ARIZONA SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS COMMISSION ON MINORITIES Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Third Arizona Statewide Report Card Calendar Year 2006 COMMI SSION ON MI NORI TIES – EQUI TA BLE TREA TMENT REPORT CY 2006 * * Honorable Roxanne K. Song Ong, Chair Message from the Commission City of Phoenix Municipal Court Jesus Diaz, Chair-Vice* Pima County Juvenile Court Center Honorable Gus Aragon, Jr. Pima County Superior Honorable Maria M. Avilez Sahuarita Municipal Court Mike Baumstark Administrative Office of the Courts Honorable Rachel Torres Carrillo** West McDowell - Justice of the Peace Wil R. Counts, Ph.D. ** Gateway Community College Jonae Harrison Zwillinger, Georgelos &Greek Joi Hollis. M.Ed. Superior Court in Pima County Karin S. Humiston** Cochise County Juvenile Court Services Honorable Mitchell D.K. Kalauli Justice of the Peace – Moccasin Niccole L. King, Esq. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Lisa S. Loo, Esq. Arizona State University Bryon Matsuda Coconino County Juvenile Court Services Honorable Leslie Miller Superior Court in Pima County Honorable Antonio F. Riojas City of Tucson Municipal Court Justin M. Ruggieri, Esq. Tohono O’odham Gaming Enterprise Honorable Ann Scott Timmer Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One Patricia Seguin Superior Court in Maricopa County Margarita Silva, Esq. Navidad, Leal & Silva, PLC Honorable Paul Tang Superior Court in Pima County Over Representation Workgroup Chair Workgroup Member Over presentation Re This report was developed by the Arizona Supreme Court's Commission on Minorities' and Richard Kennedy and David Redpath, Researchers, JJSD, Arizona Supreme Court, and Pat Canterbury, Pima County Juvenile Court Center. Message from the Commission All across our state, many juvenile court judges, court directors, probation and juvenile detention administrators are continuing their efforts to address the changing needs of the communities and the juvenile populations they serve. At the same time, state and county governments are experiencing severe budget and program reductions. These continued grim financial conditions will create many challenges for our juvenile courts in Arizona. It is amid this background that the Arizona Supreme Court’s Commission on Minorities in the Judiciary presents the “Third Arizona Statewide Report Card on the Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth.” With these challenges, it is essential that juvenile courts be provided with reliable information regarding the incidence of over-representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system. Equally important is that they receive information about the innovative and new programs that have shown effectiveness in reducing over-representation while maintaining public safety. Additionally, the courts and their staff should be provided technical assistance and specialized training to assist and educate them as to the onset and occurrence of over-representation within their respective jurisdictions. The report card data examines the juvenile justice system to determine if specific problems or issues are occurring at specific decision points within the system (referral, formal and informal court processing, and various dispositions). It is our intent that this report be used as a tool by court administrators and policy makers to prioritize and focus limited resources to improve the system, to reduce the incidence of over-representation, and to evaluate progress each year. A number of activities around the state have been initiated to address this issue: Maricopa County Juvenile Court has taken a leadership role in advancing the work of the Arizona Building Blocks Initiative; Pima County Juvenile Court’s Disproportionate Minority Contact/Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (DMC/JDAI) is actively addressing disparate treatment and eliminating inappropriate use of detention for juveniles; and, Yuma and Yavapai Counties have taken the first critical step by examining their data. Many thanks go to Richard Kennedy, Maria Dennis, Margaret Frola and the Commission members who serve on the Over-Representation Workgroup for their efforts in producing the Third Arizona Statewide Report Card. Special thanks go to Jesus Diaz, Vice-Chair of the Commission and Chair to the Over-Representation Workgroup for his leadership and direction in this project. It is our desire that this information be used to encourage, initiate, and support changes that will improve our justice system and reduce the over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. Respectfully submitted, Judge Roxanne K. Song Ong Chair, Commission on Minorities in the Judiciary 1 COMMI SSION ON MI NORI TIES – EQUI TA BLE TREA TMENT REPORT CY 2006 Executive Summary This report is a result of the 2002 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth report produced by the Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities. One of the recommendations issued in that report was to create an annual report card to assess progress on the reduction of over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. The decision has been modified to produce a report card every other year. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, measuring disproportionate minority contact is like taking vital signs, it alerts one to potential problems and helps focus efforts. This report card is intended to be used as one would a general physical, to detect change and recommend appropriate action. This report addresses the 2002 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth recommendation by highlighting decision points from referral to the juvenile court through disposition. The first report serves as a baseline for the second and third report cards. The intent is to illustrate the current situation, provide a basis for future comparison, highlight areas of special concern and compare these results with the prior report card. It is important to note that offense severity and prior offense history are not included in the analysis of these reports. Tables from the first report are contained in the appendix. The following provides a brief summary of the report findings compared to Anglo youth and some of the findings in the 2006 report card: African American Youth: In the 2004 report (2002 data), were referred at a rate over 3 times higher than would be expected based on their proportion in the population. The following two reports indicate this has dropped to around twice the expectation in proportion to the population. This sets the stage for over-representation at Detention, Petition, Direct File in Adult Court. Transfer to Adult Court was lower. While referrals were higher than expected, African American youth referrals actually were adjudicated and resulted in Probation at about the same rate as Anglo youth. Commitments to ADJC and being brought to detention are higher. The most significant finding continues to be the rate of Direct Filing in Adult Court. The over all rate of Direct Filing has remained rather stable but the Relative Rate Index (RRI) for African American youth is close to 4 times that of Anglo youth. This continues to climb. These youth are highly over represented in the Direct File process. Hispanic Youth: W ere over represented in being brought to detention, being Transferred, receiving Intensive Probation and being Direct Filed in Adult Court. They are about even to the Anglo youth on being adjudicated, receiving probation, penalty only but are higher for being committed to ADJC. Their rate of referral compared to Anglo youth is comparable. Native American Youth: F are better than African American and Hispanic youth when compared to Anglo youth. Although they are over represented at being referred and brought to detention, they are more likely to be released. The Direct Filed shows a large increase in the RRI to 1.74. Transferred youth has also increased but involves an extremely small number. Therefore, significance is very difficult to determine. They are under-represented on Diversion, ADJC and Penalty Only and very close on most other decision points. 2 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Arizona Has a History of Addressing the Issue of Over-Representation Arizona has a long history of a focus on disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the juvenile justice system. 1991 – 1994 Arizona was selected as one of five states to address DMC through an initiative sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 1993 The Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Council published the first Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth report 1 . This report assessed the over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system in Maricopa and Pima counties. 1998 OJJDP published DMC: Lessons Learned From Five States 2 2000 The Arizona Supreme Court created the Building Blocks Initiative to address DMC. The project is ongoing and based in Phoenix, Arizona. 2001 Pima County Juvenile Court publishes A Comparative Analysis of Minority OverRepresentation in the Pima County Juvenile Justice System, 1990 versus 2000. 2002 The Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities (COM) published the second Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth report 3 . This report assessed the progress made from 1990 to 2000 in Maricopa and Pima counties and recommended that an annual report card be developed. 2004 Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities (COM) published the First Annual Arizona Statewide Report Card.4 This document examined the proportion of youth by race and ethnic group at various decision points in the Justice System. It also examined the information using the Relative Rate Index. 2004 Pima County selected by the Annie E. Casey Foundation as a Juvenile Detention Alternatives (JDAI) site, Disproportionate Minority Contact is included in the initiative. 2006 Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities (COM) published the Second Arizona Statewide Report Card. JUVENILE VS. REFERRAL LEVEL DATA DIFFERENCES FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS Data is presented for juveniles referred in Table 1. Each number represents one juvenile. The population data comparison is the only place that juvenile level data is presented. All subsequent data is presented based on total referrals. This means that if a juvenile is referred to the juvenile court three times in CY 2006, each referral is reported separately. The information is statewide and includes all fifteen Arizona Counties rather than limited to two (Maricopa and Pima) of Arizona’s counties. The population is a group of juveniles referred to the juvenile justice system in calendar year (CY) 2006 and followed through late July of 2007 rather than using different juveniles at each decision point. This is the third Report Card and is comparable to the first two as the analysis procedures and decision points remain constant. 3 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 TWO TYPES OF INFORMATION PRESENTED What is the Relative Rate Index (RRI)? This report provides two types of information: percentages and relative rates. Percentages show the proportion of that racial/ethnic group that appear at a particular decision point (referral, detention, petition, etc) based on the preceding decision point. Relative Rates (RRI) offer a comparison to Anglo youth. This allows for an assessment of the degree of over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system (see What is the Relative Rate Index) The Relative Rate Index (RRI) is a measure of over-representation used by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. It is designed to be an “early warning sign” measure, not an outcome. It should be used to point out problems so that the system’s attention can be more effectively focused. The RRI is a comparison of rates of occurrence for racial/ethnic groups. A rate of occurrence is the number of cases of a juvenile justice event (for example, referral) in terms of another event (for example, juvenile population). It is important to realize that while the percentages may suggest differences, the RRI scores will indicate whether disparity exists. This can happen because the proportions may look large, but when compared to the proportions for Anglo youth, a truer picture of disparity is presented. This is the main advantage of using RRI scores in addition to percentages. The RRI is calculated by taking the rate of occurrence of referrals for one race/ethnicity divided by the rate of occurrence of referral for another race/ethnicity (for this report, the base group is always Anglo). The RRI score is not calculated for any group whose proportion of the population is less than 1%. ONE GROUP OF JUVENILES – 19 MONTHS The population for this report is all juveniles referred in calendar year (CY) 2006 and followed for 19 months through late July of 2007. The 47,844 juveniles who were referred statewide in CY2006 generated 71,479 referrals to juvenile court (some juveniles were referred more than once). African American, Anglo, Hispanic and Native American youth are presented in this report. “Other” and “Unknown” race designations were not included in the breakouts or the totals. For example, the rate of referral for Hispanics based on the Hispanic juvenile population (.0545) is divided by the rate of referral for Anglos based on the Anglo juvenile population (.0488). This calculation provides a relative rate index (RRI) of 1.1 for Hispanic Youth (compared to the base RRI of 1.0 for Anglo youth). This suggests that Hispanic youth are only slightly more likely to be referred to Juvenile Court than Anglo youth. Thus, 46,955 juveniles involved in 70,398 referrals were the basis for this study. An RRI of greater than one indicates some degree of over-representation. All of the data in the report stem from these juveniles/referrals and cover events through late July, 2007. Any juvenile court activity that occurred after July of 2007 was not captured for this report. Therefore, while most of the referrals are followed through disposition, some were still pending action as of July 2007. 4 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Asian youth were included in the analysis but are not presented in this report. This is done for two reasons. First, in general, the results indicated that there was no over representation of Asian youth at the statewide level. Second, the numbers were small enough at certain decision points to make analysis less meaningful. DECISION POINTS REVIEWED AFRICAN AMERICANS REFERRED AT A HIGHER HISPANIC AND NATIVE AMERICAN REFERRED AT ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS ANGLO YOUTH. RATE THAN ANGLO YOUTH. In 2006, 46,955 juveniles were referred to the Juvenile Court in Arizona. This represents 5.26% of the population of Arizona’s juveniles age 8 – 17 who are African American, Anglo, Hispanic or Native American.5 For the most recent population data, Anglo youth made up half of all youth age 8 to 17 in Arizona. Hispanics accounted for almost 40% and African Americans and Native Americans each accounted for 6.5% of the population or less. A decision point is one step in the juvenile justice process. This report reviews the following decision points (see the Glossary for further explanation): Referral (Paper or Physical/Detention) Diversion, Petition Filed, No Petition Filed, or Direct Filed in Adult Court Adjudicated, Transferred to Adult Court, or Non Adjudication Dispositions (Penalty Only, Department of Juvenile Corrections, or Probation (Standard or Intensive)) The state referral rate is 5.26 per 100 for all juveniles, 4.88 for Anglos, 9.25 for African Americans, 5.45 for Hispanics, and 4.2 for Native Americans. (The rate is presented as a percentage in Table 1) The RRI indicates that the rate of referral for African Americans is 1.9 times that of Anglos and that the rate of referral for Hispanics is 1.1 times that of Anglo youth and 0.9 for Native Americans. All of the data on the decision points are collected in the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS). Table 1. Arizona Population: Youth aged 8 – 17 years of age by Race for Census Year 20066 Number RRI Score7 Percentage Arizona Population Juveniles Referred5 Arizona Population Juveniles Referred Total Juveniles 892,681 46,955 100.0% 5.26% -- Anglo 440,031 21,495 49.29 4.88 1.0 African American 39,973 3,698 4.48 9.25 1.9 Hispanic 354,353 19,310 39.70 5.45 1.1 Native American 58,324 2,452 6.53 4.20 0.9 5 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 MOST REFERRALS NEVER BROUGHT TO point in the process. Minorities show a higher rate of being brought to detention, Native American Youth show a higher rate of being released. Of the 19.76% of referrals that resulted in a juvenile going to detention (physical referral): DETENTION Total Referrals 70,398 Brought to Detention 13,910 In 2006, 8 out of every 10 juveniles brought to a detention facility as a result of a referral were detained at the initial screening. The RRI scores indicate that minority youth were over-represented in the group brought to detention (RRI Range of 1.61 to 1.29). Once the juveniles were brought to detention, the RRI score indicates that all groups of juveniles had similar rates of detention at the initial screening except for Native American youth. These youth had a higher rate of release (RRI=1.05). Hispanics and African Americans had a lower rate of release (RRI=0.71) and (RRI=0.79) respectively. Reality is that almost all brought to Detention are detained. Detained 11,083 Released 2,827 Not Brought To Detention 56,488 In 2006, the 46,955 juveniles referred accounted for 70,398 referrals. In Arizona, 4 out of every 5 referrals are not brought to detention (paper referral). This means that the majority of the juveniles (80.2%) that are referred for a delinquent or incorrigible act do not go to a detention facility initially. In 2006, 79.7% of those brought to Detention are detained. This is a critical decision Table 2: Brought to Detention or Not Total Juvenile Referrals 70,398 Anglo Referrals 30,997 African American Referrals 5,924 Hispanic Referrals 29,644 Native American Referrals 3,833 80.24% 83.40% 76.03% 78.66% 73.34% 19.76% 16.60% 23.97% 21.33% 26.66% 79.68% 20.32% 76.15% 23.85% 81.27% 18.73% 82.95% 17.05% 74.95% 25.05% Paper Referral -- 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 Brought to Detention -- 1.0 1.44 1.29 1.61 -1.0 1.07 Detained -1.0 0.79 Released * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. 1.09 0.71 0.98 1.05 Total Referrals Percentage Not Brought to Detention Brought to Detention Detained Released RRI 6 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Chart 1: Youth Detained as Percent of Total Referrals by Race/Ethnicity: 20042006 9.2% 45.3% 10.4% 47.3% 8.0% 6.9% 37.5% 35.3% 2004 (N=11,499) Anglo youth 2006 (N=11,084) Hispanic youth African American youth Native American youth Chart 2: RRI for Detentions: 2004-2006 RRI 1.5 African American 1.04 Hispanic 1.06 Native American 1.07 1.09 1 0.98 0.89 2006 2004 0.5 TO FORMALLY PROCESS IN COURT OR NOT? There is a difference in the relative rates for minority youth at this decision point. Minority Groups are Less Likely to be Diverted. Diversion is a process which allows the juvenile to avoid formal court processing if one or more conditions are completed and the juvenile accepts responsibility for the offense. Conditions may include community restitution, participation in counseling or education, or payment of a fine or restitution. Of the 70,398 referrals filed in 2006, 20,158 (28.63%) were diverted. Referrals may result in formal court processing (Petitions or Direct Filing to Adult Court), or informal court processing (Diversion or No Petition Filed). It is possible for a referral to be diverted and then be filed as a petition if the consequence (sanction) was not completed. Some Differences in Not Having a Petition Filed and Diversion. A petition may not be filed for a variety of reasons. It does not necessarily mean that no action was taken by the juvenile court. This category does not include referrals that were deferred to adult, transferred to another jurisdiction, traffic-related or that had unclear outcomes. In general, African American, Hispanic and Native American youth referrals were underrepresented at the Diversion decision point with an RRI of 0.72 to 0.88. African American and Hispanic youth are also under-represented at the No Petition point. The converse of this is, they are overrepresented on the Petition Filed decision point. The Direct Filed Over representation is significant. Of the 70,398 referrals filed in 2006, there was no petition filed on 20,639 (29.32%). 7 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Minority Youth Referrals are More Likely to be Direct Filed in Adult Court. A juvenile, aged 15 or older, must be directly filed into adult court if accused of murder, forcible sexual assault, armed robbery, or other specified violent offenses. A juvenile will also be directly filed if previously convicted in adult court or if the juvenile has two prior felony adjudications and is arrested for a third felony. Finally, a juvenile who is 14 and a chronic offender or who is 14 or older and has committed one of a specified set of offenses may be directly filed in adult court at the discretion of the county attorney. No Petition Filed 20,639 Diversion 20,158 Total Referrals 70,398 Petition Filed 28,965 Direct Filed in Adult Court 636 Referrals for Minority Youth are More Likely to be Filed as Petitions. A petition is filed when a juvenile is alleged to be delinquent or incorrigible and formal court processing is warranted. Of the 70,398 referrals filed in 2006, 28,965 (41.14%) resulted in petitions that were filed in juvenile court. The actual number of petitions is less than this because multiple referrals may be contained in a single petition. The Direct filings reported in 2004 calendar year was later found to be an undercount due to data entry errors. Direct filings in Arizona have been somewhat stable for the last few years but calendar year 2006 seems to show a significant increase that moved back down during Fiscal Year 2007. Less than one percent (636 or 0.90%) of the total referrals in 2006 resulted in a direct file to adult court. Nonetheless, significant over-representation exists at this decision point. Nearly half (46.1%) of the African American referrals filed in 2006 resulted in a petition. This compares to 43.62% for Hispanic youth, 44.66% for Native American youth, and 37.39% for Anglo youth. The RRI score paints a picture that suggests that the referrals of minority (1.17 to 1.23) youth are more likely to be filed as petitions than Anglo youth. The rate of Direct Filing for Hispanic and Native American youth referrals is higher (2.31 and 1.74 times higher respectively) than for Anglo youth. African American youth referrals had a rate of Direct Filing 3.83 times higher than Anglo youth. Table 3: Formal and Informal Court Processing Total Referrals Percentage No Petition Diversion Petition Filed Direct Filed All Juvenile Referrals 70,398 Anglo Referrals 30,997 African American Referrals 5,924 Hispanic Referrals 29,644 Native American Referrals 3,833 29.32% 28.63 41.14 0.90 30.70% 31.42 37.39 0.49 29.44% 22.57 46.10 1.89 27.64% 27.59 43.62 1.14 30.92% 23.56 44.66 0.86 RRI No Petition -1.0 0.96 0.90 1.01 Diversion -1.0 0.72 0.88 0.75 Petition Filed -1.0 1.23 1.17 1.19 Direct Filed -1.0 3.83 2.31 1.74 * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. * Column percentages may not sum to 100%. Some referrals in the “No Petition” group may be pending decision. 8 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Chart 3: RRI for No Petition Filed: 2004-2006 African American RRI 1.5 Hispanic Native American 1.01 1 0.86 0.9 0.96 0.96 2004 0.5 0.9 2006 Chart 4: RRI for Diversions: 2004-2006 1.5 RRI African American Hispanic Native American 1 0.9 0.9 0.88 0.8 0.5 0.75 0.72 2004 2006 Chart 5: RRI for Petitions Filed: 2004-2006 1.5 1.2 1.23 1.2 RRI 1.10 1.17 1.19 1 2004 2006 African American 0.5 Hispanic Native American Chart 6: RRI for Direct Files to Adult Court: 2004-2006 African American Hispanic Native American 4 3.5 RRI 3 3.83 3.3 2.31 2.5 2 1.9 1.74 1.5 0.68 1 0.5 2004 2006 9 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 FOLLOWING THE PETITION delinquent. These cases can also involve situations in which a juvenile has turned 18, is transferred to another jurisdiction, or has absconded. In addition, when multiple charges are pending, one charge can be dismissed while another receives a disposition. Once a referral is filed as a petition, this report looks at three general categories of outcome adjudicated, transfer to adult court (pending a transfer hearing), and non adjudication. Of the 28,965 petitions filed in CY 2006, 8,460 (29.2%) were not adjudicated. Adjudication 20,417 Petitions Filed Non Adjudication 28,965 8,460 African Americans had the highest proportion of non-adjudication (33.3%) and Native American youth had the lowest (27.9%). The RRI scores suggest that Native American (0.97), had a lower non-adjudication rate than Anglo youth. On the other hand, African American and Hispanic youth, (1.15) and (0.99) respectively, had about the same rate of non-adjudication as Anglo youth petitions. Transfer to Adult Court 88 No Major Differences in Rates of Adjudication for Anglo and Minority Youth. Adjudication is the juvenile equivalent of a “conviction” in adult court. Of the 28,965 referrals resulting in petitions filed, 70.5% (20,417) were adjudicated. Minority Youth differ in Petitions Transferred to Adult Court. The county attorney may request that a juvenile be transferred to adult court following the filing of a petition in juvenile court. Of the 28,965 petitions filed in juvenile court, 88 (0.3%) referrals resulted in a transfer to adult court request. Rates of adjudication for all races are comparable with lower rate for African American youth. The numbers in African American and Native American groups are very small (7) and (2) and therefore show little comparative value. The RRI scores suggest that Hispanic youth petitions are transferred at a higher rate (1.54) than any group. Native American Youth Referrals are Less Likely to Fall Under “Non Adjudication”. In addition to adjudication and transfer to adult court, a petition may result in no further action taken. This is generally called “dismissed,” in which case the juvenile is not adjudicated Table 4: Post Petition Decisions Petition Filed Percentage Adjudicated Transferred Non Adjudication All Juvenile Referrals 28,965 Anglo Referrals 11,590 African American Referrals 2,731 Hispanic Referrals 12,932 Native American Referrals 1,712 70.5% 0.30 29.2 70.9% 0.25 28.9 66.4% 0.26 33.3 70.8% 0.39 28.8 72.0% 0.12 27.9 0.93 1.02 1.15 0.99 1.54 0.99 1.02 0.47 0.97 RRI Adjudicated -1.0 Transferred -1.0 Non Adjudication -1.0 * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. 10 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Chart 7: RRI for Adjudications: 2004-2006 1.5 African American Native American 1.08 1.01 RRI Hispanic 1.02 1 0.94 0.93 0.99 2006 2004 0.5 Chart 8: RRI for Transfers to Adult Court, 2004-2006 2.5 African American Hispanic Native American RRI 2 1.54 1.47 1.5 1.02 1 0.5 0.22 0.54 0.47 0 2006 2004 DISPOSITION OPTIONS than Hispanic and Anglo Youth. Adjudicated juveniles may receive only a penalty rather than probation or commitment to juvenile corrections. Only 1.99% of all referral dispositions fell into this category. Both the percentages and the RRI scores suggest that African American and Native American minority youth referrals receive a “penalty only” disposition at a lower rate than Anglo and Hispanic youth referrals. Penalty Only 406 Adjudication 20,417 Probation 16,799 ADJC 1,119 Little Difference in the Rates of Receiving Probation for Anglo and Minority Youth. More than four-fifths (82.3%) of the adjudicated referral dispositions were to probation. African American and Hispanic Youth Referrals Committed to ADJC at a Higher Rate than Anglo and Native American Youth Referrals. Disposition to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is governed by statute and the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration. Only 5.5% of the adjudicated referrals from CY2006 involved commitments to ADJC. The RRI scores support the percentages and suggest that there is no difference in the rates of receiving probation for all groups of youth. When looking at whether juvenile referrals are sent to standard or Juvenile Intensive Probation (JIPS), there is some difference in the relative rates of disposition. Hispanic youth have an elevated rate to JIPS. African and Native American Youth Given “Penalty Only” Disposition at a Lower Rate 11 African American (RRI = 2.0) and Hispanic (RRI = 1.36) youth referrals had a higher rate of commitment to ADJC than Anglo youth referrals. The percentages support this as well (8.8%, 6.0% and 4.4% respectively). Native American had a lower rate 3.8% and an RRI of 0.86. COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Table 5: Disposition Decisions Adjudicated Percentage Penalty Only Probation Standard JIPS ADJC All Juvenile Referrals 20,417 Anglo Referrals 8,214 African American Referrals 1,814 Hispanic Referrals 9,157 Native American Referrals 1,232 1.99% 82.3 64.4 17.9 5.5 1.95% 83.9 68.2 15.8 4.4 0.94% 79.6 64.3 15.2 8.8 2.28% 81.3 60.7 20.6 6.0 1.62% 83.0 66.7 16.3 3.8 1.17 0.97 0.89 1.30 1.36 0.83 0.99 0.98 1.04 0.86 RRI Penalty Only Probation -1.0 0.48 0.95 -1.0 Standard -1.0 0.94 1.0 0.97 JIPS -ADJC -1.0 2.00 * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. Chart 9: RRI for Commitments to ADJC: 2004-2006 African American 2.5 Hispanic 2.00 RRI 2 1.5 Native American 1.49 1.36 1.31 1 0.9 0.86 0.5 2004 2006 DISCUSSION Limitations of State Data It is recognized that using State data for this report has some limitations. Differences in the various In general, this report suggests that over counties due to ethnic diversity tends to be blurred representation exists ranging from a limited to a when the report is State based. It is encouraged moderate extent within certain parts of Arizona’s that each County conduct its own review of the juvenile justice system. There are some over-representation issue experienced in the local. differences from the last two reports but overall much remains the same with minor movement. Referrals It is important to note that offense severity and African American youth continue to be referred at a prior offense history were not included in this rate over 2 times higher than would be expected analysis. Thus, no comparisons between by their representation in the overall juvenile juveniles with similar offenses or prior histories population (92 per 1,000 youth). Native American were conducted. This third report process and youth were the least likely to be referred (42 per procedures mirror the first two reports and thus 1,000). Anglo youth, upon which the RRI scores the outcomes can be compared. are generated, were referred at a rate of 49 per 1,000 youth. 12 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 The Relative Rate Index (RRI) score provides a statistical comparison of each minority group to Anglo youth. The RRI scores bear out the over-representation for African American youth (1.9). At the State level, Native American and Hispanic youth evidence no overrepresentation at the referral stage. Both the percentages and the RRI suggest that, at the state level, the juvenile courts began with a disproportionate number of African American youth before any court/probation decisions were made. Physical versus Paper Referrals Across the state, the majority of juvenile referrals come to the juvenile court as paper referrals. Less than one-fifth of the juveniles are even brought to detention. Throughout the history of DMC, the focus was so often on detention that we tend to ignore the fact that the majority of juveniles do not go to detention initially on a referral. Instead, over 4/5 of juvenile referrals are sent directly to the court or county attorney. Of the referrals that bypass detention, Anglo youth are the most likely to initially avoid detention (83.40%). In Arizona, a juvenile who is brought to detention is likely to stay there. Across the state, only four in twenty of the juveniles who are brought to detention are released after screening. Thus, while Hispanic and African American youth represent the greatest proportions of juveniles initially detained on a referral, the fact that most juveniles are detained likely obscures any real overrepresentation at this decision point. The high percentage of juveniles detained at screening is an issue that goes beyond overrepresentation and is the focus of a movement, the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI), which has been on-going nationally for over a decade and is emerging in Arizona.8 Native American youth are brought to detention at a higher rate (RRI = 1.61) than any other group yet show the highest portion of release at screening (RRI = 1.05). No information in this report is able to explain that difference and may be the impact of tribal involvement. Decision made Post-Referral Referrals to the juvenile court can be diverted or not filed at all, filed as a petition, or direct filed in adult court. In general, the pattern that began with referral is carried through these decisions. African American and Hispanic and Native American youth referrals are direct filed in adult court and filed as petitions in juvenile court at a higher rate than Anglo youth referrals. Conversely, the former are sent through the diversion process proportionately less than the latter. While this could suggest that minority youth are not given the same opportunities to avoid formal court processing, there are certain criteria that juveniles must meet in order to be eligible for diversion.9 The lack of review of offense severity further limits any conclusion. The Direct Filing process gives one cause for major concern. African American and Hispanic youth are direct filed at a much higher rate than Anglo youth. RRI of 3.83 and 2.31 indicate concern in this area. Transfers to adult court do not have the same degree of over-representation as direct filings, but there is evidence of slight over-representation at this decision point, particularly Hispanic youth referrals. The number of youth currently processed in this manner is rather small, 88 referrals in this study. The direct file process is the main pathway to the Adult Court for juveniles. The Native American representation here is too small to award significance. This decision point has the greatest mix of mandatory and discretionary decisions. Dispositions In general, juveniles in Arizona are overwhelmingly placed on probation following adjudication. More than four-fifths of all adjudicated juvenile referrals are dispositioned to either standard or intensive probation (JIPS). All groups cluster around the same rate of being placed on probation. Intensive is higher for Hispanic and lower for African American youth. Juveniles in all groups were more likely to receive dispositions of standard probation with less than one in five referral dispositions being to JIPS. Alternatively, African American and Hispanic youth referrals were proportionately more represented in commitments to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). RRI = 2.00 and 1.36 for these groups. Both of these rates have increased since the last report. 13 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 Population Estimates Relative Rate Index A note must be made regarding the population estimates used as the basis for the Relative Rate Index. It is a very difficult task to confirm consistency in the population estimates in Arizona for the racial/ethnic characteristics and 8 to 18 age group. The newest census numbers for the State do not support this break out of the data and other sources are relied on for this purpose. One of the advantages of the RRI analysis is that the comparison of youth is based on a previous decision point and not always on base population rates. Some discussion can take place as to which previous decision point should be used as the basis for the ratio. For instance, if one examines Probation, what is the basis used for the comparison, referrals, petitions or adjudications. This document uses adjudications as that is the decision point that allows sentencing and thus a choice for probation or some other disposition. Listed is the ratio information used to compute the RRI scores. This is critical information for the purposes of all juvenile information be it health care, education or juvenile justice. Without consistent information from the census department, it is difficult to review the racial characteristics of the population. Referrals (Juveniles Referred : Population), Detention (Paper or Brought : All Referrals), (Detained or Released : Brought to Detention), Court Processing (No Petition, Petition or Diversion : All Referrals) (Direct Filed : Petitioned), Post Petition (Adjudicated, Transferred or Non Adjudicated : Petitioned), Disposition (Penalty Only, Probation, ADJC : Adjudicated), (Standard or JIPS : Probation). 14 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 GLOSSARY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TERMS assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, drive by shooting, and discharging a firearm at a structure; a felony offense committed by a juvenile who has two prior and separate adjudications; and any offense joined to the other offenses. The county attorney also has statutorily defined discretion for direct filing. Overrepresentation: Occurs when a larger proportion of a particular group is present at various stages in the system than would be expected based on their proportion in the general population Disparity: The condition or fact of being unequal, lack of similarity or equality; inequality; difference. Diversion: Diversion is a process by which formal court action (prosecution) is averted. The diversion process is an opportunity for youth to admit their misdeeds and to accept the consequences without going through a formal adjudication and disposition process. By statute, the county attorney has sole discretion to divert prosecution for juveniles accused of committing any incorrigible or delinquent offense. Adjudication: The proceeding in which the juvenile is found to be delinquent. In some respects, “adjudication” for a delinquent offense is the juvenile court’s equivalent of a “criminal conviction” in adult court. Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC): The ADJC is operated by the executive branch and is the juvenile counterpart of the Department of Corrections. ADJC operates facilitates and programs primarily aimed at more serious juvenile offenders committed to their care and custody by the juvenile courts. ADJC operates secure correctional facilities, community-based after care programs, and juvenile parole. Juvenile Intensive Probation (JIPS): Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. §8-351) defines JIPS as “a program … of highly structured and closely supervised juvenile probation…which emphasizes surveillance, treatment, work, education and home detention.” A primary purpose of JIPS is to reduce the commitments to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) and other institutional or out-of-home placements. Statute requires that all juveniles adjudicated for a second felony offense must be placed on JIPS, committed to ADJC, or sent to adult court. Delinquent Juvenile: A delinquent juvenile is a juvenile who commits an illegal offense. If the same offense had been committed by an adult, the offense would be a criminal act. Non Adjudication: Includes cases where the petition is filed but the case may be dismissed or the juvenile turns 18 or is transferred to another jurisdiction or absconds. Detention: Juvenile detention is defined as the temporary confinement of a juvenile in a physically restricting facility. Juveniles are typically held in detention pending court hearings for purposes of public safety, their own protection, or as a consequence for misbehavior. This report is concerned with detention as a result of a referral and not as a consequence. No Petition Filed: Includes judicially adjusted complaints (typically juveniles assigned a consequence), absconders, complaints where there is insufficient evidence to continue, victim refusals to prosecute, and other reasons a petition might not be filed. Disposition: Disposition refers to the process by which the juvenile court judge decides the best court action for the juvenile. It is comparable to “sentencing” in the adult system. Penalty Only: A disposition involving only fines, fees, restitution, and/or community work service. Direct Filed in Adult Court: A.R.S. §13-501 mandates that the “county attorney shall bring criminal prosecution against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is 15, 16, or 17 years of age and is accused of any of the following offenses”: first degree murder; second degree murder; forcible sexual assault; armed robbery; any other violent offenses defined as aggravated Petition: A “petition” is a legal document filed in the juvenile court alleging that a juvenile is a delinquent, incorrigible, or a dependent child and requesting that the court assume jurisdiction over the youth. The petition initiates the formal court hearing process of the juvenile court. The county attorney, who determines what charges to bring 15 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 against the juvenile, prepares the delinquent or incorrigibility petition. Referral: Referral can be made by police, parents, school officials, probation officers or other agencies or individuals requesting that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over the juvenile’s conduct. Referrals can be “paper referrals” issued as citations or police reports or “physical referrals” as in an actual arrest and custody by law enforcement. Juveniles may have multiple referrals during any given year or over an extended period of time between the ages of 8-17. Multiple referrals typically signal high risk, even when the referrals are for numerous incorrigible or relatively minor offenses. Standard Probation: A program for the supervision of juveniles placed on probation by the court. These juveniles are under the care and control of the court and are supervised by probation officers. Transfer to Adult Court: Adult court has been defined in statute as the appropriate justice court, municipal court or criminal division of Superior Court with jurisdiction to hear offenses committed by juveniles. Statute specifies that juveniles who commit certain offenses, are chronic felony offenders, or have historical prior convictions, must be prosecuted in the adult court and if convicted, are subject to adult sentencing laws. 16 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 APPENDIX 2004 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2002 DATA ) Table 1. Arizona Population: Youth aged 8 – 17 years of age by Race for Census Year 20004 Number Arizona Population RRI Score5 Percentage Arizona Population Juveniles Referred6 Juveniles Referred Total Juveniles 723,444 49,014 100.0% Anglo African American Hispanic Native American 391,280 24,902 54.1 6.4 1.0 26,483 3,163 3.7 11.9 1.9 252,333 18,192 34.9 7.2 1.1 53,348 2,757 7.4 5.2 0.8 6.8% -- MOST REFERRALS NEVER BROUGHT TO DETENTION Total Referrals 75,099 Brought to Detention 13,795 Detained 11,027 Not Brought to Detention 61,304 Released 2,768 Table 2: Brought to Detention or Not Total Juvenile Referrals Total Referrals African American Referrals Anglo Referrals Hispanic Referrals Native American Referrals 75,099 36,839 5,229 28,852 4,179 81.6% 83.8% 77.7% 80.0% 78.8% 18.4 79.9 20.1 16.2 78.6 21.2 22.3 81.3 18.5 20.0 82.1 17.8 21.2 71.0 29.0 Paper Referral -- 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 Brought to Detention -- 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.3 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.4 Percentage Not Brought to Detention Brought to Detention Detained Released RRI Detained Released 17 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 FORMAL COURT PROCESS OR NOT 2004 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2002 DATA ) Total Referrals 75,099 No Petition Filed 17,141 Diversion 24,813 Petition Filed 31,161 Direct Filed in Adult Court 631 Table 3: Formal and Informal Court Processing Total Referrals Percentage No Petition Diversion Petition Filed Direct Filed All Juvenile Referrals 75,099 22.8% 33.0 41.5 0.8 Anglo Referrals 36,839 24.0% 35.3 37.6 0.6 African American Referrals 5,229 23.1% 27.9 47.7 0.9 Hispanic Referrals 28,852 20.7% 31.6 45.4 1.2 Native American Referrals 4,179 26.3% 29.5 40.7 0.7 RRI No Petition -1.0 1.0 0.9 Diversion -1.0 0.8 0.9 Petition Filed -1.0 1.3 1.2 Direct Filed -1.0 1.7 2.2 * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. * Column percentages may not sum to 100%. The remaining data is either pending cases or unclear outcomes. 18 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.2 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 FOLLOWING THE PETITION 2004 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2002 DATA ) Petitions Filed 31,161 Non Adjudication 7,176 Adjudication 22,302 Transfer to Adult Court 117 Table 4: Post Petition Decisions Petition Filed All Juvenile Referrals 31,161 Anglo Referrals 13,866 African American Referrals 2,494 Hispanic Referrals 13,100 Native American Referrals 1,701 Percentage Adjudicated Transferred Non Adjudication 71.6% 0.4 23.0 72.0% 0.3 24.0 68.8% 0.4 24.3 71.5% 0.4 22.2 72.9% 0.4 19.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.8 RRI Adjudicated Transferred Non Adjudication ---- 19 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 DISPOSITION OPTIONS 2004 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2002 DATA ) Adjudication 22,292 Penalty Only 490 4 Probation 18,262 ADJC 1,434 Table 5: Disposition Decisions All Juvenile Referrals Anglo Referrals African American Referrals Native American Referrals Hispanic Referrals Adjudicated 22,292 9,981 1,716 9,365 1,240 Percentage Penalty Only Probation Standard JIPS ADJC 2.2% 81.9 62.2 19.8 6.4 2.4% 84.2 65.6 18.3 5.0 1.7% 80.1 59.3 20.8 8.1 2.1% 79.9 58.6 21.3 7.8 1.6% 81.0 65.1 15.9 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.6 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 RRI Penalty Only Probation Standard JIPS ADJC ------ 20 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 APPENDIX II 2006 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2004 DATA ) Table 1. Arizona Population: Youth aged 8 – 17 years of age by Race for Census Year 20055 Number RRI Score6 Percentage Arizona Population Juveniles Referred7 Arizona Population Juveniles Referred Total Juveniles 872,645 48,697 100.0% 5.58% -- Anglo 448,099 23,256 51.35 5.19 1.0 African American 38,125 3,516 4.37 9.22 1.8 Hispanic 327,178 19,088 37.49 5.83 1.1 Native American 59,243 2,837 6.79 4.79 0.9 MOST REFERRALS NEVER BROUGHT TO DETENTION Table 2: Brought to Detention or Not Total Referrals Percentage Not Brought to Detention Brought to Detention Detained Released Total Juvenile Referrals 74,200 Anglo Referrals 34,302 African American Referrals 5,858 Hispanic Referrals 29,811 Native American Referrals 4,229 81.81% 84.66% 78.61% 79.76% 77.61% 18.19% 15.34% 21.39% 20.24% 22.39% 85.20 14.80 83.45 16.55 86.51 13.49 88.12 11.88 74.55 25.45 -- 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 -- 1.0 1.39 1.32 1.46 --- 1.0 1.0 1.04 0.81 1.06 0.72 0.89 1.54 RRI Paper Referral Brought to Detention Detained Release 21 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 FORMAL COURT PROCESS OR NOT 2006 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2004 DATA ) Table 3: Formal and Informal Court Processing Total Referrals All Juvenile Referrals 74,200 Anglo Referrals 34,302 African American Referrals 5,858 Hispanic Referrals 29,811 Native American Referrals 4,229 Percentage No Petition Diversion Petition Filed Direct Filed 27.30% 32.28 39.93 0.49 28.86% 34.14 36.68 0.31 25.73% 27.83 45.41 1.04 25.47% 31.18 42.74 0.61 27.70% 31.09 38.99 0.21 RRI No Petition Diversion Petition Filed Direct Filed -1.0 0.86 0.90 0.96 -1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 -1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 -1.0 3.3 1.9 0.68 * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. * Column percentages may not sum to 100%. Some referrals in the “No Petition” group may be pending decision. 22 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 FOLLOWING THE PETITION 2006 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2004 DATA ) Table 4: Post Petition Decisions Petition Filed Percentage Adjudicated Transferred Non Adjudication All Juvenile Referrals 29,630 Anglo Referrals 12,581 African American Referrals 2,660 Hispanic Referrals 12,740 Native American Referrals 1,649 73.6% 0.42 26.4 73.3% 0.38 26.7 69.2% 0.22 30.8 74.1% 0.55 25.9 79.5% 0.08 20.5 0.94 0.54 1.15 1.01 1.47 0.97 1.08 0.22 0.77 RRI Adjudicated -1.0 Transferred -1.0 Non Adjudication -1.0 * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. 23 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 DISPOSITION OPTIONS 2006 REPORT CARD CHARTS ( CY 2004 DATA ) Table 5: Disposition Decisions 21,809 Anglo Referrals 9,219 African American Referrals 1,841 Hispanic Referrals 9,438 Native American Referrals 1,311 2.1% 82.0 63.2 18.9 5.2 2.2% 83.3 66.3 17.0 4.5 1.5% 80.8 64.0 16.8 6.7 2.2% 81.2 59.5 21.7 5.9 1.4% 81.4 67.1 14.3 4.0 -1.0 0.70 -1.0 0.97 Standard -1.0 0.97 JIPS -1.0 0.99 ADJC -1.0 1.49 * Percentages are of the total referrals for that racial/ethnic group. 1.01 0.97 0.90 1.27 1.31 0.64 0.98 1.01 0.84 0.90 All Juvenile Referrals Adjudicated Percentage Penalty Only Probation Standard JIPS ADJC RRI Penalty Only Probation 24 COMMISSION ON MINORITIES – EQUITABLE T R E A T M E N T REPORT CY 2006 End Notes 1 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: A Report on the Over-Representation of Minority Youth in Arizona Juvenile Justice System. Published by the Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Council, Minority Youth Issues Committee. Dr. P. Bortner et al, July 1993. 2 Devine, Coolbaugh, and Jenkins, NCJ 173420 3 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth in the Arizona Juvenile Justice System: A Follow-up to the 1993 Equitable Treatment Report Published by the Commission on Minorities, 2002. 4 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: First Annual Arizona Statewide Report Card 2004 Published by the Commission of Minorities. For information see website: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/ComMinorities/2004ReportCard.pdf 5 The “other” and “unknown” race/ethnicity along with Asian categories are not included. The actual total of juveniles referred is 47,844. 6 The figures for 2006 are the most recent data available for the state of Arizona. Data was obtained from the U.S Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Economic Security and National Center for Juvenile Justice. Computations for “at risk” population along with race and ethnic use population numbers of census with proportions computed from NCJJ Easy Access to Juvenile Populations. 7 RRI – Relative Rate Index – a comparison of the rate of referral for each race/ethnicity to the rate of referral for Anglo youth. Over-representation occurs with scores greater than 1. Under-representation is indicated by scores less than one. The RRI is not calculated when the race/ethnic group is less than 1% of the population. 8 The Annie E. Casey Foundation launched the JDAI in December of 1992 and funds the efforts of juvenile jurisdictions around the nation. For more information, see their website: www.aecf.org 9 The county attorney determines which juveniles are eligible for diversion based on statutorily established criteria. In addition, the juvenile must admit responsibility and either pay restitution, pay a fine, or participate in community work service or some type of programming. 25