four office locations for the public to view the electronic records. eFiling - Several years ago, the Office began implementing eFiling programs that allow attorneys and self-represented parties to electronically file their documents from their computer rather than travel to the Clerk of the Court‟s filing counter. The eFiling programs resulted in a total of 252,453 eFilings this year. eFiling is available in all Criminal and Civil divisions, and in six Family Court divisions. eFiling allows judges, parties, and the public (where permissible) to view a case simultaneously and it increases the speed and accuracy of processing a case. The Electronic Document Management Quality Control Unit is responsible for auditing all electronic images including the paper documents that the Office scans and converts to an electronic format and the electronic documents that the law firms/parties send to the Office. Scanned documents audited = 2,763,216 Electronic Filings audited = 167,693 Pages Counted and Verified as scanned = 1,806,804 eFiling Training: The Office offers a monthly eFiling training class to law firms and legal support staff. Approximately 800 individuals participated in the training course this year. Public Access Terminals: To provide the public access to the Electronic Court Record (ECR), the Office has installed public access terminals at four office locations: the Customer Service Center (31 terminals), Southeast (10), Northeast (6), and Northwest (4). The terminals allow customers to instantly view court documents, select the images to be printed, go to the counter where they are printed, and pay the fee. Customers can view the electronic images as follows: all probate cases from 1998 forward (and active cases from 1994 - 1997) and all other adult case types from 2002 forward. 1/1/07 Initiative: On January 1, 2007, the Office made a historic change in how it handles the enormous amount of documents it receives. The paper documents (approximately 12,000 daily at that time) were no longer placed into a hard copy file (adult cases only) and stored on a shelving unit in the file room. Instead, the paper documents received were scanned, audited, and disposed of after a series of quality checks. The electronic image (stored in an electronic repository) became considered as the official court record. 2,336,460 documents (consisting of 5,585 boxes) were disposed this year. These disposals eliminated the need for approximately 155 shelving units of storage space. ECR Online: The Office implemented an ECR Online Program that allows attorneys to use the internet to register and view documents filed on cases in which they or a member of their firm are the attorney of record. Currently, there are 6,591 attorneys registered in ECR Online. Parties of record also are able to register and view documents filed on cases in which they are a party of record. There are 3,092 parties registered in ECR Online. Prior to ECR Online, attorneys and parties to a case had to visit the Office to view the hard copy file or view the case electronically on a public access terminal. Special Honor: The Office received national honors for its production of the 2008-2009 Annual Report (“The Academics of Service”) from the National Association of County Information Officers (NACIO). NACIO bestowed an “Award of Excellence” on the report in a communications competition among the nation‟s county governments. Restitution Resolution: The Clerk of the Court and the County Attorney developed a program that helps solve the issue for numerous victims of crimes not receiving their court-ordered restitution. The offices joined forces using the County Attorney‟s investigative resources and databases to locate current addresses so that the Clerk‟s Office could disburse pending restitution funds for victims. Other Workload Indicators FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG Marriage licenses issued 24,573 23,885 19,651 -18% Passport applications 45,727 35,657 41,162 15% Documents added to electronic repository 3,077,672 3,276,009 3,364,033 3% Total funds collected $2,230,804 $2,354,222 $2,487,891 6% Total restitution monies disbursed $8,762,021 $8,692,845 $8,711,962 0% 143,840 126,847 -12% Exhibits processed and released 155,775 (Continued on page 18) MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 PAGE 9 Juvenile Court’s Vision Statement: ―The Juvenile Court envisions a community free from crime, where every child is empowered to reach his or her full potential with the loving support of a functional, safe and permanent family.‖ Juvenile Court Services Agency Information The Juvenile Court decides cases involving children in Guardianships, Adoptions and the Child Welfare System, as well as those children who are referred to the Court for delinquent or incorrigible acts. The Juvenile Court envisions a community free from crime, where every child has a functional, safe and permanent family. The mission of the Juvenile Court is to fairly and impartially decide cases and administer justice through comprehensive delivery of services to children and families, victims of crime and the community so that: children reach their full potential; victims of crime are restored; and families and the community function in the best interest of children. Goals of the Juvenile Court for 2007-2012 are as follows: Goal #1: Integrated Juvenile Court System Goal #2: Public Access Goal #3: Elimination of Disproportionate Contact and Disparate Outcomes for Children of Color Goal #4: Prevention and Early Intervention Strategies Goal #5: Planning for Successful Futures Goal #6: Professional Development and Cultural Competency The Juvenile Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over children and youths, 17 years of age and under, who violate any federal, state or municipal law, and any child who is abused, neglected or dependent. The types of matters heard in Juvenile Court include delinquency cases in which a youth is charged with a crime or a status offense; dependency cases in which a child has been abused or neglected by a parent or other person with care, custody or control of the juvenile; guardianship cases to determine legal guardianship of a child and severance and adoption cases. Petitions Filed with Juvenile Court FY07 FY08 Delinquency 14,421 Dependency 1,726 2,018 Adoption 1,042 Guardianship Certifications Severance 14,010 12,841 FY10 %CHG 11,787 -8% 2,592 2,451 -5% 1,205 1,184 1,416 20% 1,099 1,999 2,042 1,884 -8% 1,072 1,020 276 324 17% N/A 333 376 431 15% 20,585 19,311 18,293 -5% 19,675 Total FY09 Juveniles Committed to the Department of Juvenile Corrections FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG 449 415 445 441 -1% Major Events In FY10 under the leadership of Juvenile Presiding Judges Norman Davis and Eddward Ballinger, Maricopa County Juvenile Court continued to partner with many agencies to improve the delivery of services to the citizens of our county. Maricopa County Juvenile Court received national recognition as the recipients of the 2010 National Association of Court Management Achievement Award for the CASA website. The Department also received awards from the National Association of County Organizations for the Juvenile Offense Intake and Information Training Program and the Children‟s Collaborative of Maricopa County. In FY10, the Juvenile Court Juvenile Offense and Information and Intake Unit processed 15,984 paper referrals, 5,028 miscellaneous referrals and 8,364 citations from 55 local law enforcement agencies and schools. The Community Service Unit (CSU) The CSU was established in 2006, to provide services to children and families through collaboration among the Court, Juvenile Probation, Child Protective Services, Magellan, the Juvenile Legal Assistance Program (JLAP) and other community providers. Services are available to both post-and-pre adjudicated youth, with an effort made towards high quality services and alternatives to detention. In FY10, the CSU received over 4,344 telephone and 2,668 walk-in requests from the public for services and information. The CSU facilitated an average of 22 monthly requests from Juvenile Court Judicial Officers, Juvenile Probation Department, and the CASA Program for professional assistance involving the areas of expertise of respective CSU members. In addition, the CSU conducted 70 Staffings. The Juvenile Legal Assistance Program (JLAP), a partnership between Maricopa County Juvenile Court, the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and the Volunteer Lawyer‟s Program, was established in 2008. In FY10, JLAP expanded to include offering appointments at the Tempe YWCA, at a location convenient to litigants in the East Valley. The JLAP program is staffed by ASU law students assigned through the ASU Director of Pro Bono and Community Outreach. The law students work under the supervision of lawyers with prior juvenile court experience to offer free legal consultation in Juvenile Court matters to pro se litigants. In FY10, 130 JLAP appointments for pro se litigants were made. Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program Positive Action Powerful Results CASA of Maricopa County (Court Appointed Special Advocates) provides a highly specialized volunteer service to abused and neglected children who are in the juvenile court system. These court appointed volunteers make sure the needs of dependent children are met by helping their cases navigate through the legal and social service system. CASA volunteers stay with each case until the child is placed in a safe, permanent home. For the majority of dependent children, their CASA volunteer will be the one constant adult presence throughout their involvement with the child welfare system. 2010 marks the start of CASA‟s 25th year serving abused and neglected children in Maricopa County and we are proud to report that CASA of Maricopa County service levels for FY10 were the highest ever in our program‟s history. 419 active Court Appointed Special Advocates, known as CASA volunteers, advocated for the rights and safety of 654 children who were victims of abuse or neglect and placed in foster care under the protection of the Juvenile Court in Maricopa County. In performing their advocate duties in FY10, CASA volunteers filed 319 court reports, donated 11,263 hours of unpaid volunteer advocacy valued at $228,076, and drove 392,676 miles valued at $196,338. CASA of Maricopa County increased the number of children being served by a CASA volunteer from 380 in FY09 to 654 in FY10. This represents a 67% jump in the numbers of children being served in Maricopa County. In FY10, 174 children had their cases successfully resolved and closed with the help of their assigned CASA volunteers. Of these, 25 children were re-united with their families, 66 were adopted into safe loving homes, 7 were placed in permanent foster care, 34 were emancipated upon turning 18 years old, and 42 children were assigned legal guardians. CASA of Maricopa County‟s recruitment campaign, “A CASA Looks Like Me,” succeeded in recruiting, training and assigning cases to 87 new CASAs and 12 re-activated retired CASAs who collectively advocated on behalf of 289 new children. Also during FY10, the program processed 1,983 requests for information and received 563 applicants, resulting in a net of 210 qualified applications. PAGE 10 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Juvenile Probation Dept. Juvenile Probation continues to make a positive difference in the lives of juveniles and the community as evidenced by the work done on expanding detention alternatives, promoting accountability through community service, and promoting fiscal accountability within our own Department. Agency Information The Juvenile Probation Department supervises youth placed on probation by Juvenile Court and manages two detention facilities with a 376 bed capacity and a functional (staffing) capacity of 340. As an extension of restorative justice, the Department administers community-based prevention programs and formal diversion in collaboration with the Maricopa County Attorney, Community Justice Centers, and communities. Juvenile Detention Average Daily Population FY08 335 FY09 282 406 406 406 -17% -31% -33% 14 13 13 Average Daily Capacity Average Daily % Over Capacity Avg Length of Stay (Days) Average Daily Juvenile Probation Population FY08 FY09 Standard Probation 4,154 3,929 Intensive Probation 531 416 Total 4,411 4,213 FY10 %CHG 270 -4% 0% 0% FY10 %CHG 4,106 5% 394 -5% 4,500 7% Juvenile Community Restitution Hours Completed FY08 127,700 FY09 169,521 FY10 129,932 Juvenile Compliance with Diversion Consequences FY081 FY09 %CHG -23% FY10 %CHG Consequences Given 10,810 18,675 17,355 -7% Completed on Time 9,844 15,968 14,758 -8% Closed/Did not Comply 2,277 2,323 3,216 38% Note: Consequences may include community service, participation in educational programs or counseling programs, and restitution. Consequences may be closed due to loss of jurisdiction, new offense, or a decision to change the consequence. 1 Completed on Time, Closed, and Did Not Comply will not add up to total Consequences given because some completed consequences may have been assigned in a prior fiscal year. Major Events Detention – Durango and Southeast Maricopa County Transitional Learning Centers (Detention School): As a result of the collaborative partnership between Detention and School administrations, there have been drastic improvements in the academic achievement levels of detained youth. During FY10, detained youth earned a total of 783 high school credits compared to 128 high school credits earned in FY09. During FY10, 131 detained youth received Special Education services at Durango Transitional Learning Center, which equates to 23% of the total population. Teen Outreach Program: Durango Detention Facility partnered with the Maricopa County Health Department to offer the Teen Outreach Program. TOP is an evidence-based program that provides support and opportunity to youth to prepare for successful adulthood and avoid problem behavior. This program increases academic success and prevents teenage pregnancy by providing training in life skills, sex education, and goal setting. TOP served 180 youth in the Durango Detention Facility in FY10. GED: The Maricopa County Regional School District partners with Juvenile Probation to provide youth the opportunity to attain their GED while detained. In FY10, 119 youth took the GED test with 101 youth attaining their GED. Parenting Program: The Helping Others with Parenting Education (H.O.P.E.) grant is a collaborative effort addressing the needs of young mothers and fathers in detention. The H.O.P.E Program offers training in child development, parenting skills, substance abuse, sexual health education and case management. In FY10, the program served 99 new youth. Release The Fear: This is a grant-funded three day workshop designed to counter the effects of violence by turning fear, anger and hate into acceptance and hope. The intensive workshops employ creative processes such as imagery, art, movement, affirmations and visualization. During FY10, 259 youth participated in the workshop. Girls Scouts: The Juvenile Detention Facilities continue to have a partnership with Girls Scouts. Representatives from the Girl Scouts conduct weekly programming on the girls‟ units. Girls are also invited to join the Girl Scouts following their release from detention. Detention Alternatives: The Juvenile Electronic Technological Surveillance Program began in the spring of 2009 and monitors youth by using Global Position Satellite (GPS) units. The GPS unit allows youth to be in the community while awaiting their court hearings; this has resulted in a reduction of youth who are detained in the juvenile detention facilities. The GPS unit also protects victims by creating exclusion zones around areas that pertain to the victim. Detention Camera Project: In our continued effort to enhance the safety and security of staff and detained youth, each Detention Facility installed video/audio cameras in our detention facilities. The cameras are connected to a DVR system for recording and evaluating emergency situations/incidents. Juvenile Population vs. Referrals Population Ages 8 -17 Referrals (delinquent, incorrigibility) 600,000 400,000 200,000 6.3% 6.2% 5.3% 0 FY08 FY09 FY10 Collaboration with Community Partners Disproportionate Minority Contact: The Department continues to provide training and educational opportunities in the areas of diversity, Disproportionate Minority Contact, Disparate Outcomes for Children of Color, and Evidence Based Practices. Accountability: The Juvenile Probation Department Juvenile Community Restitution and Public Service Program matches juveniles with community service projects so that the youth can fulfill the terms of probation and/or other consequences for behavior and earn money to pay restitution. During FY10, juveniles performed 22,658 hours of community service/ restitution in Maricopa County. Juveniles completed $113,290 in work value to the community and earned over $20,000 in restitution money. (Continued on page 18) PAGE 11 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 In March of 2010, after a rigorous inspection process, the OME’s toxicology lab became the only American Board of Forensic Toxicology certified lab in Arizona and the twenty-eighth lab certified in the entire nation. Medical Examiner Case Completion (% Closed in . . . ) FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 45 Days 43% 68% 47% 57% 47% 90 Days 83% 91% 81% 93% 78% Agency Information The Office of the Medical Examiner (OME) 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). Upon completion of the investigation, the Medical Examiner issues 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. In cases involving criminal investigation and prosecution, the final report is made available 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. 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. Caseload Summary FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG Number of Cases % of Autopsies Per- 5,168 5,107 4,554 0% 57% 65% 63% 62% -2% Accident 2,090 2,025 1,892 1,859 -2% 396 387 272 238 -13% Natural 1,972 1,950 1,678 1,641 -2% Suicide 548 553 531 532 0% Undetermined 162 192 171 188 13% - - 6 96 - Homicide Pending Major Events Medical Examiner Cases As a result of legislative changes to the Arizona Revised Statutes in FY07, the Office of the Medical Examiner made significant changes to their business model. The changes to the business model allowed cases (Cases Not Admitted) that met certain requirements to be released directly to funeral homes/mortuaries. Cases Not Admitted increased from 8% in FY07 to 18% in FY08, to 20% in FY09, to 22% in FY10. Correctional Health 5,400 5,100 4,800 4,500 4,200 5,168 FY07 5,107 FY08 4,550 4,554 FY09 FY10 Correctional Health Services worked with the Office of Management and Budget to secure funding for an Electronic Medical Record System. Agency Information Correctional Health Services (CHS) provides evidence-based, medically necessary, integrated health care to patients in the county jails so that they can proceed through the judicial system. Major Events Although the average daily population in the jails decreased by approximately 13%, services needed and provided for by CHS did not decrease by that amount, and increased in some activities. CHS decreased the clinical vacancy and turnover rate for FY10, and added approximately 40 new positions primarily in the mental health activities for FY11. CHS hired a project director for the procurement and implementation of the Electronic Medical Record system. CHS worked with County Government Relations to modify the restrictions on the Rule11 evaluations, which will lead to timelier evaluations as well as a reduction in costs. Encounters by Visit Type FY08 FY09 FY 10 %CHG Medical 530,604 548,631 517,022 -6% Mental Health 39,528 51,150 52,097 2% 3,034 3,131 3,315 6% 2,985 3,056 3,170 4% Dental Specialty 4,550 Other Indicators FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG 217,802 261,663 251,043 -4% IP Infirmary pt. Days 14,778 13,329 13,675 3% IP Mental Health pt. Days 55,890 62,110 40,230 -35% Receiving Screenings 103,179 107,278 113,768 6% 3,254 2,269 2,258 0% Prescriptions Filled Outside Hospital Days Note: Throughout this report, the percent change columns (%CHG) indicate the percentage increase or decrease over the prior year. PAGE 12 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Sheriff’s Office The average daily population was 8,039 in FY10. Agency Information The Sheriff‟s Office provides law enforcement, jail detention, and crime prevention services to the public. Bookings by Agency Local Police 130,979 130,041 127,842 8,500 8,039 8,000 120,462 7,500 FY07 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY08 100,813 FY09 100,127 FY10 90,357 1,113 9,381 568 465 1,714 9,428 531 414 2,344 8,312 470 725 2,463 8,557 397 1,207 Self Surrenders City Court 14,127 13,581 13,139 12,997 Justice Court Superior Crt Total 2,968 1,781 127,842 2,710 1,788 130,979 3,058 1,866 130,041 2,932 1,552 120,462 Federal County State Other %CHG -10% FY09 FY07 FY08 6/9/06 9/23/07 5% Date 3% Population 9,667 9,884 -16% 66% Average Length of Stay by Type (in days) -1% Pretrial -4% Sentenced -17% -7% Agency Hold Other FY10 %CHG Felony Misdemeanor City Agency Hold Other 7,101 445 999 347 53 7,267 497 1,088 364 55 7,073 554 1,179 354 59 6,058 473 1,145 304 59 -14% -15% -3% -14% 0% Total 8,946 9,270 9,219 8,039 -13% Inmate Transports 170,000 165,000 160,000 155,000 150,000 145,000 140,000 135,000 130,000 FY08 FY10 Inmate Population High Count Average Daily Population by Category of Offense FY07 FY08 FY09 Total FY09 FY10 %CHG 9/15/08 7/5/09 9,885 8,833 -11% FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG 7.58 7.4 6.67 6.49 -3% 29.29 26.08 24.54 24.37 -1% 65.27 60.97 60.69 62.26 3% 3.07 3.45 3.04 1.8 -41% 25.51 25.82 25.75 25.03 -3% Average Length of Stay by Type Pretrial Sentenced Agency Hold Other 70 60 50 D 40 a 30 y 20 s 10 0 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Other Workload Indicators FY07 FY08 FY09 FY 09 FY 10 $18,806,685 $14,276,180 -24% Net Canteen Sales $7,916,580 $7,258,864 -8% Meals Served 13,186,218 10,725,616 -19% Warrants Received 50,335 43,879 -10% Dom Violence Orders Rec'd 19,786 19,181 -13% 911 Calls Received 161,089 162,584 1% Calls for Service 545,391 467,082 -14% FY10 Inmates Transported Bonds/Fines Processed FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG 138,894 154,485 148,019 130,791 -12% Justice Court 1,420 1,689 1,762 1,424 -19% Justice Video 6,103 7,591 8,533 6,701 -21% Special 3,249 3,227 3,837 3,842 0% 149,666 166,992 162,151 142,758 -12% Total 9,219 8,941 9,000 FY07 97,439 Superior Court 9,265 9,500 Bookings 132,000 130,000 128,000 126,000 124,000 122,000 120,000 118,000 116,000 114,000 Average Daily Jail Population 10,000 Special includes downtown and South East Judicial District remands and unscheduled transports. %CHG PAGE 13 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Public Defense Services expenditures for FY10 were less than the prior year. This is the first reduction in spending since at least FY03. The FY10 reduction follows the FY09 spending which was the lowest annual increase in spending since 1999. Public Defense Services (Indigent Representation) Agency Information Public Defense Services (PDS) provides mandated legal services to indigent individuals when assigned by the Court, primarily for: Criminal proceedings including felony, misdemeanor, probation violation, appeals, post-conviction relief, and cases in which defendants oppose extradition. Juveniles facing delinquency or incorrigibility charges. Indigent individuals at risk of a loss of liberty in civil mental health proceedings. Those involved in civil child dependency or severance proceedings. Civil proceedings in Probate or Family Court in which a guardian ad litem or best interest attorney is mandated. To provide constitutionally mandated legal representation to indigent individuals in the most cost-effective manner, Maricopa County maintains four staffed defender offices and contracts with a limited number of private attorneys. Multiple offices are necessary to address legal conflicts of interest that arise primarily because of prior representation of co-defendants, victims, or witnesses. Office Type Program Activity Adult Criminal Appeal and Post Conviction Relief Staffed Representation Representation Capital Representation Misdemeanor Representation The Indigent Representation Information System (IRIS) project team continued efforts to standardize data collection and reporting. In FY10 data for the Office of the Legal Advocate was converted from Time Matters into IRIS. Completion of this project concluded a multi-year effort to convert all case records for PDS staffed offices‟ including felony, misdemeanor, appeals, and mental health case types. Current efforts are focused on the creation of a model for dependency case types. Once completed, IRIS will be able to collect and report on all case types within PDS staffed offices. Juvenile Juvenile Delinquency and IncorriRepresentation gibility Representation Juvenile Probation Representation Juvenile Guardian Ad Litem Representation (Count of Kids) Parental Dependency Representation (Count of Kids) Adult Criminal Contract Representation Capital Representation -7% 12,302 11,300 7,462 5 -34% 10 150% 2,746 3,389 3,501 3% 25 4 35 59% 7,861 7,763 7,014 -10% 90 22 23 -74% 1,807 1,857 1,915 3% 1,794 0% 2,058 0% -13% 31% Witness Representation Probate Representation Mental Health Representation 16 88 14 Adult Civil Adult Guardian Ad Litem RepreRepresentation sentation 16 86 88 104 18% 512 475 479 1% 434 477 532 12% 2,276 2,108 719 -66% 834 906 933 3% 65 83 79 -5% Juvenile Juvenile Delinquency and IncorriRepresentation gibility Representation 2,899 2,516 2,032 Juvenile Emancipation Representation 6 Support Services 49% Non-Capital Felony Representation 7,488 4,871 6,392 Misdemeanor Representation Appeal and Post Conviction Relief Representation Contract Counsel 36% Legal Advocate 5% 13 -9% Adult Civil Representation Mental Health Representation Sexually Violent Persons Representation Legal Defender 9% Juvenile Defender 11% 14 -15% Witness Representation Case Assignment Proportions FY10 Public Defender 39% 26 Non-Capital Felony Representation 27,713 28,704 24,294 Juvenile Appeal Representation Public Defense Services staff believe that the quality of life in our community can be enhanced by addressing the underlying issues that contribute to criminal activity and recidivism. The Public Defender and Juvenile Defender Offices continue to play crucial roles in related efforts. In FY10 the Public Defender‟s office participated in re-entry initiatives and continued to be an advocate for veterans issues. Reentry initiatives included serving as a stakeholder for the House‟s Legislative Sub-Committee on sentencing reform, sponsoring several training programs on implementation of evidence-based practices, and working with Magellan and Community Health Services to address gaps in mental health services for clients. Two Public Defender staff continue to serve on the Maricopa County Superior Court‟s Veterans Treatment Court Exploratory Committee. Furthermore, presentations on Veteran‟s issues were conducted at the annual Public Defender Association Conference. The Juvenile Defender‟s efforts include participating and hosting forums, speaking at valley schools, assisting with teen court, locating appropriate services, hosting restoration of rights events and providing general legal information to the public. 1,098 1,078 1,610 3,029 2,982 2,705 Probation Representation Major Events FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG 154 0% Juvenile Probation Representation Juvenile Notification Representation 152 51 45 46 2% Juvenile Appeal Representation Juvenile Guardian Ad Litem Representation (Count of Kids) Child Dependency Representation (Count of Kids) Parental Dependency Representation (Count of Kids) 72 156 214 37% 7,504 0% 1,099 0% 8,512 0% Support Services 69 122 33% 92 105 -19% The number of cases assigned equals all cases of indicated type opened during the fiscal year, minus cases disposed during the fiscal year with one of the following results: No Complaint, Workload Withdrawal, or Administrative Transfer to Another IR Department. -32% PAGE 14 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Adult Probation The Department continues to build its capacity as an evidence‐based organization. In this multi‐year endeavor to successfully implement evidence‐based practices, we are cultivating a cultural shift and developing new skill sets. There has been an ongoing flurry of productive activity and progress is being made in many areas, with training, new tools, quality assurance, and improved communication. Agency Information Maricopa County Adult Probation (MCAPD) has the following duties: Managing offender risk by enforcing Court orders. Encouraging probationers to engage in pro-social change, law-abiding 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. Average Monthly Population on Supervision Standard Probation Intensive Probation Unsupervised Probation Total 1 In FY07 30,230 FY08 29,891 FY091 25,994 FY10 23,994 %CHG -8% 1,257 1,092 968 813 -16% 3,802 7,166 88% 30,764 31,973 4% 31,487 30,983 previous years Unsupervised was included with Standard Probation. Additional Probation Department Activities FY09 FY10 %CHG 19,178 16,960 -12% 586,723 407,628 -31% $28,690,912 $26,396,659 -8% Presentence Reports Community Restitution Hrs1 Collections2 1 Includes Standard and Intensive Probation restitution hours. 2 Includes reimbursement, restitution, fines, probation fees, and taxes. Managing for Results Victim Satisfaction Survey Pretrial Successful Completion Rate Probationers who successfully completed MCAPD operated and/or funded treatment and residential services Standard probationers who successfully completed probation Warrants Cleared (New in FY only) FY09 47% FY10 53% 87% 87% 47% 64% 64% 66% 75% 62% Major Events NACo Achievement Award for The Evidence Based Practices (EBP) Quality Assurance Project: To advance its primary goal of crime reduction, the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department committed to an EBP Initiative. Recognizing the over-arching principle of quality assurance, along with the ongoing need to promote a positive learning environment, three Quality Assistance (QA) supervisor positions were created in August 2007. The QA supervisors have played a significant role in the training and coaching of staff, as well as the dissemination of information geared to improve staff‟s understanding and use of the techniques that work to reduce crime. Evaluation demonstrated advances in staff‟s EBP skills. Mountain Plains Adult Education Association Awards MCAPD Education Program: The organization promotes and provides professional development opportunities for adult educators and is on the cutting edge of research-based successful adult education tactics. At the Conference, MCAPD‟s Education Program and three of its staff won awards. Bill Pebler, Dan Sitzler and Kristi Wimmer were recognized for their participation in the 2009 Teachers Investigating Adult Numeracy (TIAN) project. TIAN is a professional development initiative that teaches researchbased mathematic principals to instructors of adults. Research-based TIAN is a way for our teachers to effectively show the probationers how to solve math problems in the classroom, at home and at work. MCAPD‟s Education Program was recognized for exceeding all the Arizona State Performance goals. MCAPD Education Program Certificate of Achievement: Recognized by the Arizona Department of Education with a Certificate of Achievement for exceeding the Arizona state performance goals for student educational gains. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Grant Award: The ARRA provided a multitude of new grant programs to create and retain jobs, and it significantly increased the availability of grant funding. MCAPD was successful in receiving seven grants worth over $4 million – a significant accomplishment given the level of competition for these grants. Here is a brief summary of the grants that were received: Combating Criminal Narcotics Activity Stemming from the Southern Border of the U.S.: This two year stimulus grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) provides for five surveillance officers (SO) in the Fugitive Apprehension Unit. The officers will be dedicated to working warrants on probation violators with drug-related charges. Justice Assistance Grant - JAG: This three year stimulus grant from the U.S. DOJ funds two SO positions to work in the Community Restitution Program. Edward Byrne Competitive Grant: This two year stimulus grant from the U.S. DOJ supports a new Prison Reentry Initiative to improve the transition of offenders coming to probation after serving a sentence in the Department of Corrections. The grant funds seven SO positions, seven PO positions and one unit supervisor position. Adult Treatment Drug Courts Grant: This three year grant project funded by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will support a partnership with Community Bridges to enhance treatment services for opiate abusers participating in the drug court program. Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant: This two and a half year grant from the U.S. DOJ will pay part of the cost to replace bulletproof vests. Justice Assistance Grant - JAG - Local: This grant from the U.S. DOJ will assist the Community Restitution Program with one SO position for one year and on-call weekend crew supervisor hours. Drug, Gang & Violent Crime Control Program Grant: This state funded grant provides four case administrators in Court Liaison as well as eight screeners and one judicial clerk associate in Presentence for one year. Three of the positions are growth. Drug-Related Probation Violators Apprehended and Brought Back to Court: MCAPD received an ARRA grant to continue to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the southern border. Since October 2009, the five grant-funded SOs have arrested 429 probationers with probation violation warrants for drug or drug-related offenses and brought them back into the justice system. In addition, the officers assisted in clearing another 210 probation violation warrants on individuals with drug or drug-related offenses by providing information to local law enforcement agencies. In the course of their apprehension work, the officers conducted 32 probation searches that took illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and weapons off the streets, including 25 firearms. The officers have formed working relationships with numerous local law enforcement agencies. AZ Wanted Task Force: Over the past several years, several members of the Fugitive Apprehension Unit were recruited by the U.S. Marshals Service to become sworn members of a multi-agency task force that is completely dedicated to apprehending violent and dangerous fugitives. When the national resources of the U.S. Marshals Service are combined with the powers and duties of our Department, the end result is a formidable weapon to combat fugitive felons in and out of the state of Arizona. (Continued on page 18) MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Adult Probation PAGE 15 Pretrial Services conducted 57,591 interviews of arrested defendants in the Maricopa County jail system in FY09 and 49,892 interviews in FY10. This constituted a 13% decrease in reports provided to the Court. Pretrial Services Division Division Profile Pretrial Services has five primary responsibilities: 1. Conduct background checks on arrested defendants, which involve 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. Pretrial Services FY08 FY09 FY10 %CHG 772 635 545 -14% Intensive Supervision Electronic Monitoring 1,290 255 1,113 265 1,066 249 -4% -5% Total 2,317 2.011 1,860 -8% General Supervision Total Defendants on Pretrial Supervised Release 2500 2317 2011 2000 1860 1500 1000 500 0 FY08 FY09 FY10 Major Events Expansion of Jail Interviewing: Pretrial Services expanded jail interviewing in order to secure the best information to provide to judicial officers assisting them in making the best release determinations. Jail interviews now include Probation Violation cases and Superior Court bench warranted defendants. The unit also expanded criteria of cases requiring a criminal history and/or a financial disclosure, increasing the amount of valuable information that is provided to the Court. Increase in Bond Unit Investigations: Pretrial Services experienced an increase in bond unit investigations used to determine feasibility of modified release conditions for defendants remaining in custody at various phases in their court process. Pretrial Justice Institute: The Superior Court through Pretrial Services contracted with the Pretrial Justice Institute to gather data elements for analysis and research to develop an evidence-based risk assessment that can be used to assist in determining recommendations for release decisions. Assess Veteran Status: Pretrial Services incorporated questions regarding military service at initial appearance and they are tracking the data in an attempt to assess veteran status and engage in planning for a therapeutic Veteran‟s post-disposition court. Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology: The Pretrial Electronic Monitoring Supervision Unit has dramatically increased the utilization of GPS technology resulting in enhanced monitoring capabilities. GPS is used to monitor approximately 80% of the population and radio frequency technology is used on the remaining 20%. Additionally, cellular technology has allowed for an increased capacity for the segment of the population that no longer maintains telephonic landline services. Continuity of Care: Pretrial Services continued focusing on the Continuity of Care calendar in the Comprehensive Mental Health Court involving case staffings on newly arrested defendants that are designated seriously mentally ill (SMI) and receiving services from Magellan. These cases are identified prior to their first court appearance after initial appearance. These staffings then determine which services need to be in place for the defendants to be transitioned back into the community whenever they are released from custody and the care plan can be formulated prior to the release. This ensures cases are appropriately tracked through the court process in an effort to maintain continuity of care and increase success outcomes. This work continues to support the vision provided by Supervisor Don Stapley‟s SMI Commission. Correctional Health Services Collaboration: Pretrial Services developed a collaborative with Correctional Health Services (CHS) to identify, triage and assess those newly arrested who appear to be in need of CHS services for both medical and mental health needs. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Disposition Reporting Committee: The Department continued as a member of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Disposition Reporting Committee and has worked extensively with a wide variety of criminal justice partners to address required fixes in the criminal history disposition databases, representing the interests of the pretrial process of the court to ensure these needs are examined prior to the crafting and submission of recommended legislative changes. Evidence Based Practices (EBP): Pretrial Services conducted a system scan of EBP in the pretrial field and developed strategies to incorporate them into the pretrial arena. The Department provided staff trainings in EBP, Motivational Interviewing, Stages of Change and Maricopa County Caseload Assessments for a better understanding of the Offender Screening Tool and Field Reassessment Offender Screening Tool instruments and the formulation of case plans. PAGE 16 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 County Attorney The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office prosecuted more than 37,000 adult felony cases in fiscal year 2009-10. Agency Information The Maricopa County Attorney‟s Office (MCAO) is one of the largest prosecutor‟s office in the U.S. serving more than four million citizens and handling more than 37,000 adult felony cases each year. The mission of the MCAO is to protect and strengthen the community by holding criminals accountable for the crimes they commit and ensuring that the rights of crime victims are honored and respected throughout the criminal justice process. In 2010, voters elected Bill Montgomery to serve as County Attorney. Major Events Reported crime is on a downward trend in the major metropolitan areas of Maricopa County. Through the first quarter of 2010, Phoenix reported a 29% decrease in homicides over last year; a 25% decline in larcenies and a 19% decrease in robberies. Other cities in Maricopa County are seeing similar declines. According to the County Attorney, these figures are a testament to a successful crime fighting approach that focuses on aggressive prosecution and tough mandatory sentences for repeat and violent offenders. From 2004 to 2009, the number of incarcerated inmates rose 38% while violent and property crime rates fell nearly 29% statewide and 14% in Maricopa County, both figures far exceeding the national decrease of 5.5% over the same period. Maricopa County Adult Felony Filings 50000 43,448 41,338 40,814 45000 39,559 2 40000 Source: County Attorney Information System, January 2011 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 FY05 FY06 FY07 41,430 FY08 37,204 FY09 FY10 FY10 % Chg. Selected Adult Felony Filings FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Agg. Assault 3,162 3,021 2,763 2,974 2,604 -12.4 Arson 36 25 52 40 44 10.0 Burglary 2,044 Child Molest 363 2,303 2,347 2,347 2,293 -2.3 322 366 343 404 17.8 DUI 2,881 Drug Related 16,036 2,822 3,147 2,867 2,673 -6.8 16,873 16,790 15,855 15,257 -3.8 Homicide 293 314 334 274 278 1.5 Robbery 919 972 1,146 1,314 1,242 -5.5 Sexual Assault 100 100 86 112 139 24.1 Theft 1,239 1,099 1,202 1,110 819 -26.2 Auto Theft 2,644 2,128 1,668 1,114 691 -38.0 TOTAL 29,979 29,901 28,350 26,444 -6.7 29,717 Based on research models from leading crime economists, the policies and sponsored legislation of the MCAO have led to the incarceration of an estimated 3,100 additional offenders in Maricopa County since 2005 who would not have been imprisoned otherwise. The number of felonies committed by repeat offenders averages one per month; the average prison sentence under Arizona‟s truth-in-sentencing laws is 33 months. According to the County Attorney calculations, these figures suggest that approximately 98,038 additional crimes have been prevented in Maricopa County over the last five years. Assuming 90% of those deterred crimes are to property with an average cost of $1,900 each, that works out to a savings of $167.7 million. Assuming the remaining 10% (9,804) are violent offenses which are estimated to cost $20,000 each, that works out to a savings of nearly $196 million. According to the County Attorney, not only is this proof of the adage “crime doesn‟t pay,” it supports the corollary, “incarceration saves,” to the tune of $363.7million. Despite the success of tough incarceration sentences, prison is not the default in Maricopa County‟s criminal justice system. In 2010, more than 6,200 drug cases were prosecuted in the County‟s Early Disposition Court, which allows offenders to avoid felony convictions by pleading early and participating in substance abuse programs. 4,400 other potential felons were referred to diversion programs. Additionally, since 2009, more than 1,200 young offenders have entered the MCAO‟s Juvenile Diversion Program, which has seen an 85% successful completion rate. Overall, the proportion of criminal cases resolved through plea bargaining remained steady in 2010, at 79.25%, consistent with prosecution agencies throughout the country. Consistent with its mission to honor and respect the rights of crime victims, MCAO launched the Victim Restitution Project to locate victims who are due restitution but whom the Court has been unable to find. Working with the Clerk of Superior Court, MCAO Investigators located more than 2,100 victims and provided them with more than $700,000 in court ordered restitution funds from defendants. In 2010, the MCAO undertook a number of initiatives that improved operational efficiencies. These included a customized business intelligence platform that allows the MCAO division and bureau supervisors to access real-time caseflow data and other key performance indicators on a desktop dashboard, and an enhanced Court Appearance Notification System that alerts approximately 10,000 law enforcement officers of their required court appearances through a secure, user-friendly web interface. Last year, the National Association of Counties recognized the MCAO with Achievement Awards for its Annual Asset Forfeiture Conference, Courthouse Dogs Program, Legal Arizona Workers Act Enforcement Program, Mortgage Fraud Program and Victim Services Division Law Enforcement Advocate. Additionally, the MCAO‟s Investigations Division was named a Flagship Agency by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies for its excellent policy development and flawless file maintenance. The MCAO is currently the only law enforcement agency in Arizona to earn this designation, which remains in effect for three years. PAGE 17 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Justice System Planning & Information Less Crime, Less Victims, Less Cost Agency Information Maricopa County Justice System Planning and Information (JSPI) Department seeks to transform lives and communities through initiatives that prevent and reduce crime. The mission of the Department is to prevent crime and reduce recidivism by using evidence-based approaches in collaboration with a wide range of organizations including law enforcement, local, county, and national government agencies, faith-based and community agencies. The strategic priorities of JSPI include the following: Adult crime prevention and recidivism reduction JSPI strives to prevent crime and reduce recidivism by implementing focused deployment of crime and delinquency prevention strategies utilizing evidencebased approaches. tion about drug use, crime, victimization, etc. on individuals arrested in Maricopa County. In five facilities throughout the County, professionally trained interviewers conduct voluntary confidential interviews with recently booked arrestees. Each interviewee also provides a urine specimen that is tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs. AARIN serves as a near-real-time information source on the extent and nature of drug abuse and related activity in Maricopa County. This information helps to inform policy and practice among police, courts, and correctional agencies to increase public safety and address the needs of individuals who find themselves in the criminal justice system. A complete listing of AARIN reports is available at the following website: http:// cvpcs.asu.edu/ Juvenile delinquency and crime prevention Criminal justice research and data analysis Positive Urinalysis Results by Gender and Type of Drug for Adult Arrestees Major Events Adult Ex-Offender Employment Services: In order to address the high recidivism rate and the need for employment services for the ex-offender population in Maricopa County, JSPI sponsors a comprehensive ex-offender employment program called PASSAGES (PAthways to Success, Security, and Gainful Employment Solutions). The PASSAGES program provides employment, educational, and vocational training to male and female adult ex-offenders, in conjunction with mentoring, social services, and other assistance. The PASSAGES program uses performance-based contracting to ensure that payment for services is directly tied to documented and successful client outcomes. The program has resulted in measurable increases in the number of ex-offenders who have gained employment and has significantly reduced the recidivism rate for those clients served, leading to savings in criminal justice system costs. YMCA Youth Development Program: JSPI contracts with the Phoenix South Mountain YMCA to provide a highly-structured program providing supervision and an array of activities for adjudicated male youth between the ages of 14-17 during the peak hours of the day when delinquent acts are frequently committed. The program includes life skills training, homework assistance, arts, recreational and cultural activities, group preparation of an evening meal, and community service opportunities. Actively engaged youth demonstrate reductions in criminal activity. Childhelp/KEYS Community Center Youth Development Program: This prevention program provided activities and services for nonadjudicated at-risk youth between the ages of 12-17 residing in the South Mountain area. Program components included case management, basic education support, life skills training, job preparation, and community engagement opportunities. Summer Madness: JSPI and the City of Phoenix collaborate to sponsor three “Summer Madness” events at Phoenix Parks for South Mountain youth and their families. The events‟ objectives included: promoting community health and safety opportunities; showcasing the County‟s youth and adult crime prevention programs; strengthening collaborative efforts among stakeholders; and advancing positive community messaging. In FY10, events were held at Hermosa, Hayden and Lindo parks, with a combined attendance of approximately 1,000 youth and families. Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN): JSPI contracts with Arizona State University to sponsor AARIN, a drug abuse monitoring system that provides on-going descriptive informa- 100% 80% 42% 60% 40% 20% 31% 13% 9% 32% 22% 14% 11% 8% 9% 0% Alcohol Marijuana Male Meth Cocaine Opiates Female Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee: JSPI is among the numerous agencies partnering with the U.S. Attorney‟s Office for the District of Arizona on the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee Reentry Initiative. The LECC is a community based, stakeholder led coalition to promote the successful reintegration of former inmates in order to reduce crime and recidivism, and increase public safety. The LECC Reentry Recommendation Report can be located at the following website: http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/reports/Newsletter/LECC_WS_Reentry_I nitiative_Report_2010.pdf Support for the Legacy Project: In order to promote re-entry programming, JSPI provides evaluation support for the Legacy Project, which is a partnership between Maricopa County Adult Probation and the Arizona Department of Corrections to develop a collaborative model of supervision to address the high rates of recidivism in the Phoenix South Mountain area 85041 zip code. JSPI assists in the Legacy Project evaluation activities, including the following: 1.) Identification of useful supportive services and gaps in services for probationers while on supervision; 2.) Evaluation of results from the PATH project providing pre‐release and post‐release discharge planning to address the barriers that greatly impact success within the first months of release from incarceration. Program Evaluation for the Status Offender Specialty Court: JSPI provides program evaluation support services for the Juvenile Court Status Offender Specialty Court program that is designed to reduce the number of status offenders confined in detention. JSPI assists Juvenile Court in determining if the program is being implemented as intended and achieving the desired outcomes. PAGE 18 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Justice Courts (Continued from page 7) F.A.R.E. (Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement): During FY10, through significant efforts with Court Technology Services, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and the private collections vender contracting with the State, Justice Courts completed the first phase implementation of F.A.R.E. – the statewide public/private collections and order enforcement program hosted through the AOC. The important contributions of F.A.R.E. include: 1) compliance with and respect for Court Orders and the Law; 2) enhanced customer service; 3) increased revenues; 4) consistency and uniformity in case processing; and 5) efficiencies to help reduce routine, non-judicial functions for court staff. In the first three months that all 25 Maricopa County Justice Courts were on F.A.R.E., over $2M in delinquent fines and fees were collected and deposited in the general fund. Clerk of the Court (Continued from page 8) Other Facts: There are more than 18,518 attorneys enrolled in the Minute Entry Electronic Distribution System (MEEDS). MEEDS automates the entire court minute entry process for adult, non-confidential cases by sorting and electronically sending the entries from the courtroom clerk to the docket, website, and law firms. The Office has internal and external filing depository boxes to provide customers with a method to file their documents without standing in line. The external boxes are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The internal boxes are available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Office received 57,455 external box filings and 269,984 internal box filings in FY10. The Customer Service Center provides services for customers to obtain a marriage license, apply for a passport, and access court records. In FY10, they served 711,065 customers. The Office has adopted new communication methods. The Office periodically distributes informational messages known as “tweets” through the networking website, Twitter. A person may register for a free account at Twitter at http://twitter.com/MichaelKJeanes. The Office maintains a page on Facebook to provide updates about important issues. To access Office information, go to www.Facebook.com and search for “Michal K Jeanes.” Juvenile Probation (Continued from page 10) Community Justice Panels: Throughout FY10, Juvenile Probation utilized more than 524 volunteers and operated more than 262 Community Justice Panels as an alternative ways to handle Diversion eligible cases. The Panels are made up of local community members who employ the principles of Restorative Justice by focusing on accountability and repairing harm to the community. Girls and Boys Club Collaboration: Juvenile Probation Officers began collaborating with the Herbert Kieckheffer Girls and Boys Club to conduct Teen Court and community office at the center, thereby bringing probation programs/services into the community where the youth reside. Because of the collaboration, the Boys and Girls Club graciously agreed to provide free membership to any interested youth referred by the Juvenile Probation Department, thus providing a positive, pro-social environment for juvenile probationers. Evidence-Based Practices: A case plan committee has been working this year on a universal case plan designed to assess and utilize best practice outcomes. It is planned to be implemented in 2011. Additionally, the Department will ensure all officers are trained in Motivational Interviewing, Cognitive Caseload Management, Cultural Competency and Disproportionate Minority Contact by the end of FY2011. Drug Court: There are currently three juvenile Drug Courts operating in Maricopa County. In FY10, there were 113 juveniles accepted into the Drug Court program. Teen Court: Throughout FY10, the Department continued to partner with the Valley of the Sun YMCA to operate Court and School based Teen Courts, and offer two different models of the program. The department operated an average of 16 court-based programs and 4 school-based programs, seeing approximately 72 youth per month. During this same period, almost 3,059 youth volunteered as Teen Court members. Ronald McDonald House: SEF probation officers Erin O‟Bryan and Vikki Vincent continued this year to lead probationers, the Court, and probation staff in the preparation of food and serving up an event for residents of the Ronald McDonald House in Phoenix. Adult Probation (Continued from page 14) Garfield Probation Service Center: During the past year, the Garfield Probation Service Center underwent some major building improvements. Building security was enhanced by adding a separate entrance in the GED area, providing a single entrance for residents, and developing a new support staff area, lobby and secured interview rooms for non-resident probationers. The exterior of the renovated end of the building was given a new, updated look, which enhances the Garfield neighborhood. Garfield Probation Service Center has 26 beds for emergency/transitional housing, affording the opportunity for residents to be more successful on probation. This setting provides probationers with the tools to secure services and employment, while providing a safe, secure, drug-free environment. While at Garfield, probationers engage in treatment, learn basic life skills, gain a legitimate source of income, and pay court-ordered fees, as well as work toward fulfilling other probation obligations. The House Goal is for probationers to eventually save enough money to transition into stable housing. The Morten Program: The Morten Program is a unique blending of community providers and the probation department. Biltmore Properties, PSA Counseling, and Magellan Services work together with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department to provide housing and services for up to twelve Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) clients. Clients of the program work toward the goal of self sufficiency. Their stay at Morten provides them with a rental history, which they can use once they complete their probation grant. They are required to seek employment or to attend school during their stay. Since clients are at different levels of functioning, education and employment are geared to the client‟s specific abilities. Law Enforcement/Criminal Partner Survey: A survey conducted in FY10 showed a 94% satisfaction rating of respondents who were satisfied with their organizations‟ interaction with the Adult Probation Department. In addition, a 94% satisfaction rating was reported for those that felt MCAPD responded to their organization‟s needs in a timely manner, 100% felt that MCAPD treated their staff with dignity and respect, and 95% indicated that they felt MCAPD was providing a valuable service to the community. Employee Satisfaction Survey: Employee satisfaction surveys are conducted on a recurring basis as part of Maricopa County‟s strategic plan. Adult Probation participates in an employee satisfaction survey every two years. Ninety-seven percent of our employees participated in the most recent survey in December 2009 and January 2010. The overall satisfaction rate was 5.79. Scores above 5 indicate satisfaction. The score is slightly lower than two years ago (5.87), but remained higher than previous surveys. The score surpassed the employee satisfaction goal of 5.50 under Adult Probation‟s Managing For Results Goal D. MCAPD Restitution Program: Community Restitution Program staff initiates, coordinates and supervises well over 300 work projects throughout Maricopa County on a monthly basis. Partnerships exist with over 1,200 not-for-profit and government agencies, providing probationers the opportunity to complete their court ordered obligation. On an annual basis, adult probationers complete approximately 600,000 hours of community service. Based on a comparative market analysis rate, this represents a savings in excess of $6 million to the citizens of Maricopa County. PAGE 19 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVITIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 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 “Judicial & Law Enfc.” selection under the menu heading „Departments‟ provides links to most of the agency partners in the Maricopa County criminal justice system. The Clerk of the Superior Court provides direct access to the court docket. 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 620 W. Jackson Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/AdultProbation/i ndex.asp Department Information 602/506-7249 Pretrial Services 602/506-8500 Clerk of the Superior Court Michael K. Jeanes, 602/506-3676 Clerk of the Superior Court 620 W. Jackson, Suite 3017 Phoenix, AZ 85003 www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov Department Information 602/506-3360 Customer Service Center 602/506-7400 (marriage licenses, passports) Family Court Services 602/506-3762 Criminal Financial Obligations 602/506-8621 Juvenile Div – Durango 602/506-4041 Juvenile Div – Southeast 602/506-2853 Northeast Regional Center 602/506-3360 Northwest Regional Center 602/506-3360 Southeast Regional Facility 602/506-3360 Correctional Health Services Tom Tegeler, Director www.maricopa.gov/corr_health/ Department Information 602/506-5576 County Attorney’s Office Bill Montgomery, 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 Administration Division Civil Division Criminal Trial Division Graffiti Hot Line Hate Crimes Hot Line Slum Lord Hot Line Investigations Division Juvenile Division Eastside Westside Law Enforcement Liaison Major Crimes Division I Major Crimes Division II Pretrial Division Southeast Division Speakers Bureau Victim Services Division 602/506-5508 602/506-8541 602/506-1145 602/495-7014 602/506-5000 602/372-SLUM 602/506-3844 480/962-8002 602/372-4000 602/506-3411 602/506-5849 602/506-5840 602/372-7250 602/506-2600 602/506-3411 602/506-8522 ICJIS Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Gary Huish, Program Manager Thomas Gendron, IT Consultant www.maricopa.gov/icjis Public Defense Services (Indigent Representation) Public Defense Services & Contract Administration James Logan, Director 620 W. Jackson, Suite 3077 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.maricopa.gov/OPDS General Information 602/506-7228 Public Defender Jim Haas, Public Defender 602/506-7711 www.pubdef.maricopa.gov General Information 602/506-7711 Legal Defender Marty Lieberman, Legal Defender 222 N. Central Ave. Ste 8100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 www.maricopa.gov/legaldef/ General Information 602/506-8800 Legal Advocate Bruce Peterson, Legal Advocate General Information 602/506-4111 Juvenile Public Defender Christina Phillis, Juvenile Public Defender www.juvdef.maricopa.gov/index.htm General Information 602/372-9550 Justice Courts James Vance, Director of Administrative Service 602/372-3601 www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/justiceCourts/I ndex.asp Justice Courts Administration 602/506-8530 Government Line 602/506-5881 Information on particular Justice Courts, including court locations and names of the 25 elected Justices of the Peace and Constables, may be obtained on the above noted website. Juvenile Probation and Detention 602/506-4210 Vincent Iaria, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer 3125 West Durango Phoenix, Arizona 85009 or 1810 South Lewis Mesa, Arizona 85210 www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JuvenileProbati on/index.asp General Information 602/506-4011 Durango Detention 602/506-4280 Southeast Detention 602/506-2669 Medical Examiner Dr. Mark Fischione, Chief Medical Examiner Forensic Science Center 701 W. Jefferson Phoenix. Arizona 85007 www.maricopa.gov/medex General Information 602/506-3322 PAGE 20 MARICOPA COUNTY JUST ICE SYSTEM ACTIVI TIE S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2010 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Sheriff’s Office Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff 602/876-1801 100 West Washington – 19th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.mcso.org Enforcement Operations 602/876-1822 Patrol Bureau 602/876-4435 Enforcement Support 602/876-1895 Investigations Bureau 602/876-1813 Custody Bureaus 602/876-1810 Administration Bureau 602/876-4400 Financial Bureau 602/876-5495 Technology Bureau 602/876-1625 Information 602/876-1000 Jail Information 602/876-0322 Supervisor Don Stapley, 602/506-7431 District 2 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 District 5 ------------------------Fran McCarroll, 602/506-3766 Clerk of the Board Maricopa County Management Superior Court Norman J. Davis, 602/506-6130 Presiding Judge Old Courthouse 125 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov General Information / Court Administration 602/506-3204 Adult Probation 602/506-7249 Civil Court 602/506-1497 Conciliation Services 602/506-3296 Court Security 602/506-6084 Court Technology Services 602/506-7644 Criminal Court 602/506-8575 Domestic Violence Prevention Center 602/506-5553 Family Court 602/506-1561 Human Resources 602/506-4343 Jury Commission/Assembly 602/372-5879 Juvenile Court 602/506-4533 Juvenile Probation 602/506-4011 Law Library 602/506-3461 Mental Health Court 480/344-2006 Northeast Regional Court 602/372-7601 Northwest Regional Court 602/372-9400 Probate Court 602/506-3668 Self-Service Center 602/506-SELF www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCour t/Self-ServiceCenter/index.asp Southeast Regional Court 602/506-2020 Tax Court 602/506-8297 Training 602/372-0603 David R. Smith, 602/506-3098 County Manager Sandra L. Wilson, 602/506-7280 Deputy County Manager Kenny Harris 602/506-8626 Asst County Mgr, Public Works Joy Rich, 602/506-3301 Asst County Mgr, Regional Development Svcs Dr. Rodrigo Silva, 602/506-8515 Asst County Mgr, Community Collaboration Shelby Scharbach, 602/506-1367 Chief Financial Officer Dr. Bob England, 602/506-6600 Public Health Director Report Information Please excuse minor differences in data reporting between agencies, due to the point in time when data are captured and different definitions. All agencies do not 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 Erinn Herberman at 602/506-1417. For information regarding departmental reporting and data please contact representatives listed on the last pages. For additional copies call 602/506-1417 or visit http://www.maricopa.gov/CriminalJustice/Annual.aspx March 2011