GOOD TO GREAT

2006

Annual Report of the Arizona State Courts

Message from Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor

O

n behalf of the Arizona Judicial Branch, it is
my pleasure to present our 2006 Annual Report.
This online document presents an overview of the
accomplishments of our court system throughout the
last year. Eighteen months ago we embarked on a new
strategic agenda, “Good to Great” to guide our priorities
and reﬂect our commitment to making Arizona’s justice
system the best possible. The agenda outlines ﬁve
goals:
•
•
•
•

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
Protecting Children, Families, and
Communities
Being Accountable
Improving Communication and Cooperation
with the Community, with Other Branches of
Government, and within the Judicial Branch
Serving the Public by Improving the Legal
Profession

has never been easier for the public. Court agendas,
rulings and administrative decisions are posted to the
Web. We now stream oral arguments live on the Web,
and changes and comments to Supreme Court rule
changes can be ﬁled electronically. In addition, many
courts throughout the state are working to increase
public understanding of the court system.
As we continue forward, we acknowledge that achieving
our goals is only possible through work and leadership
on every level, and participation from communities and
citizens throughout Arizona. We will continue to call
upon these people to take an active role in improving
our justice system

Remember the Judicial Branch deals with cases that
impact real people, your family and neighbors, every
•
day – either through cases in which they may be involved
or through jury service. Each case is important because
the community depends on the court system to be swift,
I’m pleased to report that with the hard work and fair, and just. In a very real sense, our staff keeps the
professional commitment of the many court ofﬁcers, constitution alive every day by carefully processing the
employees, and citizen volunteers we’ve made more than 2.5 million matters that come into our courts
signiﬁcant toward making our courts truly great. We’ve each year.
reached out to each branch of government to discuss
how we can all work together to improve a serious I look forward to the continued journey in improving
public safety issue – driving under the inﬂuence. Our the delivery of justice and working with our many
adult probation tracking system is now functional partners, including the Arizona Judicial Council, the
statewide, making our communities safer as information Executive and Legislative Branches of government, the
on probationers is tracked and updated more efﬁciently. State Bar of Arizona, and individual citizens of Arizona.
And our statewide efforts to assist children and families Together, we will take our system of justice from very
continue, providing improved education for judges and good to truly great.
volunteers.
Ruth V. McGregor
Finding out what is going on within the Supreme Court Chief Justice

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

2

Table of Contents
Message from Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor

2

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice

5

DUI Case Processing Improvements
e-Court Initiative Update
Supreme Court Rules Website
New Domestic Violence Rules
Creation of Victims’ Commission
Legal Information Task Force

5
6
6
7
7
7

Protecting Children, Families, and Communities
Arizona’s Adult Probation Automation Solution
Dependency Caseﬂow Management
Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award
CASA Training Reorganization
Sibling Day
Integrated Family Court Pilot Program
Improving Juvenile Justice Programs
JOLTSaz Detention Visitation Rollout
Project Passport & Arizona’s New Protective Order Forms
Expansion of Arizona’s Drug Courts
Senior Initiatives

Being Accountable
New Retirement Plan for Probation Oﬃcers
First Court Management Program Graduates
Judges Training Summit

Improving Communication and Cooperation with the Community
other Branches of Government, and within the Judicial Branch
Court Leadership Institute of Arizona
New Jury Video
Oral Arguments on the Road
Oral Arguments Streaming Live on the Web

Serving the Public by Improving the Legal Profession
Attorney Disclosure of Insurance
Attorney Discipline Information Online
2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11

12
12
12
14

13
13
13
14
14

15
15
15
3

Table of Contents
Court Statistics by Fiscal Year
Caseload and Revenue Highlights
Judiciary Organizational Chart
2006 Case Filings by Court Level
Arizona Supreme Court
Court of Appeals, Division One
Court of Appeals, Division Two
Arizona Tax Court
Superior Court
Justice of the Peace Courts
Municipal Courts
Juvenile Court Referrals
Juvenile Probation/Corrections
Juvenile Court Petitions
Adult Probation

Statewide Revenue and Expenditures Summary

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

16
16
17
18
19
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22

23

4

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice

The most fundamental aspect of our judicial system is that it be swift and fair. All citizens coming
before the courts are entitled to equal justice, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age or economic
circumstance. Furthermore, courts must provide meaningful access to all, ensuring that no litigant is
denied justice due to the lack of counsel or the inability to understand legal proceedings.

DUI CASE PROCESSING IMPROVEMENTS

the successful recommendations statewide.

T

Pursuant to the recommendations of the DUI Case
Processing Task Force, a team of state leaders and
judicial ofﬁcers developed a unique “Judicial Training
Academy” for 48 judges who represent nine counties
from 18 Justice Courts and 11 Municipal Courts. The
team wrote curriculum for 10 sessions taught by 13
different faculty members. In addition, they designed
17 mock hearing scenarios for judges to practice
handling the most complex matters. One judge stated
his appreciation for the training and said that there
were, “So many great ideas for moving my cases and
techniques to use with attorneys; good information on
forensic toxicology; mock hearings (were) especially
good.”

o address the critical public safety issue posed by
drunk drivers, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor
announced, in January 2006, plans to improve DUI
case processing based on recommendations from the
DUI Case Processing Committee. The judicial branch
responded to these recommendations by instituting
three projects – a pilot court project, holding a “Judicial
Training Academy,” and hosting a DUI Summit.

The eleven courts participating in the DUI case
processing pilot project, including Phoenix Municipal
Court, all Navajo County Justice Courts, and the
Pima Consolidated Justice Courts, work to reduce
the time of the DUI offense through the imposition
of sanctions, thus enhancing public safety. The goal
of this project is to complete 90 percent of DUI cases
within 120 days and 98 percent within 180 days. Each
pilot court worked with local government ofﬁcials, law
enforcement, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to
ﬁnd ways to improve DUI case processing. Meetings
were held to ensure all the pilot courts implemented the
same procedures to experiment with improving DUI
case processing. As a result, several courts are already
meeting their goals. For instance, one pilot court
developed an early disposition court with the help of the
city prosecutor’s ofﬁce and public defenders. A main
element of the pilot project includes having prosecutors
and defense attorneys appear at the arraignment. The
result has been an increase in the numbers of pleas being
accepted at arraignment and a decrease in the number
of cases that proceed to pre-trial and trial. The pilot
program began July 1, 2006 and lasts for one year. At
that time the Supreme Court will look at implementing

The National Judicial College (NJC) co-sponsored
the Judicial Training Academy. The Governor’s
Ofﬁce for Highway Safety coordinated with Arizona
Supreme Court to hold their annual Conference for
Judges in Tucson immediately following the Judicial
Training Academy, creating a special opportunity to
maximize judicial participation and both educational
curriculums.
On December 4, 2006 approximately 150 representatives
from all three branches of government and additional
agencies involved in and impacted by the DUI
process assembled for the 2006 Arizona DUI Summit.
Information presented to participants included:
• Arizona’s DUI laws history;
Article continued on next page
5

•
•
•

Arizona’s current sentencing laws and policies;
an overview of what sanctions do and do not
work nationally; and
improving recidivism rates using evidencebased sentencing practices

Participants also assembled into small discussion
groups, discussed the information they received and
came up with recommendations that could improve
Arizona’s recidivism rate as well as reduce the number
of alcohol-related fatalities.

the record on appeal, including the index of record,
from the trial court to the appellate court, and then from
one appellate court to the next appellate court.
More speciﬁcally, the pilot project automates
production of the record on appeal from electronic
court documents housed in Yavapai County’s OnBase
electronic document management system (EDMS),
transfers them to Division One’s OnBase EDMS and
case management system, Appellamation. And then to
the Supreme Court which also uses these programs.

The project is being completed in multiple phases
leading to electronic transfer of the record on appeal
E-COURT INITIATIVE UPDATE
being available for all courts ﬁling either the Court
lectronic ﬁling initiatives, part of the judiciary’s of Appeals Division One or the Arizona Supreme
strategic agenda, support the Court’s efforts to Court. Phase One of this project established technical
take advantage of technology to manage court cases feasibility. Phase Two, which is underway with the
pilot implementation in Yavapai County, will more
efﬁciently.
fully test the software, establish business practices and
procedures, and permit judges, deputy clerks, and staff
The goals of early electronic ﬁling projects are:
attorneys to handle a series of appeals in order to make
• Increase ease of access to justice;
sure the program meets the courts needs.
• Reduce cost;

E

•
•
•

Improve public service;
Study, coordinate, and plan the transfer of case
records electronically between courts; and
Promote pilots and models in different courts.

SUPREME COURT RULES WEBSITE

T

he Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts developed
The e-Court Subcommittee of the Commission on
a court rules forum Website that permits easy
Technology and its subteams are working toward a
public access to Supreme Court rule change petitions
uniﬁed, statewide system of e-ﬁling in the following
and comments, including the ability to electronically
general areas:
ﬁle petitions and comments. The Commission on
• Court to court ﬁling, leveraging the electronic
Technology approved the site as an e-ﬁling pilot project.
appeal process;
The site has expanded access to the public to the rule
• Leveraging justice community information
making and rule changing process, saving time and
using a clearinghouse for case-related data; and money for both ﬁlers and the Court.
• Form-based attorney/public e-ﬁling using
standardized, interactive, statewide forms as
Rules 28 and 124 of the Supreme Court, Rule 83 Rules
the foundation.
of Civil Procedure, and Rule 36 Rules of Criminal
Procedure were revised to enable the existence of an
electronic process in addition to the traditional paper
Court to Court Electronic Filing
method.
A statewide court-to-court electronic ﬁling pilot
initiative is underway, beginning with the Superior Since the Website went live on May 3, 2006, there have
Court in Yavapai County and Division One of the Court been thousands of rule and comment views, numerous
of Appeals, and followed by the Arizona Supreme Court. electronic ﬁlings of comments, and several new petitions
The project’s goal is to securely electronically transfer for rule change ﬁled electronically.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

6

NEW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RULES

Court Judge Ron Reinstein serves as COVIC chair
and is leading the diverse membership of 24 wellhe Supreme Court established the Domestic respected professionals representing the legal and court
Violence Rules Committee on November 17, communities, victim rights advocacy organizations and
2005 as an advisory committee to the Arizona Judicial the public.
Council, to:
The Commission is charged with developing policy
recommendations to improve the overall administration
• Research other statewide domestic violence
of justice, ensuring victims’ constitutional and statutory
rules;
rights are upheld, identifying victim-related training
• Study the issues relevant to domestic violence
and education for judges and court staff, and improving
procedural matters in Arizona; and
restitution collection and disbursement.
• Consider alternatives to Rule 96, Domestic
Violence Benchbooks, in the Arizona Rules
As a standing commission to theArizona Judicial Council,
of Family Law Procedure, which may include
COVIC met three times in 2006 and began strategic
statewide domestic violence rules.
planning efforts. They created three initial workgroups:
The Committee researched national and statewide Education, Restitution and Administration of Justice.
domestic violence issues, and court procedures and These workgroups began gathering information on
sought input from judges, judicial staff, clerks, law issues such as identifying potential speakers for
enforcement and the public. The Committee drafted a educational conferences, evaluating current bench
separate set of rules titled Arizona Rules of Protective books and procedures to ensure victim rights issues are
Order Procedure (ARPOP). This draft includes addressed and possibly enhancing the Commission’s
procedural rules for Orders of Protection, Injunctions Website with more restitution information.
Against Harassment, and Injunctions Against Workplace
Harassment. The Committee ﬁled a petition with the
Supreme Court for adoption of ARPOP on October 31,
2006 and may receive comments until May 21, 2007.
To provide comments electronically please visit www. LEGAL INFORMATION TASK FORCE
supreme.state.az.us/cidvc/DVRules/comment.asp.

T

I

n an environment where an increasing number of
Additional information about the DV Rules Committee
court users do not hire attorneys, and tend to ask
can be found at http://supreme.state.az.us/cidvc/
court staff “legal questions,” the Supreme Court created
DVRules/default.htm.
the Legal Advice-Legal Information Guidelines Task
Force in May 2006. The task force goal is to develop
standards adopting useful distinctions between legal
information and legal advice for guidance to court
CREATION OF VICTIMS’ COMMISSION
staff, and to determine the best way to implement
onstitutional and statutory provisions for victims’ the proposed guidelines in Arizona’s courts that will
rights have existed in Arizona for more than 10 promote consistent quality service.

C

years. As a result of feedback from the community,
Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor established the
Commission on Victims in the Courts (COVIC) to
better help understand the needs and rights of crime
victims, while maintaining court neutrality.

The Task Force has developed a manual with guidelines
for court personnel, a question and response handbook,
a glossary of common terms, and training materials to
provide assistance to court personnel when they interact
with court users. The Task Force will present their ﬁnal
Chief Justice McGregor ofﬁcially signed Administrative report and recommendations to the Arizona Judicial
Order 2006-25 at the Commission’s inaugural meeting Council in March 2007; and a broadcast to all Arizona
on March 10, 2006. Maricopa County Superior courts is scheduled for March 27, 2007.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

7

Protecting Children, Families, and Communities

While continuing to provide a fair and impartial forum to resolve disputes, ensure those who violate
laws are held accountable, and serve to limit the arbitrary use of government power to deprive citizens
of their rights; Arizona courts are working to ensuring that those in need of protection due to age or
inﬁrmity are protected from physical or ﬁnancial harm.

ARIZONA’S ADULT PROBATION
AUTOMATION SOLUTION

W

hat began in preparation for Y2K, is now
fully functioning in each adult probation
department (APD) in all of Arizona’s 15 counties.
The Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System
(APETS) began as a joint effort between Maricopa
and Pima counties, and the Administrative Ofﬁce of
the Courts (AOC). Maricopa County Adult Probation
started using APETS in March 1999 as the ﬁrst pilot
system. Rollout to Arizona’s other counties began in
September 2003 and concluded December 2006.
More than 2,100 department employees actively use the
APETS system. The system contains more than 191,500
probationer records and 6.35 million probationer contact
note records, and hosts more than 200 screens that are
restricted through numerous layers of security.
As a single database shared by all ﬁfteen APD’s, APETS
allows for:
• internal and external integration;
• full adult probation tracking system for
departments to share data;
• transfer of probationer records electronically
from county to county; and
• update of probationer records as they move
through the system and/or come back into the
system.
This critical functionality allows the APD’s to better
track information on probationers, and it provides a
mechanism for vital information to be shared between
departments to help keep probation staff and our

communities more safe.
The APETS teams spent countless hours to ensure
that the system implementation was a success, while
continuing to provide maintenance and development
support to the counties that already use APETS. The
teams also worked closely with each local APD’s team
members to re-engineer their business processes.

DEPENDENCY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT

I

n 2006, the federal government passed a law providing
new funding for state courts to improve their ability to
measure their performance in overseeing cases and the
status of dependent children. This funding also requires
state courts to collaborate with state child welfare
agencies to help the children in their joint care.
Since 1999, Arizona courts have reduced the amount of
time a child spends in foster care by half, yet there are
more cases brought before the Court than ever. Courts
are exploring new ways to manage their mounting case
load.
With the support of the Administrative Ofﬁce of the
Courts, each Arizona county recently began using
“Dependency Caseﬂow Management,” a process
designed to increase efﬁciency and effectiveness, and
improve outcomes for children in foster care. County
teams consisting of the Presiding Juvenile Court Judge,
attorneys representing children and parents, Child
Protective Services, behavioral health representatives,
and other key staff meet to identify key areas of concern
and jointly develop realistic solutions.
8

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD

I

one “Understanding Systems” includes presentations
on Child Protective Services, Dependency Court,
Conﬁdentiality, and Court Reports. “Understanding
Families” is the theme for day two, and includes
presentations on substance abuse, psychological trauma
of children, and attachment and bonding. This provides
a more logical ﬂow of new information that trainees
must absorb.

n April 2006, during Victim’s Rights Week, the Ofﬁce
of the Attorney General honored Arizona CASA
volunteers with the Distinguished Service Award in the
Advocacy/Direct Service category. There are 850 Court
Appointed Special Advocates throughout the state who
serve children who are removed from their homes due
to abuse or neglect. In calendar year 2005, CASAs The State CASA Program is also reviewing the training
donated 65,923 hours forming relationships with their provided by the local counties to their CASA volunteers
CASA children, attended CPS meetings, wrote court to assure consistent delivery of required training topics.
reports and attended court hearings to advocate for the
best interests of their children and to ensure that a safe
permanent home is a reality.

SIBLING DAY
CASA TRAINING REORGANIZATION

T

he Arizona Court Appointed Special Advocate
(CASA) Program reorganized its orientation
training to better serve the needs of its volunteers.
These citizens, also known as CASAs, advocate in the
best interests of abused and neglected children who are
involved in the juvenile court system.

T

he Arizona Friends of Foster Children Foundation
(AFFCF), along with the Foster Care Review
Board (FCRB), the Court Appointed Special Advocate
(CASA) program, and Child Protective Services
(CPS) hosted the 4th Annual Maricopa County Sibling
Reunion Day event on Saturday, October 14, 2006 in
Phoenix. The event provided an opportunity for nearly
70 children from across the Valley to come together to
visit with their brothers and sisters for a day of fun,
games, and food.

Orientation training, a two-day, 15 hour training, is part
of a CASA’s required 30 hours of initial training before
they can be assigned a case. Before the reorganization, The FCRB and CASA programs worked with CPS to
the training was offered every two months at the Arizona identify sibling groups who were placed in separate
State Courts building in Phoenix.
foster care facilities and therefore have limited chances
to spend time together. Twenty-nine family groups
With the help of a committee comprised of CASA were represented at the event. After identifying eligible
Coordinators from both rural and urban counties, the sibling groups, FCRB, CASA and CPS coordinated
State CASA ofﬁce implemented a monthly training transportation for the children. If not for the coordination
program that alternates between the State Courts of transportation, many of the children would not have
building in Phoenix, and the Juvenile Court facility in been able to take part in this special day.
Tucson. The class sizes have been reduced from 45-60
people to 20-30 people. This allows for a more intimate FCRB and CASA also contacted their program
and discussion-oriented experience for trainees. volunteers, staff members and AOC staff to arrange
for volunteers. Sixty-six volunteers came together to
Travel costs are also reduced for the Southern Arizona
make this day special for all of the children involved.
programs, especially Pima County.
Each child left with a goody bag and a portrait of their
The educational content was also reviewed and
reorganized. The program implemented a more
structured training agenda which now highlights unique
themes for each day of training. The theme for day

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

family. Each family was given a disposable camera to
take photos of the days events, and a set of prints were
put in a photo album and mailed to each child. These
items will be a reminder of the cherished memories the
families were able to share.
9

INTEGRATED FAMILY COURT PILOT PROGRAM

serve as a model statewide. An independent evaluation
will be conducted after the pilot is completed to track
amily law cases constitute the largest category the success of the court.
of ﬁlings for the Superior Court of Arizona.
Accordingly, improving the timeliness and effectiveness
of the resolution of family issues in the court system is IMPROVING JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
a priority.
he Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts (AOC) has
partnered with the Vanderbilt University Center for
Numerous studies conducted at the national and state
Evaluation
and Research Methodology to implement a
levels recommend the establishment of a Family
Standardized
Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) to
Court system to deal with problems of the family in an
systematically
evaluate and improve the effectiveness
integrated manner. In 2002, recognizing that families in
litigation have special needs and that the current system of juvenile treatment programs in reducing recidivism.
Using JOLTS data and program descriptions, treatment
for dealing with family issues could be improved, the
providers will receive scores based on how closely
Domestic Relations Committee (DRC), a legislative
their program characteristics match those associated
committee staffed by the Administrative Ofﬁce of the
with best practices, based on national evaluation
Courts, prepared a statewide plan for an Integrated
research. These SPEP scores will provide a baseline
Family Court (IFC).
for measuring current program effectiveness and will

F

T

Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson, co-chair of DRC,
introduced SB 1267 to the Second Regular Session of
the 47th Legislature to establish a two-year IFC Pilot
Program. The bill, signed by Governor Janet Napolitano,
provided for an appropriation of $850,000 to the Supreme
Court for the pilot program. On September 6, 2006 Chief
Justice Ruth V. McGregor signed Administrative Order
No. 2006-68, selecting the Superior Court in Coconino
County to conduct the IFC pilot.
Coconino’s plan includes three key elements:
• Access to Services: The IFC will increase
the Court’s ability to provide essential services to
families involved in the judicial system. Services
proposed include: supervised visitation and exchange,
counseling and anger management training, mental
health evaluations, substance abuse evaluations, and
assistance with document preparation.
• Mediation, not Litigation: Courts nationwide
found that alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
methods, such as mediation, are more effective and
efﬁcient than traditional adversarial approaches.
Accordingly, the pilot incorporates the use of ADR to
the greatest extent possible, and even require families
to do so in some instances.
• One Family/One Judge: When feasible, one
judge hears all cases involving a family to ensure a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to each case.
This allows the judge to respond to the family’s needs
and assign those services that best meet their needs.

provide a roadmap showing how programs can be
modiﬁed to increase their scores and improve outcomes.
Additionally, JOLTS data will also be used to determined
recidivism rates prior to SPEP implementation and
subsequent to the programming improvements.
This collaboration has resulted in a:
• brieﬁng of juvenile court judges, juvenile court
directors, treatment providers, and other key
stakeholders;
• number of comprehensive SPEP information
sessions, conducted by the Vanderbilt
University Center, and held in Maricopa and
Pima counties; and the development and
operation of a SPEP Website www.supreme.
state.az.us/jjsd/spep.

JOLTSAZ DETENTION VISITATION ROLLOUT

T

he Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts (AOC), Pima
County, and Arizona’s less populated counties, are
in the process of reengineering and modernizing the
State’s Juvenile Online Tracking System (JOLTS). This
modernization project is named “JOLTSaz.” The ﬁrst
module in this project involves the automation of the
visitation process in juvenile detention centers across
the State. This involves allowing staff to electronically
schedule, view, update, and edit visitation records.
Currently, the visitation module has been successfully
implemented in Santa Cruz, Yuma, Coconino, Cochise
and Mohave counties. Implementation in the remaining
The pilot is targeted to begin January 2007 and will counties is scheduled for completion by Spring 2007.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

10

PROJECT PASSPORT & ARIZONA’S NEW
PROTECTIVE ORDER FORMS

SENIOR INITIATIVES

A

number of projects furthered the goals of the
Arizona Court’s Strategic Agenda to protect elderly
uring the past year, Arizona’s Project Passport
Team has collaborated with many states to enhance and vulnerable persons:
the safety of victims and law enforcement ofﬁcers by
improving the recognition and enforcement of orders Law for Seniors: In collaboration with the Arizona
of protection within and among states and tribes. The Foundation for Legal Services and Education, the
team, chaired by the Honorable William O’Neil, judge Supreme Court developed and distributed 100,000
in the Superior Court of Arizona in Pinal County, “Law for Seniors” newspaper style brochures to Arizona
has earned many accolades and recognition from the citizens. This free brochure addresses legal concerns
National Center for State Courts for their effort in faced by Arizona seniors and those who care for them
developing and implementing new protective order and helps seniors and their families protect and prepare
forms in compliance with Project Passport’s goals.
themselves legally, physically, and ﬁnancially for the
challenges posed by aging. The brochure is available
The ﬁnal NCSC Project Passport Regional Conference, to citizens at all state courts, Walgreens’ drugstores and
March 20-23, 2007 in Boston, Mass., will include the senior centers. The Court also created a website, www.
last few states and tribal nations to join in the national lawforseniors.org, which contains much of the same
Project Passport initiative. Administrative Ofﬁce of the information as the brochure, and is helpful to out of state
Courts staff will serve as faculty for the ﬁnal regional people who care for Arizona seniors. In addition to the
conference.
information provided in the brochure, the website allows
individuals to post questions which are then answered
The Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) approved new by volunteer attorneys.
protective order forms in June 2006 and the forms were
adopted via Administrative Directive No. 2006-01. The Elder Law Hotline: The Supreme Court provided
forms keep in focus the precepts that launched Project ongoing funding for this free hotline, where those over
Passport. The technological implementation of the new the age of sixty can speak with an attorney and ask legal
forms began January 1, 2007; with all courts mandated questions. The number is 1-800-231-5441.
to use the new forms by December 31, 2007.

D

Probate Rules Committee: Vice Chief Justice Rebecca
White Berch chairs this newly created committee,
EXPANSION OF ARIZONA’S DRUG COURTS
charged with reviewing current statewide and local rules
of procedure in the probate area and recommending
ationwide, the results of more than 100 program changes to standardize and simplify probate procedures
evaluations have yielded deﬁnitive evidence throughout Arizona. The Committee will submit its
that drug courts increase treatment retention, reduce proposed changes in the Fall of 2007.
substance abuse and prevent crime. Building on this
success, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor announced Licensing of Fiduciaries: The Administrative Ofﬁce
funding awards to six adult probation departments of the Courts licenses and conducts compliance
and nine juvenile probation departments to support the audits of court appointed ﬁduciaries who manage the
continuation, improvement, initiation or expansion of ﬁnancial and personal matters of those who are unable
drug courts in Arizona. The funds awarded included to do so themselves. The licensing and auditing of
a special $1 million drug court appropriation from the ﬁduciaries helps assure that ﬁduciaries are qualiﬁed
Legislature supplemented with $454,310 provided by the and competent and comply with law and court rules,
Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts. These departments and enhances public ﬁnancial safety.
receiving funds went through a detailed and rigorous
application process to ensure that they incorporate best Training: Superior Court judges, clerks of court and
practices, based on national guidelines. The programs court administrators participated in a training session
will be evaluated for their effectiveness and adherence on tools and procedures to provide for effective
to best practices.
oversight of court appointed ﬁduciaries.

N

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

11

Being Accountable

In order to foster public trust and conﬁdence, the judiciary must be accountable to the public and
other stakeholders. The judiciary has an obligation to develop a clear strategic agenda; keep the
public informed of court operations, programs and initiatives; and ensure that all levels of staff are
competent, professional and customer service oriented.

NEW RETIREMENT PLAN FOR PROBATION OFFICERS

Management, the educational arm of the National Center
for State Courts. The program was a joint program with
n 2006, the Arizona Legislature passed legislation the Arizona Supreme Court. The graduates represented
which allows state probation, surveillance, and the ﬁrst graduating class from Arizona. To date, only
juvenile detention ofﬁcers, to join the Correctional seventeen graduating classes exist nationally.
Ofﬁcer Retirement Plan (CORP). Until this legislation
passed, probation and detention personnel were The Court Management Program, the only program of
required to participate in the Arizona State Retirement its kind in the United States, is a two-phase program
System (ASRS), the general retirement system for state established for mid-level court managers. The program
employees. CORP provides additional beneﬁts that will complements the training needs of courts implementing
assist in recruiting and retention of qualiﬁed personnel. the National Association for Court Management’s core
competencies. Arizona is only one of eight states to
offer the Court Management Program in-house.
Enhanced CORP beneﬁts include:
• early retirement;
• pension beneﬁts of 50 to 80 percent of the Prior to graduating, course members completed ﬁve
courses in ﬁnancial management, human resource
average monthly salary;
• two types of disability retirements with no management, caseﬂow management, managing
information technology, and court performance
service credit requirement;
• survivor beneﬁts with no reduction of the standards. Most of the graduates attended all their prerequisite programs in Phoenix through a partnership
members’ pension; and
between the Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts and the
• beneﬁts payable to an eligible surviving child.
National Center for State Courts.
The Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts is currently
working towards implementing the CORP program. Graduates attended a weeklong concluding seminar
Implementation will make it possible for approximately and engaged in leadership activities. They met with
2,800 eligible probation, surveillance and juvenile legislators, reﬁned their communication skills and
detention ofﬁcers to join CORP and begin receiving strengthened their management knowledge, skills
and abilities. Adult learning, empowerment and
beneﬁts.
teambuilding were the reoccurring themes throughout
the week. At the end of the week, graduates were
FIRST COURT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRADUATES congratulated by Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor; Mike
Baumstark, Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts Deputy
n May 2006, thirty-one court employees from Director; and Marna Murray, Education Services
throughout Arizona graduated from the Court Division Director.

I

I

Management Program of the Institute for Court

12

Improving Communication and Cooperation with
the Community, other Branches of Government, and
within the Judicial Branch
Effective and meaningful communication within the judiciary and with the Executive and Legislative
branches of government is vital to serving the public efﬁciently and effectively, and improving business
relations. It promotes better-informed policy making, improved collegiality, intra-branch cooperation
and participation in the administration of justice. Judicial outreach to the community is also critical so
the public can develop a greater understanding of the important role the judiciary plays in democracy.

COURT LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE OF ARIZONA

W

ith the signing of Administrative Order 200669, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor formally
established the Court Leadership Institute of Arizona
(CLIA) and appointed the inaugural committee
members. She named Honorable Louraine Arkfeld,
Presiding Judge for Tempe Municipal Court, and Kent
Batty, Court Administrator for the Superior Court
in Pima County, as Committee Chair and Co-Chair
respectively.
The Court Leadership Institute of Arizona (CLIA)
accomplished several major goals in 2006. CLIA staff
reviewed and assessed the variety of court leadership
development programs available to Arizona’s court
personnel. These efforts included discussions with the
Advanced Public Executive Program (APEP) at ASU,
the development of a leadership-focused session at the
2006 Judicial Conference in Tucson (taught by APEP
staff), and discussions related to the continued use of
on-site Institute for Court Management courses.
In December, CLIA sponsored the second annual
Arizona Court Leadership Conference in Sedona,
attended by more than 130 court leaders, bringing
together the breadth of the state’s court leadership in a
single location. Mark Carey, a nationally-recognized
expert in justice and correctional issues, delivered
the keynote address on evidence-based sentencing
practices. Other conference sessions included a
panel discussion with members of city and county
leadership, evidence-based supervision, pandemic
and emergency planning, updates on court automation
projects, criminal case processing performance
measures and standards, and jury management. The

conference also featured critically-important county
meetings, allowing an opportunity for each county’s
court leadership to discuss important issues.

NEW JURY VIDEO

T

o better inform the public and further the Arizona
Supreme Court’s strategic goal of improving
communication and cooperation with the community,
and about the importance of jury service, the Court
produced a new jury service video. A committee
comprised Kathrine M Brauer, Jury Commissioner,
Pima County; Bob James, Director of Jury Management,
Maricopa County; Sheri Newman, Clerk and Jury
Commissioner, La Paz County Superior Court; and
AOC staff worked on the project with videographers to
produce a new jury orientation video.
The jury commissioners served as subject matter
experts, working closely with the video scriptwriters
to produce narration and visuals that assure accuracy
for all jury trial courts in the state. Chief Justice Ruth
V. McGregor provides the introduction and closing
remarks on the video, stressing the importance of jury
service and expressing the Court’s appreciation for
jurors’ time and efforts.
The video offers an overview of juror expectations
and requirements and includes “juror on the street”
interviews, in which actual jurors talk about their jury
service experiences.
The Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts distributed
the jury orientation video in June 2006 to all courts
statewide that conduct jury trials.
13

BEING ACCOUNTABLE, CONT.
JUDGES TRAINING SUMMIT

community members and middle and high school
students from around Cochise County listened while
the Court heard arguments in two cases.

I

The Court visited the communities of Snowﬂake
and Chinle in October 2006. The justices held a
Town Hall at Snowﬂake High School for students
from throughout Navajo County. They discussed
the Arizona Court System and gave the students an
opportunity to ask questions. The Court then traveled
to Chinle and conducted oral arguments; the ﬁrst time
they’ve held their proceedings on the Navajo Nation.
Community members and students from throughout
State and national experts participated in the Summit. the Navajo Nation and Apache County witnessed the
Participants included Arizona stakeholders representing historic occasion.
judges, attorneys, the Arizona Department of Economic
Security and the Arizona Department of Health Services. The Court also continued their practice of holding
National organizations represented at the meeting oral arguments at the James E. Rogers College of Law
included the National Center for State Courts, the at the University of Arizona, and at the Sandra Day
American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University.
Law, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, and Fostering Court Improvement. Participants An informal question and answer session immediately
shared their ideas, expertise, and knowledge of best followed oral arguments in each community.
practices in an effort to improve the way that judges in
Arizona receive training on dependency matters.

n an effort to ensure that judges serving on the juvenile
bench receive training that builds on their knowledge
and expertise in managing dependency cases, the
Dependent Children Services Division conducted a
Judges Dependency Training Summit in November
2006. The Summit evaluated the current process for
training new Dependency Judges and identiﬁed ways
to improve the curriculum.

The Summit resulted in 76 recommendations that will
help judges who work in Arizona’s dependency system be
well informed of not only case speciﬁcs, but in the latest
trends and the different agencies dependent children rely
for their protection and growth. The recommendations
will be reviewed, and then incorporated in new training
curriculum, and the dependency judges track at the
annual judicial conference.

ORAL ARGUMENTS STREAMING LIVE
ON THE WEB

I

n June 2006, the Supreme Court unveiled live
video Web cast capabilities for all oral arguments,
making it more convenient for the public to view their
proceedings.
Visit www.supreme.state.az.us/courtvideo to watch all
oral arguments.

IMPROVING COMMUNICATION, CONT.
ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE ROAD

C

ontinuing their tradition of bringing the Court
to different communities, the Supreme Court
traveled to Southern Arizona and Northeastern
Arizona to conduct oral arguments.

An Web archive to watch and listen to these taped
proceedings and other court videos will be completed
in 2007.

In April 2006, the Court traveled to Sierra Vista and
held oral arguments in front of the largest audience in
Supreme Court history. More than thirteen hundred

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

14

Serving the Public by Improving
the Legal Profession
The Supreme Court regulates the practice of law and along with the rest of the judiciary, plays a
crucial role of protecting individual rights and liberties in a free society. The court must determine how
the legal profession can best serve the public through examining existing rules governing the practice
of law, attorney admission and disciplinary systems, and legal practices and procedures that encourage
unnecessarily adversarial proceedings in and our of the courtroom.

ATTORNEY DISCLOSURE OF INSURANCE

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE INFORMATION ONLINE

B

ursuant to a change in Supreme Court rules, the
public can now ﬁnd out an attorney’s discipline
and status information online at www.azbar.org.

eginning on January 1, 2007, the Arizona
Supreme Court requires that all attorneys disclose
whether or not they carry malpractice insurance. This
change, made ofﬁcial by Arizona Supreme Court Rule
32C, helps consumers of legal services make informed
choices about whom they retain.

P

15

Annual Report Statistics

CASELOAD AND REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS
•

Arizona Courts had 2,551,574 case ﬁlings in FY 2006.

•

On average, 1,286 cases were ﬁled in Arizona Courts every working hour.

•

Statewide case ﬁlings increased by 13,900 or 0.5%, while Justice Courts ﬁlings increased by 3.3% or 28,600.

•

Superior Court case ﬁlings in Maricopa and rural counties increased by 1.6% and 4.4%, respectively.

•

Justice Court case ﬁlings increased by 3.3% in FY 2006, rural Justice Court case ﬁlings increased by 10.5%, and
Maricopa and Pima counties case ﬁlings decreased by 0.4% and 0.5% respectively. Rural Courts civil trafﬁc
ﬁlings increased by 15.3% or 23,300.

•

In FY 2006, Municipal Court case ﬁlings statewide decreased by 1.2%, while the rural Municipal Court ﬁlings
increased by 4.4%, during the same period. Municipal Court ﬁlings in Maricopa and Pima counties case ﬁlings
decreased by 1.7% and 3.5% respectively.

•

87,040 DUI cases were ﬁled in Justice and Municipal Courts. This represents a decrease of 1,526 case ﬁlings from
FY 2005. (Case ﬁling in Justice and Municipal Courts are primarily counted by charges not defendants.)

•

Civil trafﬁc case ﬁlings account for 55.3% of all case ﬁlings in Justice and Municipal Courts. This case category
increased by 9,100 case ﬁlings, or 0.7% from FY 2005 to FY 2006.

•

Statewide revenue and expenditures trends in ﬁscal year 2006 are outpacing case ﬁlings trends. Case ﬁlings
increased by 0.5%, while revenue increased by 13.7% and expenditures increased by 10.8%.

•

Arizona courts have collected more than $1.85 billion in additional revenue over the $70 million benchmark
established in FY 1988.

FY 2006 Annual Clearance Rate by Court Level
Annual
Clearance Rate
Court Level
99.5%
Arizona Supreme Court
110.7%
Court of Appeals, Division One
95.7%
Court of Appeals, Division Two
92.5%
Arizona Tax Court
95.4%
Superior Court
98.4%
Justice of the Peace Courts
105.8%
Municipal Courts
Annual Clearance Rate Deﬁnition: A percentage that reﬂects a comparison of outgoing cases to incoming cases. Outgoing cases
include total terminations and transfer out cases. Incoming cases inclue original ﬁlings and transfer in cases. A clearance rate of 100%
means a court has the extact same number of outgoing cases as incoming cases during this ﬁscal year.

16

Judiciary Organizational Chart
Supreme Court
5 Justices, 6-year terms
Chief Justice, Vice Chief Justice
3 Associate Justices

Court of Appeals
22 Judges, 6-year terms

Division I, Phoenix

Division II, Tucson

Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges
Counties: Apache, Coconino, LaPaz, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai, Yuma

Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges
Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee,
Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz

Superior Court
171 Judges, 4-year terms
Presiding Judge in each county
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham

1
5
4
2
1

Greenlee
LaPaz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo

1
1
94
6
4

Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma

30
8
2
6
6

In addition to the judicial positions listed above, there are approximately 95 full-time and part-time judges
pro tempore, commissioners and hearing ofﬁcers in the Superior Court.

Justice of the Peace Courts

Municipal Courts

85 Judges, 85 Precincts, 4-year terms

142 Full- and Part-time Judges, varying terms

Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
LaPaz
Maricopa

4
6
4
2
2
2
3
23

Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

5
6
10
8
2
5
3

Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
LaPaz
Maricopa

Judges
3
6
6
6
2
1
2
67

Courts
3
4
4
6
3
1
2
23

Judges Courts
Mohave
4
4
Navajo
4
4
Pima
17
5
Pinal
9
9
Santa Cruz
2
2
Yavapai
9
9
Yuma
4
4

17

FY 2006 Case Filings by Court Level
Appellate
Court Level

Case Filings

Supreme Court

1,256

Court of Appeals

3,716

Division One

2,825

Division Two

891

Appellate Total

4,972

General Jurisdiction Superior Court
County

Limited Jurisdiction Case Filings

Case Filings

County

Justice

Municipal

Apache

1,081

Apache

10,771

1,598

Cochise

4,441

Cochise

46,623

8,910

Coconino

3,895

Coconino

28,489

25,370

Gila

1,976

Gila

15,402

7,589

Graham

1,429

Graham

5,688

3,330

1,810

526

19,066

4,277

Maricopa

374,560

986,865

Greenlee

296

Greenlee

La Paz

935

La Paz

Maricopa

129,974

Mohave

6,319

Mohave

44,723

31,164

Navajo

3,047

Navajo

31,937

5,274

Pima

30,111

Pima

185,682

262,843

Pinal

8,646

Pinal

43,779

27,306

Santa Cruz

2,329

Santa Cruz

9,430

16,898

Yavapai

7,970

Yavapai

41,340

45,001

Yuma

6,222

Yuma

26,141

24,774

765

Total

885,441

1,451,725

Tax Court
Total
2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

209,436
18

Arizona Supreme Court
• Supreme Court FY 2006 case ﬁlings increased
7.9% from cases ﬁled in FY 2005.
• Cases terminated by the court in FY 2006
increased 11.4% over case terminations in FY
2005.
• The difference between ﬁlings and terminations
resulted in a pending caseload increase of 1.9%.
There were 412 pending cases on July 1, 2005,
compared to 420 pending cases on June 30, 2006.

Court of Appeals, Division One
• Filings in FY 2006 represented a 4.9% decrease
from FY 2005. However, excluding a one time spike
in certain criminal cases ﬁled in FY 2005 resulting
from U.S. Supreme Court decisions, all other ﬁlings
actually increased by 5.0% during FY 2006.
• Criminal ﬁlings increased 15.4%, from 551 in FY
2005 to 636 in FY 2006.
• Civil ﬁlings increased 10.2%, from 812 in FY
2005 to 895 in FY 2006.
• Juvenile ﬁlings increased 28.9%, from 201 in FY
2005 to 259 in FY 2006.
• Pending caseload was reduced by 6.9%, from
2,502 on July 1, 2005 to 2,329 on June 30, 2006.

Court of Appeals, Division Two
• Total ﬁlings in FY 2006 (not including Industrial
Commission cases) decreased 1.1% from FY 2005.
However, excluding a one time spike in certain
criminal cases ﬁled in FY 2005 resulting from U.S.
Supreme Court decisions, all other ﬁlings actually
increased by 0.7% during FY 2006.
• Civil ﬁlings increased 8.1%, from 173 in FY 2005
to 187 in FY 2006.
• Total cases pending increased by 5.6%, from 954
on July 1, 2004 to 1,007 on June 30, 2006.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

19

Arizona Tax Court
The Arizona Tax Court serves as the statewide venue for
all civil actions involving a tax, impost or assessment.
• A total of 756 original cases were ﬁled in the court
during FY 2006 a decrease of 24.4% from the 1,000
cases ﬁled in FY 2005.
• Of the FY 2006 cases ﬁled, 436 were property tax
actions, accounting for 57.7% of the total.
• A total of 699 cases were terminated, 275 or 39.3%
by judgment.
• As of June 30, 2006, there were 774 cases pending
in the tax court.

Superior Court
• Total case ﬁlings in FY 2006 increased by 1.5%
from FY 2005.
• Total case terminations kept pace with case ﬁlings
as they increased by 1.4% during the same period.
• Civil case ﬁlings increased 0.7% from 52,885 in FY
2005 to 53,237 in FY 2006. In the same period, civil
case terminations were down 2.6% from 50,285 to
48,961.
• Criminal case ﬁlings increased 6.4% from 56,359
in FY 2005 to 59,941 in FY 2006. Criminal case
terminations increased 6.8% from 52,271 to 55,831.
• Domestic relations cases decreased 3.5% from
54,093 in FY 2005 to 52,197 in FY 2006, and
domestic relations case terminations decreased 1.5%
from 56,104 to 55,273. Domestic violence petition ﬁlings increased 5.5% in Superior Court from 8,363
to 8,826 in FY 2006.
• There were 218,346 total cases pending on July 1,
2005, compared with 218,033 cases pending on June
30, 2006, a decrease of 0.1%.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

• Juveniles with direct ﬁlings to adult court increased
22.1%, from 402 in FY 2005 to 491 in FY 2006.
Juvenile cases transferred to adult court decreased
25.3%, from 95 in FY 2005 to 71 in FY 2006. A
total of 562 juvenile cases were either transferred
or directly ﬁled in adult court in FY 2006 compared
to 497 in FY 2004, an increase of 13.1%
Emancipation of a Minor
In FY 2006, 31 emancipation petitions were ﬁled in
Superior Court. During the same period, Superior
Court granted 11 petitions, denied eight and three were
withdrawn. The reasons for granting the petitions included written consent, minors living on their own and
an unsafe environment.
20

Justice of the Peace Courts
• Total ﬁlings in FY 2006 increased 3.3% from FY
2005. Total case terminations increased 12.1%.
• Civil and criminal trafﬁc ﬁlings, which comprise
almost two-thirds of all justice court ﬁlings, increased
2.1%, from 525,815 in FY 2005 to 536,874 in FY
2006.
• Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case ﬁlings
increased 8.4% from 143,299 in FY 2005 to 155,306 in
FY 2006. Criminal case terminations increased 19.4%
from 135,737 in FY 2005 to 162,002 in FY 2006.
• Domestic violence petition ﬁlings increased 7.9% in justice courts, from 10,866 to 11,723. Petitions for Injunctions Against Harassment decreased 1.0% from 10,915 to 10,803.
• Total cases pending rose by 2.1% from 665,613 on July 1, 2005 to 651,889 on June 30, 2006.

Municipal Courts
• Case ﬁlings in FY 2006 decreased 1.2% from FY
2005. Total case terminations increased 0.7% in the
same period.
• Civil and criminal trafﬁc ﬁlings, which comprise
about three-fourths of all municipal court cases,
decreased 0.9%, from 1,057,934 in FY 2005 to
1,048,279 in FY 2006.

• Criminal misdemeanor case ﬁlings decreased 0.3% from 238,156 in FY 2005 to 237,418 in FY 2006. Criminal misdemeanor case terminations increased 14.0% from 254,730 in FY 2005 to 290,481 in FY 2006.
• Domestic violence petitions decreased 2.8% from 12,827 in FY 2005 to 12,465 in FY 2006. Petitions for
Injunction Against Harassment decreased 4.8%, from 9,416 in FY 2005 to 8,960 in FY 2006.
• Total cases pending increased 6.5%, from 785,528 on July 1, 2005 to 836,833 on June 30, 2006.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

21

Juvenile Court Referrals
• There were 72,779 referrals to juvenile court in
FY 2006, a 0.5% decrease compared to 73,125 in the
previous year.
• 75,223 referrals were terminated in FY 2006, a 1.6%
decrease compared to the 76,412 referrals terminated
in FY 2005.

Juvenile Probation/Corrections
• The number of juveniles on probation at the end of
FY 2006 increased 0.5% from 8,762 on July 1, 2005
to 8,806 on June 30, 2006.
• A total of 8,686 adjudicated juveniles were placed
on probation in FY 2006, a 2.8% increase from the
8,449 youths placed on probation in FY 2005.
• 8,548 juveniles were released from probation, a
decrease of 2.2% from the 8,740 terminated last year.
• 832 juveniles were committed to the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY 2006,
a decrease of 3.6% from the 863 committed last year.

Adult Probation
• The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of
Arizona adult probation departments at the end of FY
2006 increased 6.3% from 68,336 on July 1, 2005 to
72,661 on June 30, 2006.
• Of the 72,661 under the jurisdiction of adult
probation, 67,134 were on standard probation, 4,120
on intensive probation, and 1,407 were interstate
compact cases.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

Juvenile Court Petitions
• A total of 29,010 petitions were ﬁled in FY 2006, a
3.6% decrease from the 30,082 petitions ﬁled in FY
2005.
• A total of 27,992 petitions were terminated in FY
2006, a 2.9% decrease from the 28,821 terminated in
FY 2005.

22

Statewide Revenue
and Expenditure Summary
Revenue
• Total statewide court revenue increased 13.7%
from $284.2 million in FY 2005 to $323.2 million
in FY 2006, reﬂecting the continuing efforts of the
courts statewide to collect court-ordered ﬁnes, fees,
and surcharges. See Graph A.

• Of the total court system revenue, the state received
39.0%, counties received 32.6% and cities and towns
28.4%. See Graph C.
• 49.6% of total court revenue was generated by
municipal courts, 25.1% by justice courts, 23.8% by
Superior Court and 1.5% by appellate courts. See
Graph D.

• Graph B represents the trend in increased court
revenue above the $70 million benchmark established
in FY 1988. Since that time, courts have collected
approximately $1.85 billion in additional revenue.

• Total restitution payments for victims collected by
courts increased 13.7% from $18.0 million in FY 2005
to $20.5 million in FY 2006.

Graph A

Graph B

Graph C

Graph D

23

Expenditures

Graph A

• Total statewide court expenditures increased 10.8%
from $568.5 million in FY 2005 to $629.8 million in
FY 2006. See Graph A.
• 63.0 % of the total funds spent by the court system
were from the counties, 22.4% from the state, 14.3%
from cities and towns, and 0.3% from federal and
private sources. See Graph B.
• 70.9 of total court expenditures were in Superior
Court (including probation), 14.4% in municipal
courts, 8.3% at the appellate level (including statewide
administration) and 6.4% in the justice courts. See
Graph C.
Graph B

Graph C

The data contained in this report was compiled from the Supreme Court ﬁnancial records, caseload reports from courts, and responses to
the unaudited Supreme Court survey of expenditures and revenues for ﬁscal year 2006 (July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006). All data received
by the publication deadline is included, but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 2006 Arizona Courts
Data Report in early 2007.
© 2007 Arizona Supreme Court
Published by
Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Ofﬁce of the Courts
1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 411
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3231
602-452-3300 TDD
www.supreme.state.az.us
This publication may be provided in an alternative format or other assistance may be provided upon request by an qualiﬁed individual
with a disability under the provisions of The Americans with Disabilities Act.

2006 Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

24