Fill The Gap
Annual Report
2008

Court Services Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Supreme Court
December 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2
Case Processing Standards .................................................................................... 2
Funding Sources ..................................................................................................... 3
Court Statistics ........................................................................................................ 3
County Project Overview ......................................................................................... 5
Collections Efforts ................................................................................................. 13
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 14

-1-

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
FILL THE GAP
ANNUAL REPORT
2008
CRIMINAL CASE REENGINEERING

Introduction
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-102.01 (D), the Supreme Court reports annually “to the
governor, the legislature, each county board of supervisors, the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee and the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission on the progress of criminal
case processing projects and the enforcement of court orders, including the collection of
court ordered fees, fines, penalties, sanctions and forfeitures.” A.R.S. § 12-102.02 (D)
also requires the Supreme Court to report annually on the expenditure of fund monies
for the prior fiscal year and the progress made in improving criminal case processing.
For years, federal, state and local governments made substantial investments in placing
more police officers on the street and building more prisons. These efforts sought to
increase public safety, but also created a backlog in the rest of the criminal justice
system. In essence, funding targeted the front and back of the criminal justice system,
creating a “gap”. Funding for those entities in the “gap” did not keep pace. The Fill the
Gap initiative was intended to address this problem. In 1997 the Administrative Office
of the Courts (AOC) convened a work group of stakeholders (superior court, clerk of
superior court, justice courts, county attorney, public defender and indigent defense
counsel) in the criminal justice system to develop a strategy to secure funding from the
legislature to fund the "gap." The funding that resulted from this initiative continues to
aid in the progress of accomplishing a number of improvements in criminal case
processing throughout Arizona.

Case Processing Standards
Supreme Court ordered Rule 8.2, Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective December 1,
2002 establishes timelines for processing criminal cases as follows: 1) For in-custody
defendants, the time to disposition is 150 days from initial appearance to the date of
arraignment; 2) For out-of-custody defendants, the time to disposition is 180 days from
the date of arraignment; and 3) If the case is categorized as complex, time to
disposition is within 270 days from arraignment for those defendants charged with first
degree murder in other than capital cases, offenses requiring consideration of evidence
gained from wiretaps, electronic or oral communication, or complex cases determined
by written factual finding by the court.
-2-

Funding Sources
Arizona Revised Statutes. § 41-2421, enacted in 1999, created three main funding
sources for Fill the Gap efforts: a general fund appropriation; a seven percent Fill the
Gap surcharge; and a five percent set-aside of funds retained by local courts when
revenues exceed the 1998 benchmark. The general fund appropriation was reduced
from $418,500 to $150,000 during the 2008 fiscal year. The remaining general funds
and the surcharge earmarked for the courts were deposited in the State Aid to the
Courts Fund pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-102.02, and administered by the AOC. IThe five
percent set-aside of funds collected by the courts was kept and administered locally for
county court use. Beginning fiscal year 2009, the general fund appropriation will not be
available to any of the counties as directed by legislation. It should be noted that
counties with populations exceeding 500,000 (Maricopa and Pima) were not eligible for
general fund appropriations in fiscal year 2008 and the remaining counties did not
receive general fund appropriations beginning fiscal year 2009 as directed by
legislation.

The Fill the Gap expenditures for fiscal year 2008 included $150,000 in general fund
appropriation and $3,920,256 from the State Aid to the Courts Fund. This money was
disbursed to the counties that submitted their Fill the Gap application to the Supreme
Court.
Funds earmarked for the public defender/indigent defense counsel and county attorney
are distributed through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC).

Court Statistics
As the population of the state continues to increase, the rise in case filings persists.
Efforts to identify and implement improvements that allow the courts to address the
additional workload are essential.
Chart 1 (all counties except Maricopa, Pima) and Chart 21 (Maricopa, Pima and Total for
Arizona) show the clearance rates by county. The clearance rate is the percentage of
criminal case terminations as related to new criminal case filings. The higher the
clearance rate, the better the court’s criminal case terminations are keeping pace with
the number of new filings. The fiscal year 2008 statewide clearance rate was 95.2%
which is an increase from 93.7% in fiscal year 2007, a measurable improvement in
processing criminal cases from filing to termination statewide. Note that increases in
filings provide more challenges to achieving high clearance rates. Chart 3 compares
statewide Superior Court felony filings and terminations in fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year
2007. Felony filings increased by 2.8% and felony terminations increased by 4.4% in

1

These charts are split into two separate illustrations because of the disparity in the number of
cases for rural counties vs. filings in Maricopa and Pima Counties.

-3-

fiscal year 2008. The clearance rates are not the only resource of court effectiveness.
Courts are also working to reduce pending caseloads, etc.

Criminal Filings

ta

C

ru
z
Ya
va
pa
i
Yu
m
a

al
Pi
n
Sa
n

G

G

ila
ra
ha
m
G
re
en
le
e
La
Pa
z
M
oh
av
e
N
av
aj
o

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

Ap
ac
he
C
oc
hi
se
C
oc
on
in
o

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Clearance Rate

Fiscal Year 2008 Superior Court Criminal Cases

Criminal Terminations

Clearance Rate

Chart 1 – Criminal Filings, Terminations and Clearance Rate for all counties except
Maricopa and Pima.

Fiscal Year 2008 Superior Court Criminal Cases
100%
98%
96%
94%
92%

Clearance Rate

60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0

90%
Maricopa
Criminal Filings

Pima
Criminal Terminations

Total Arizona
Clearance Rate

Chart 2 – Criminal Filings, Terminations and Clearance Rate for Maricopa, Pima and
Total Arizona.
Source: AOC General Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2008 Data Report

-4-

62,000

9%

60,000

8%

58,000

7%

56,000

6%

54,000

5%

52,000
4%

50,000

3%

48,000
46,000

2%

44,000

1%

42,000

Percent Increase

Superior Court Felony Case Activity

0%
Filings

Fiscal Year 07

Terminations

Fiscal Year 08

Percent Increase

Chart 3 – Superior Court Felony Case Activity Fiscal Year 2008 vs. Fiscal Year 2007
Source: AOC General Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 Data Reports

County Project Overview
As defined by statute, the purpose of the State Aid to the Courts Fund is to provide state
aid to the superior court, including the clerk of the superior court and the justice courts
in each county for the processing of criminal cases.
Within each county the presiding judge of the superior court, the clerk of the court and
the presiding justice of the peace must develop a plan, in coordination with the
chairman of the county board of supervisors or their designee that is submitted to the
AOC. The proposed plan details how the funds will be used, how the plan will assist the
county in improving criminal case processing and how each court entity will use the
funds.
Counties may apply to use the funds for any purpose that improves criminal caseflow.
Solutions in each county are different due to varying constraints such as funding,
caseload size, staffing, geographic constraints and interaction with local criminal justice
agencies. Some of the smaller counties have chosen to allow funds to build over time,
-5-

as the combination of revenue generated in one year in addition to the appropriated
amount in these jurisdictions is still too small to implement meaningful changes.
The following is a list of accomplishments for the counties receiving Fill the Gap funds.
Apache County
The Apache County Superior Court has identified various obstacles including staff
shortages in the County Attorney’s Office, an increase in complex cases, and a pending
capital case which have affected case processing. The Presiding Judge continues to
manage a heavy caseload, trial calendar and fulfill her administrative duties. The
Apache County Superior Court requested Fill the Gap funding to partially fund a part
time judge pro tem to alleviate the pending caseload and work a trial calendar. This
funding has been vital to maintaining the court's calendar. In fiscal year 2008, 66.5% of
criminal cases were disposed within 180 days and 32.3% were disposed within 100
days.
Cochise County
Cochise County focuses on early case and data management and felony case process
refinement for improving caseload management. Plea offers are increasingly made as
a result of adhering to the refined felony case process. In fiscal year 2008, Fill the Gap
Funds continued to support a superior court judge pro tem and dedicated staff to
manage the front end of the felony case processing system. Fill the Gap also partially
funded a field trainer and pre-sentence investigator. The field trainer dedicated 372
hours to felony case processing and one day a week to statistical reporting, case aging
reports and monthly pending case status reports. The pre-sentence investigator filed a
total of 99 pre-sentence reports. The court's diligence with setting firm trial dates at the
arraignment phase and case management conferences held 30 days thereafter, has
dramatically improved their disposition rate. In fiscal year 2008, 81.5% of criminal
cases were disposed within 180 days and 46.3% were disposed within 100 days.
Cochise County was able to realize a 9.2% increase in the number of cases disposed
within 180 days when compared to fiscal year 2007.
Coconino County
Coconino County has found that DUI and drug specialty courts are successful in
expediting the processing of alcohol and drug related cases as well as reducing
recidivism in the superior court and justice courts. Fill the Gap funds contribute to the
operation of DUI and drug specialty courts which includes monitoring of DUI/drug court
participants by the probation department. The participants are high risk/high needs
defendants who receive intensive treatment, judicial oversight, alcohol/drug urinalysis
tests, probation supervision, and participate in support groups. The DUI/drug court
cases are regularly staffed to monitor compliance or non-compliance. During fiscal year
2008, 64 new defendants started DUI drug court bringing the total population to 132.
The percent of passing urinalysis/breath tests was 98% of the 7,488 tests conducted
during the fiscal year. The percent of participants re-arrested while still involved with the
program was 7%. Participants maintained an employment rate above 90% while in the
DUI/Drug Court. Coconino County had 81% of all criminal cases disposed within 180
days and 50% disposed of within 100 days.
-6-

Graham County
Although Graham County experienced a 6% increase in criminal cases for fiscal year
2008, it was able to maintain criminal case processing through additional judicial
resources. Fill the Gap funded a judge pro tem who handles overflow and conflict
criminal cases in the superior court as well as most juvenile cases. This has allowed
the presiding judge to dedicate his time to criminal cases. Fill the Gap funds
also partially funded a pre-trial services director who is responsible for creating APETS
portfolio that compiles data for pre-sentence reports and performs weekly contact with
defendants and reports conversations to the judge. This position keeps the criminal
judge informed of the status of the defendants. In addition, a court administrator that
oversees criminal caseflow management, criminal defense attorney contracts, running
and analyzing criminal case data, grant participation, and human resources procedures
was partially funded. In fiscal year 2008, 73% of criminal cases were disposed within
180 days and 41% were disposed within 100 days.
Greenlee County
Greenlee County had experienced challenges with case file storage due to
environmental issues and lack of resources. In fiscal year 2008, Fill the Gap funds
continued to contribute to an imaging/scanning project for criminal files which allows
case files to be shared electronically. OnBase has provided preservation of court
documents and as projected reduced retrieval time of criminal case files. In addition, the
court made progress this year with providing an environment that is conducive for
hardcopy storage and promotes research and project development. Fill the Gap funds
supported the criminal portion of the caseload to improve caseflow and case
management. According to Greenlee County, 56% of the cases were disposed of within
100 days and 90% of the cases were disposed within 180 days.
La Paz County
La Paz County maintains a field trainer through Fill the Gap funds to provide local,
standardized training to superior, justice, and municipal court clerks in entering criminal
cases into AZTEC; monitor case aging reports; providing assistance in keeping and
reporting statistics; and monitoring the criminal calendar. In addition, this fiscal year, the
field trainer participated in review of criminal court processes to resolve issues
impacting Quartzsite Justice Court. In fiscal year 2008, 51% of criminal cases were
disposed within 180 days and 17% were disposed within 100 days.
Maricopa County
Maricopa identifies caseflow management as an area which greatly impacts criminal
case processing in the courts. Maricopa implemented various programs to comply with
mandated time standards. A review of Maricopa’s courts indicated areas that could be
reorganized and re-tooled to make the entire criminal case processing system more
efficient. Maricopa continues to identify new areas to improve and progresses in the
development of existing processes through analysis followed by centralizing or
specializing specific processes and improved technology. Advances were made with
criminal case processing using Fill the Gap funds for resources which developed

-7-

existing and new processes. In fiscal year 2008, 81% of criminal cases were disposed
within 180 days and 62% were disposed within 100 days.
In collaboration with the Clerk’s Office, the court has successfully managed and
developed the following programs to comply with the mandated time standards.
Continued Improvements to Existing Processes


The presentence screener in Adult Probation assesses offender treatment needs
and their risk of re-offending. The assessment information is then used by the
probation officer to produce a presentence report and sentencing
recommendation to assist with determining an appropriate disposition.



A domestic violence officer was funded in Adult Probation to provide surveillance
for a caseload of high-risk domestic violence offenders. The probationers are
monitored closely to provide a safer environment for the community and victims.



A probation officer was funded to handle a caseload of standard probationers.
Standard field probation officers enforce court orders, evaluate for treatment and
education needs and monitor substance abuse.



A Fill the Gap funded court liaison probation officer serves to make the violation
court process more efficient and cost effective. This position reports information
and recommendations to the court regarding probation violators on behalf of
officers located throughout the valley.



Case Transfer is a means to effectively handle those cases that do not settle yet
cannot proceed to trial on schedule. With an average trial rate of 2-3% and most
trials settling prior to the scheduled date, Case Transfer provides for an improved
application of judicial resources. In addition, the costs associated with a trial are
saved and the court is better able to maintain trial time standards.

Centralized and Specialized Processing


Regional processing centers provide a forum for centrally processing preliminary
hearings, pleas, and felony arraignments. The three centers have processed
over 24,000 of the 40,933 cases filed. Jail day savings is estimated at $1 million
per year over a five-year period.



The Early Disposition Court was assigned approximately 13,600 drug cases. The
facility resolves most non-violent drug possession and use cases.



The Initial Pretrial Conference(IPTC) is assigned cases 45-52 days after
arraignment to encourage counsel and defendants to successfully negotiate a
settlement prior to the case being set to a Division trial calendar.

-8-



In the Probation Adjudication Center (PAC), an estimated 17,000 cases were
processed during fiscal year 2008.



The Initial Appearance Court runs eight daily calendars continuously. The
number of cases heard in fiscal year 2008 totaled over 80,000, that’s an increase
of 12.5% from fiscal year 2007. This increase is attributable to Prop 100, Initial
Appearance Commissioners also heard cases related to non-bondable
defendants as defined under ARS §13-3961.



The DUI center is responsible for aggravated felony DUI cases. The center
averaged 12-15 trials per month and took approximately 800 pleas during fiscal
year 2008.



The Rule 32 Management Unit processes post conviction relief cases to ensure
that they reach timely judicial decision. The unit monitored approximately 1,100
cases in fiscal year 2008, a slight increase from the previous reporting period.

Improved Technology


The Clerk’s Office is in the execution and development phase with replacing the
Cash Receipting System. The technical team has completed significant
functional modules of the new system, including a fully documented design and
prototypes. The Training and User Acceptance Plans are substantially complete
and development of the system is targeted for completion in March 2009.



The e-Filing Online application was developed and implemented in phases over
the past several years. The planning phase, consisting of project planning,
information gathering, software architect, procurement, project proposal
development, business requirements elicitation and documentation, and the
creation of a project management plan, has been completed. The project is
currently in the development phase.

Mohave County
The Department of Economic security estimates that Mohave County will experience a
population increase of 13,000 by fiscal year 2009. As a result of this growth rate, case
filings will continue to impose a demand on judicial resources. Fill the Gap funding was
expended for various resources supporting criminal case processing including a criminal
fines and restitutions collections clerk, court commissioner, judicial assistant and
courtroom clerks. Funds also contributed to a field trainer who provided standardized
training for court personnel and monitored case aging reports. These resources support
the court’s efforts to improve workflow and to improve case processing times. According
to Mohave’s Criminal Case Aging Report, 79% of the criminal cases were disposed
within 180 days and 40% were disposed of within 100 days.

-9-

Navajo County
Navajo County focuses on reducing continuances to maintain criminal case processing.
In fiscal year 2008, the court utilized Fill the Gap funds for a judge pro tem, interpreter
services, courtroom clerks, security and a caseflow manager in the effort to improve
criminal case processing. The Navajo County courts' proposals have utilized the use of
personnel to manage and accommodate caseload and to maintain criminal caseprocessing time to disposition. The judge pro tem conducted pre-trial hearings, change
of pleas and trials on criminal matters. The objective is to reduce continuances with
interpreter assistance and utilize the caseflow manager to provide the data tools to
assist judges in decision-making on pending cases. In fiscal year 2008, 30% of the
criminal cases were disposed within 180 days and 43% were disposed in 100 days.
Pima County
Pima County improves technology through data sharing to expedite criminal cases.
Case processing times have been reduced with the efforts of the superior court, clerk of
the superior court and justice courts utilizing various technology and task specific
personnel to facilitate and accommodate data sharing. The Fill the Gap funds received
have contributed to the reduction of time to disposition by reducing the length of time
required for events that occur outside of the courtroom thus reducing the amount of time
between court events. Pima County projects reduce redundant activities, improve timely
notification of grand jury indictments to detention personnel and defendants, streamline
pre-sentence processing and minute entry distribution, improve criminal case
disposition reporting, improve collections of fees and fines and utilize technology to
enhance overall court operations to save time and money. Seventy-seven percent of
the criminal cases were disposed within 180 days and 44% were disposed in 100 days.
Pima County improves criminal case processing through various approaches with
workflow and utilization of technology.


The PTS Intake Unit Project of the Superior Court is critical to the success of
early case resolution. The intake unit is responsible for interviewing all arrestees,
conducting background investigations and submitting recommendation reports
regarding each person's eligibility for non-financial release at the initial
appearance. In fiscal year 2008, 99.3% of cases had a report filed with the court
and were eligible according to the set guidelines. Three positions were
maintained through Fill the Gap funding in fiscal year 2008.



The Pro Tem Judicial Division adjudicated 410 criminal cases, expediting the
time to disposition. The trial rate increased from 7.13% in fiscal year 2007 to
7.43% in fiscal year 2008. The Pro Tem Division is critical in maintaining case
processing standards.



The assessment center of the Adult Probation Department prepares presentence
reports on all felony cases adjudicated in the Superior Court. The number of
felony case dispositions for fiscal year 2008, was 135.

-10-



Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts utilized Fill the Gap funding to pay for
a service agreement to process appearance bonds. Previously bonds were
processed by the Clerk of the Court.



The Clerk of the Court created a case document processing center that
accommodates minute entry distribution, pre-sentence reports, and the imaging
and storage of criminal case and other hard copy documents. The function of this
center was to expedite document access and to decrease associated costs. In
fiscal year 2008 the court was successful in imaging and docketing 95% of
criminal case filings within 4-6 hours of receipt.



The Clerk of the Superior Court's Probation Fine/Fee Billing program continues to
pursue post-adjudicated probationers through quarterly billing notices. During the
first three quarters in fiscal year 2008, $3,387,139 was collected. Continued
funding of this project has improved criminal case processing times by reducing
the number of hearings scheduled and has also increased collections.



Ajo Justice Court used Fill the Gap funds to maintain a service agreement for
their digital, audio recording systems. The equipment has enhanced the quality of
the recording process in criminal cases. This has provided necessary record of
the court when court reporter are not available.



Ajo Justice Court continued funding an office support position which has provided
assistance in processing DPS disposition sheets, records management and data
integrity with FARE and AZTEC.



Ajo Justice Court completed installation of a filing/scanning system. The system
requires less space and includes a file search and scanning component. This
system provides easier access to case files and reduces the time spent on
locating files. The court will install the software and scanners in fiscal year 2009.



Adult Probation Supervision for the Consolidated Justice court consists of two
adult probation officers who are assigned to supervise justice court defendants
convicted of DUI, extreme DUI and domestic violence offenses.
Their
responsibilities also include completing pre-sentence investigations and reports,
ensuring defendant compliance with probation conditions, and preparing petitions
to revoke and/or arrest probationers when required. The two officers supervised
more than 300 cases in fiscal year 2008.



The Pima County Consolidated Justice Court Technical Programming Support
Project continued funding from Fill the Gap for a programmer analyst who is
responsible for managing several projects including: web page maintenance, efiling, e-payment, interactive telephone system, file tracking project, maintenance
of a warrant issuing program, and preparation of statistical reports. These efforts
support accessibility to the court and enhance case processing capabilities.

-11-



Pima County Consolidated Justice Court's Imaging Center accommodates
minute entry distribution, presentence reports, and imaging and electronic
storage of criminal cases and other hard copy documents. The function of this
center is to decrease copying costs, improve wait time and allow for better
access to information. This process reduces wait time and continuances by
improving the distribution of criminal case dockets, resulting in minute entry.



Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts added additional resources to the
Phone Team to handle incoming criminal and criminal traffic telephone inquiries.
A study conducted by the Harvey M. Rose Group in March of 2004 indicated an
abandonment rate of 70-80% of all calls. In fiscal year 2008, the abandonment
rate has declined to 35%. The court will continue to devote resources to reduce
the abandonment rate.



The AZTEC field trainer ensured ongoing standardized training for all courts
within the county as well as monitoring case aging reports. In fiscal year 2008,
the field trainer devoted a substantial amount of time to coordinating efforts
towards modifications for table codes affected by legislative changes.

Pinal County
Pinal County has reduced their judge per criminal case ratio from 489.5 to 404.8, partly
due to the judge pro tem. The Presiding Judge was able to gain a commitment by the
Pinal County board of Supervisors for the approval of a 10th Division as the population
increased to 324,962 as of July 1, 2007. Fill the Gap funds continue to positively impact
criminal case processing times, despite the growth rate, by funding a judge pro tem and
judicial assistant for the superior court. In fiscal year 2008, 68% of the criminal cases
were disposed of within 180 days and 35% in 100 days.

Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz County maintains criminal case processing by utilizing a judge pro tem,
additional clerk and improving jury management despite a 13% increase in criminal
case filings. Fill the Gap funded a portion of the salary for a judge pro tem for the
purpose of hearing cases with which the other superior court judges have declared a
conflict. The clerk covers all criminal cases including new criminal case files and
numerous related tasks. Funds were also approved to complete installation of Jury +
Next Generation Software. This software is designed to improve communication with
jurors about reporting times and whether they need to come to court or not. In fiscal
year 2008, 73.4% of the criminal cases were disposed of within 180 days and 37.50%
within 100 days.
Yavapai County
Yavapai County impacts felony case processing through a post-adjudication drug court
program for non-violent adult offenders. The superior court received continuation
funding for the voluntary, post-adjudication drug court program for non-violent adult
offenders who have pled to a second offense for possession of drugs. A part time pro
tempore division and caseflow manager continue to contribute in the effort. The judge
-12-

pro tem heard 372 cases in fiscal year 2008. There were 103 participants between
Adult and Family Drug Court and DUI Court for fiscal year 2008. The caseflow manager
compiled, analyzed and reported data. This information was used to manage
these cases and to improve criminal case processing. Eighty-five percent of the criminal
cases were disposed within 180 days and 68% were disposed within 100 days.
Yuma County
Yuma County improves and expedites criminal case processing through implementing
the court performance measurement system. The superior court, the clerk of the
superior court and justice courts received funds to pay for positions whose primary
responsibilities are to process criminal cases, collection of criminal case data, analysis
of data, and reporting of criminal case data for the purpose of grant reporting,
budgeting, and local strategic plans. In fiscal year 2008, 76.9% of the criminal cases
were disposed within 180 days and 42% were disposed of within 100 days.

Collections Efforts
In fiscal year 2008 , statewide court revenues including superior, justice and municipal
courts increased by 6.6 %, or $23.5 million while total case filings increased by 5.4 %.
The fiscal year 2008 revenues of $382.0 million represent a $312.0 million increase
over the $70 million benchmark established in fiscal year 1988. Superior court
restitution collections decreased by 8.5 % to $14,282,949 in fiscal year 2008 from
$15,607,005 in fiscal year 2007.
Key to the statewide collection efforts are the Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement
(FARE) and the Debt Setoff (DSO) programs. Both are essential to the progress being
made in enforcing compliance with court orders.
During fiscal year 2003, the FARE program was established to increase compliance
with court orders, specifically focusing on collections efforts. The AOC contracted with
Affiliated Computer Services State and Local Solutions (ACS S&L) to provide various
collection options to Arizona courts. Collection services presently offered by ACS S&L
Include: two reminder notices, electronic skip tracing, interactive voice recording (IVR)
and Internet based (web) payment options, collection notices, credit bureau reporting,
wage garnishment if approved by the court and assignment to the Debt Setoff Program
and/or the Motor Vehicle Division's Traffic Ticket Enforcement Assistance Program
(TTEAP). Defendants whose cases have been referred to TTEAP are not able to
register their vehicle until their court obligations are satisfied.
As a result of FARE, a total of $28,408,100 was collected on backlog cases in fiscal
year 2008. The average payment is approximately $201 with many of the cases dating
back to the mid-to-late 1980’s. Over $16 million was collected via the web or interactive
voice line. There were 83,418 vehicle registration holds placed and 42,929 releases
due to payment. In fiscal year 2007, an additional 31 courts were added to the FARE
program bringing the total participating in the program to 116. The following table
shows the number of courts broken down by county.

-13-

Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Yavapai
Santa Cruz

10
7
4
6
5
39
4
11
6
6
9
6
116

The Debt Setoff (DSO) program was established in 1992 to hold offenders accountable
for financial obligations owed, to assist in the enforcement of court orders, and to
increase collections in the Arizona court system. The agency (such as the court,
probation department or county attorney office) provides the name, social security
number and the full amount of the debt, to the DSO program and if a debt claim
matches with a taxpayer's refund or lottery winning, an intercept will occur. During
calendar year 2006 there were 190 (agency) participants in the Arizona Supreme
Court’s DSO program. During calendar year 2007, the DSO program had 53,164 tax
and lottery interceptions, an increase of 6.3% from calendar year 2006. During calendar
year 2007, DSO revenue was $7,110,600, an increase of 16.6%. Note that this
information is tracked by calendar year in keeping with the tax year.

Conclusion
Arizona Courts continue to overcome obstacles and improve on criminal case
processing by restructuring court operations and advancing to new technology.
Although the tasks are sometimes challenging and funding limited, through Fill the Gap
funds, the courts have made significant progress with maintaining projects that aid
courts in implementing solutions to further improve criminal case processing and
enforcement of court orders. In keeping with the Chief Justice’s Strategic Agenda, the
AOC and participating counties continue to move forward to employ modern technology
to process cases and communicate information, protect the rights of victims, ensure that
self-represented litigants have meaningful access to the courts, and that the judiciary is
available to all members of the public. The goals accomplished this fiscal year with Fill
the Gap funds promoted timelier case processing, achievements made this fiscal year in
Arizona mark significant progress towards achieving swift, fair justice for Arizona’s
citizens.

-14-