Good to GREAT 2007 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH Message from Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor n behalf of the Arizona Judicial Branch, it is my pleasure to present our 2007 Annual Report. This online document presents an overview of the accomplishments of our court system throughout the last year. Two-and-onehalf years ago, we embarked on a new five year 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: and families. The Supreme Court adopted rules governing the administration of protective order cases; and Arizona served as a national leader in developing common cover sheets for protective order forms, allowing for easier recognition and greater enforcement. We also continue to look for ways to help the welfare of children through the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Program and the Foster Care Review Board (FCRB). O As we move forward, we acknowledge that achieving our goals is possible only through work and leadership on every level and from participation by communities and citizens throughout Arizona. We continue to call upon these people, including the general public, to take an active role in improving our justice system by serving on committees and commissions. Last year, 6,000 people submitted a survey regarding access and fairness in general jurisdiction courts statewide. These efforts for improved accountability through the CourTools project have only begun; we will now expand the surveys to additional courts. • 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 I am pleased to report that, with the hard work and professional commitment of the many court officers, employees, and citizen volunteers, we have made significant progress toward making our courts truly great. We have reached out to our partners to discuss how we can all work together to improve the backlog of capital cases. The initial DUI Case Processing Pilot Program showed impressive results, resulting in plans to expand the program statewide. And we have begun the aggressive implementation of a new case management system. I am proud of the progress made so far and look forward to the continued journey in improving the delivery of justice and to working with our many partners, including the Arizona Judicial Council, the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, the State Bar of Arizona, and individual citizens of Arizona. Together we will take our system of justice from very good to truly great. Ruth V. McGregor Chief Justice Arizona Supreme Court The Arizona Judicial Branch continues to do what it can to protect the most vulnerable: our children 2 Table of Contents Message from Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor 2 Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice 5 IMPROVED DUI CASE PROCESSING CAPITAL CASE TASK FORCE VIDEO CONFERENCING UPGRADE NEW FAMILY RULES REVIEWED NEW PROTECTIVE ORDER FORMS LEGAL INFORMATION TASK FORCE DV COURT RULES ADOPTED CHRIS NAKAMURA JUDICIAL WORKSHOP ADRS: JUSTICE INTEGRATION NEW CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 Protecting Children, Families, and Communities JOURNEY THROUGH MY EYES CENTER CREATED FOR IMPROVED PROBATION SUPERVISION PROGRAM REUNITES SIBLINGS LAW FOR SENIORS IFC PILOTS UPDATE BEST FOR BABIES ARIZONA DRUG COURT CONFERENCE LEARN CENTER UPDATES ENHANCED TRAINING FOR OFFICERS ADULT PROBATION CASE MANAGEMENT TRAINING IMPLEMENTING MODEL JUVENILE DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES EXPANDING JUVENILE DRUG COURTS APETS STATEWIDE JOLTSAZ MODERNIZATION CONTINUES FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD “FINDING 10” DEPENDENCY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT PROGRESS PROBATE RULES PROPOSED Being Accountable 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 ACCESS & FAIRNESS MEASURED UPDATED TRAINING FOR NEW JUDGES 5TH ACCREDITATION RECEIVED DEBT SET-OFF PROGRAM UPDATE COLLECTING FINES & FEES FARELY 13 13 13 14 14 3 Table of Contents Improving Communication & Cooperation with the Community, other Branches of Government, and within the Judicial Branch 15 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES JURY RULES LEGISLATION UPDATE COLLABORATIVE SUMMITS 15 15 17 Serving the Public by Improving the Legal Profession REGULATORY BOARDS ESTABLISHED E-FILING MAKES PROGRESS 16 16 16 Court Statistics by Fiscal Year 18 CASELOAD AND REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS JUDICIARY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 2007 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 18 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 24 Statewide Revenue and Expenditures Summary 4 25 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. Improved DUI Case Processing victim community. The effort brought to light a number of contributing factors, and the Task Force drafted several case management standards and amendments to rules and statutes to address common sources of delay and to promote efficient resolution of these cases. These changes will be proposed through possible rule change petitions, administrative orders, and legislative proposals in the upcoming year. To view the full report please visit www.supreme.state.az.us/cctf. T he DUI Case Processing Pilot Program concluded June 30, 2007 with impressive results. • Pending DUI caseload was reduced by 20 percent. • Pending DUI cases over 180 days were reduced by 77 percent. • The average number of trial settings per case was reduced from 2.7 to 1.2, a 56 percent decrease. • The percentage of cases resolved at the first trial setting was increased from 31 to 63 percent. VIDEO CONFERENCING UPGRADE T o offer needed court reporting services in 2007, superior courts in six counties purchased and installed video systems in one or more of their courtrooms to enable court reporters to provide reporting services for courts in other counties or within counties that have multiple courthouses at distant locations. To do this the Administrative Office of the Courts upgraded its network connections to ensure a reliable exchange of video and audio data between counties. Court reporters at the Superior Court in Maricopa County are expected to provide the necessary reporting services through intergovernmental agreements with other counties. Due to the success of the pilot project, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor authorized a second phase of the program aimed at improving DUI case processing in a larger volume of courts. Forty courts representing seven counties volunteered for this program. The second phase of the program began January 1, 2008 and the goal of the program is to adjudicate 85 percent of all DUI cases within 120 days and 93 percent within 180 days. The Arizona Judicial Council voted to take this project statewide in limited jurisdiction courts, with implementation beginning July 1, 2008. NEW FAMILY RULES REVIEWED T he Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure became effective on January 1, 2006 after the Family Law Rules Review Committee (FLRRC) drafted them and the Arizona Supreme Court enacted them. Since becoming effective, the Committee conducted a review and analysis of these rules to recommend revisions and amendments and provide a report of its findings and recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council in March 2008. CAPITAL CASE TASK FORCE P rompted by an unprecedented number of capital cases awaiting trial in Maricopa County, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor established the ad hoc Capital Case Task Force in February 2007. Task Force members included a cross section of trial and appellate judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and a representative of the 5 NEW PROTECTIVE ORDER FORMS • N • ew protective order forms, developed as part of Project Passport, were in use in all Arizona courts by the end of 2007. Arizona is a leader in the initiative, started by the National Center for State Courts, to encourage courts to develop common cover sheets for protective order forms for easier recognition and greater enforcement. The protective order module in the state’s online tracking system, AZTEC, has been modified so Arizona’s forms will print directly from the software system. Courts that don’t use AZTEC were required to develop the forms in their software and to ensure that data is transferred to the AOC’s Central Protective Order Repository. Training sessions at each Judicial Staff Conference and to courts in outlying counties; A special “Train the Trainer Program” held in November 2007 to prepare sixty trainers to train court staff on providing customer service and the guidelines. The Task Force was recognized for their work at the 2007 Arizona Judicial Branch Achievement Awards in the “Improving Communication and Cooperation with the Community, other Branches of Government and within the Judicial Branch” category. The final report of findings and manual are available online at www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv. LEGAL INFORMATION TASK FORCE DV COURT RULES ADOPTED A T rizona Judicial Branch employees often face the difficult challenge of providing the public with as much information and assistance as possible about the courts and court procedures without violating rules of impartiality, neutrality, or the unauthorized practice of law. To address the challenge, Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor established the Legal Advice-Legal Information Guidelines Task Force by Administrative Order No. 2006-40. The diverse task force, comprised of representatives from limited jurisdiction and superior courts, and staffed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, developed useful guidelines distinguishing legal information from legal advice to guide court staff. This effort has resulted in many components helpful for the whole court system and includes: • • • A manual for court employees that includes policy, guidelines, glossary of common terms, and a question and response handbook; Signs that inform court customers what employees can and cannot do; A three hour training session on legal advice v. legal information that was broadcasted via satellite to about 650 employees throughout the state in March 2007. This video was distributed to all courts; he Arizona Supreme Court adopted court rules governing the administration of protective order cases. The Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure (ARPOP) became effective on January 1, 2008. Drafted by the Domestic Violence Rules Committee, the rules incorporate substantial portions of procedures previously found in the DV Benchbook. The new rules include: • explanations of procedures for handling transfer of cases between limited and general jurisdiction courts; • filing of motions to modify or dismiss protective orders; and • instructions regarding contested hearing procedures. To educate judges, court staff, and attorneys on these new rules, the Administrative Office of the Courts offered several training programs, including a presentation at the Family Law Judicial Conference, a webcast by the Arizona State Bar, and a presentation for the courts made available on compact discs. 6 CHRIS NAKAMURA JUDICIAL WORKSHOP deleted through ADRS are updated in ACCH on a real- T wice a year the Commission on Minorities in the Judiciary offers the Chris Nakamura Judicial Appointment Workshop, named in honor of the late Chris Nakamura — a commission member from 1998 to 2002, at the Minority Bar Conference. The Workshop provides information and preparation for those who wish to apply for a judicial position, and encourages attorneys of color to seek judicial appointment. In anticipation of a number of judicial openings in Pima County in 2007, the Workshop was offered at the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. This session was one of the few times that the Workshop was offered outside of the Minority Bar Conference, and it was the first time law students were included. Attendees learned about the merit selection process and what it’s like to be a judge. Law student attendees were also provided with information about judicial clerkships and internships. More than 100 law students, attorneys and judicial officers attended the workshop. Adrs: Justice Integration T he Arizona Disposition Reporting System (ADRS) improves the accuracy and completeness of Arizona’s criminal history information through more timely and accurate reporting of disposition and sentencing information from law enforcement and justice agencies throughout the State. time basis. If updates occur directly in ACCH related to arrest or charge information, transactions will update ADRS to keep the two systems synchronized. Development work for Phase II was coordinated by the courts on behalf of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC). DPS is currently undergoing acceptance testing of the system and pilot courts will initially rollout the system following completion of testing. Concurrently, AZTEC accepts a stream of data delivered from a justice partner’s records management system; stage that data; then creates cases, docket entries, and calendar events in an automated batch fashion using it. New Case Management System I n June 2007 the Arizona Judicial Council approved the recommendations of the Commission on Technology, authorizing the purchase and implementation of a case management system from AmCad, Inc., for the superior court in thirteen of the 15 counties. The Superior Court in Yuma and La Paz counties will serve as pilot courts beginning in summer 2008, and statewide rollout is expected to begin in fall 2008. The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) recently implemented an initial version of ADRS (Phase I) that provides a web interface to justice agencies to enter disposition and sentence data, thus eliminating the submittal of paper disposition forms for data entry. The system interfaces with the Arizona Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AZAFIS) and the Arizona Computerized Criminal History System (ACCH). AZAFIS populates all of the fingerprint-based arrests in the State into ADRS. ADRS has a two-way interface with ACCH; dispositions added, updated, or 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. Journey Through My Eyes designed to offer judicial officials objective, scientific research about criminal behavior to assist them when making probation decisions. Prior to sentencing, each probationer will undergo a risk assessment. By using objective data and matching that data with the risk level of each probationer, the judicial officer can tailor a term of probation and supervision so that greater levels of success in preventing re-offending can be achieved. T he Arizona CASA Program collaborated with the Arizona Lottery to highlight the issue of child abuse during Child Abuse Prevention and Awareness Month in April 2007. To portray a child’s journey in foster care through the eyes of a child, life sized silhouettes of children were crafted, and displayed written narratives about the path through foster care. The public was Not all probationers present the same risk to society, and invited to read different scenarios along the walk. customized supervision, by avoiding a “one size fits all The silhouettes narrated the child’s thoughts about approach” to probation and supervision, will increase what they were experiencing — from removal from a public safety by reducing recidivism and facilitate a biological home to living in a foster home, having visits better use of public resources. with parents, or living in a group home. The silhouettes were displayed throughout April at various venues One of the Center’s first efforts will be to provide throughout the state, beginning at Wesley Bolin Plaza information about evidence based sentencing and risk and traveling as far as Sierra Vista and Flagstaff. The analysis to judicial and probation officers, and to other display attempted to focus the public’s attention on the criminal justice stakeholders statewide. plight of abused and neglected children, and offer ways for citizens to be a part of a child’s journey. Program Reunites Siblings A t the request of the Arizona Judicial Council, the 2007 Arizona State Legislature established the Sibling Information Exchange Program. The adopted statutory provisions, effective January 1, 2008, authorize confidential intermediaries who are trained and certified by the Arizona Supreme Court, to access confidential records for the purpose of reuniting former dependent children and their siblings who have been separated during dependency proceedings. This new program builds upon the success of the Confidential Intermediary Program where confidential intermediaries have assisted adoptees and birth parents and siblings in sharing information and making voluntary contact. More information on the Sibling Information and Confidential Intermediary Programs is available at www.supreme.us.state.az/cip. Center created for improved probation supervision C hief Justice Ruth V. McGregor announced the creation of the Center for Evidence Based Sentencing. The Honorable Ron Reinstein, who had a long and significant career in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, was named as the Center’s Director and will lead the Center’s efforts on behalf of the Arizona Supreme Court. The work of the Center for Evidence Based Sentencing will focus on devising effective supervision plans for offenders who are on probation. Evidence Based Sentencing relies upon a set of tools 8 LAW FOR SENIORS F irst launched in 2006, the “Law of Seniors” brochure/newsletter and Website continued to meet the need of seniors and their families for legal information, benefits and special services available to assist Arizona’s seniors stay in charge of their life. The Web site has received more than 600,000 hits. Requests for the brochure necessitated an additional printing and distribution of brochures in the first year of distribution. Additional information is available at www.LawForSeniors.org. County is 29 percent Hispanic or Latino, and Coconino County is 29 percent American Indian. An independent evaluation of both programs will provide on-going input throughout the life of the projects so that adjustments can be made for continuous quality improvement. Best for Babies S ix Arizona counties have implemented programs to focus on the needs of foster children from 0-3 years of age. These programs have proven successful mproving the timeliness and effectiveness of in providing assistance and services to this age group. resolution of family issues is a priority. To address the special needs of families during litigation the During a presentation held prior to the 2007 Statewide Superior Courts in Coconino and Pinal counties are Child Abuse Prevention Conference, groups from participating in a two-year Integrated Family Court several of Arizona’s counties met to learn about (IFC) pilot program. this group of children and their special needs. This session was sponsored jointly by the Administrative The program is based on findings from a 2002 Office of the Courts, Court Improvement Project and Domestic Relations Committee (DRC) report. For the Departments of Economic Security (DES) and more information on the report go to www.supreme. Health (ADHS). County teams, led by Presiding state.az.us/courtserv/IFC/IFCReport.pdf. Juvenile Court Judges, included representatives from Child Protective Services (CPS) and the behavioral The Coconino County IFC program started January health system, providing services in the county. Upon 2007 and focuses on improving delivery of services and completion of the day long training, county teams had streamlining procedures to provide for a “one family/ the opportunity to apply for technical assistance. This one judge approach.” This model increases the use of technical assistance, or “Community Development and alternative dispute resolution methods and expands Training (CDT),” was provided to the six county teams services offered through the Self-Help Center. The that applied through a grant jointly funded by Court Court submitted a progress report to the legislatively Improvement and DES. created DRC in Fall 2007. Through the CDT process, counties established plans The Pinal County IFC program began July 2007 and to best serve these most vulnerable children of their focuses on improving the delivery of services to families communities. Personnel from the Courts, DES, and involved in dissolutions, delinquency and dependency behavioral health are also working more closely with cases. the common focus of better outcomes for these most vulnerable of Arizona’s foster children. Although the Utilizing two pilot sites allows the Committee to counties are in different phases of implementation, the compare and evaluate different approaches for each initial changes have raised awareness of the importance IFC pilot program. The counties, while both rural in of children ages 0-3 years receiving appropriate services nature have significantly different populations: Pinal and getting the attention they need. IFC PILOTS UPDATE I 9 Arizona Drug Court Conference LEARN Center is being considered for an equipment upgrade for FY 2008. T he 7th Annual Arizona Drug Court Conference, “Arizona Drug Courts – Meeting at the Crossroads: Integrating and Implementing Effective Strategies While Enhancing Professional Development” was held on August 23, 2007 in Scottsdale. The conference hosted 387 participants, including guests and speakers from around the state and nation. Workshop topics included: treatment, role of the Drug Court team, confidentiality, co-occurring disorders, case management, cultural competency, and community supervision and prevention. The Conference received financial sponsorship and planning support from the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children Youth and Families and the Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention. In addition, the Arizona Association of Drug Court Professionals (AADCP) presented its annual Drug Court Hall of Fame Awards. The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) provided speakers and presenters who enhanced the professional development portion of the conference. enhanced training for officers T horough assessment of an offender’s risk and needs is a key component to evidence-based practice in adult probation supervision. The Offender Screening Tool (OST) is a 44-item risk/needs assessment designed to assess the presence of a variety of lifestyle type issues among probationers. The OST assists probation officers with sentencing recommendations, establishing levels of supervision and developing effective supervision strategies to target specific criminogenic factors. The Field Reassessment Offender Screening Tool (FROST) is the reassessment tool that is administered to probationers at six month intervals during their term of probation. This screening tool helps to assess a probationers’ progress over time, and assists probation officers to determine if supervision strategies are working to change behavior. In June 2007, the Adult Probation Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts produced a one LEARN Center Updates hour FROST training video to improve upon officers’ scoring accuracy and consistency of the risk needs n May 2007, LEARN coordinators, administrators, assessment. In addition to the video, corresponding staff, and community partners celebrated the 20th training documentation was also created. Anniversary of the LEARN Program at the 5th Annual ACE/LEARN Symposium in Tucson. As part of the 20th year celebration, Gayle Siegel presented “The History of Project LEARN” outlining many of the Adult Probation Case accomplishments and milestones during the last 20 Management Training years of the program. uring FY 2007, the Adult Probation Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Adult LEARN Centers throughout the state are continuing to evaluate the collection of student Courts provided statewide Case Management Training and program data in an effort to develop program to underscore the need for probation staff to promote performance measures. The State LEARN Advisory positive behavioral changes in the offenders under their Council has created several sub-committees tasked supervision by: with performance measure development, distance • providing thorough assessments of actuarial learning software and curriculum development, and risk/needs; strategies to collaboratively and effectively serve the • enhancing intrinsic motivation to change with probation populations. Technology continues to be a the use of case plans; focus. The Yuma, Pinal, and Cochise County Adult • providing positive reinforcement; and LEARN Centers were upgraded with new computers • utilizing effective supervision strategies. or laptops. These centers are also scheduled to receive These strategies and tools are essential components of mobile equipment and the Santa Cruz County Adult evidence-based practices. I D 10 Implementing Model Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines drug court operates with a Certificate of Assurance that requires the Court to comply with the “Ten Key Components of a Drug Court” as prescribed by the n 2006, the Arizona Supreme Court’s Committee National Drug Court Institute, National Association on Juvenile Courts (COJC) endorsed the “Model of Drug Court Professionals and the Bureau of Justice Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines” published by the Assistance with the U.S. Justice Department. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ (NCJFCJ). The Guidelines prescribe sixteen key Under judicial leadership, a local drug court team principles for a “Juvenile Court of Excellence” and provides the organizational and operational structure prescribe best practices to incorporate these principles. for the JDC. Each team includes representatives from Court, Probation, County Prosecutor, Public Defender The Juvenile Justice Services Division (JJSD) of the and local treatment providers. Representatives from Administrative Office of the Courts, launched a two- local schools, police or sheriff, and social service groups year statewide “Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines often participate. Initiative” in 2007. Phase I (year one) focuses on training, self assessment and action planning. Phase II JDC programming lasts 9 to 12 months and generally (year two) focuses on the implementation of juvenile includes screening and assessment, group, individual court action plans with support and technical assistance and family counseling, drug testing, community service, provided through JJSD and the NCJFCJ. probation supervision, work or restitution, and parental involvement. In FY 2007, 440 youth participated in JJSD partnered with the Judges Council (NCJFCJ) juvenile drug courts, and the average cost to operate to participate in three regional workshop trainings in was $909.09 per youth. summer 2007. Presiding Juvenile Court Judges invited key stakeholders within their counties to participate in the workshops held in Tucson, Phoenix and Sedona. Fourteen counties organized teams representing their APETS Statewide respective county attorneys, public defenders, court uring FY 2007, the last five counties of Mohave, administrators, detention and probation administrators, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Apache, and Navajo began and law enforcement personnel. Two facilitators from using the Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System the National Judicial Council provided an overview of the model delinquency guidelines, assisted the (APETS), providing all fifteen counties the capability county teams in completing self-assessments of their to initiate, track, and transfer clients from county current court practices, and helped them identify and to county, all within a single database. APETS now select two or three key principles and model practices holds more than 205,000 client records; including to implement in their jurisdictions. Each county then 80,000 clients with governing supervision records; and developed an initial action plan. JJSD has contracted 7 million contact note records. Also, more than 2,500 with the NCJFCJ to provide technical assistance for up department employees actively use the system. to ten county court sites to build on these action plans. With the statewide implementation complete, the counties focused on entering and updating necessary Expanding Juvenile Drug data for the accurate reporting of statewide statistics Courts and population characteristics. Also during FY 2007, ongoing development support provided county ast year Juvenile Drug Courts (JDC) expanded to users new functionality in the areas of Drug Court another county and operate in 18 Arizona locations monitoring, improved petition and termination tracking, and 10 counties. Nationally, the JDC model has and enhanced “caseload” views to assist officers with reduced substance abuse and juvenile recidivism. Each probation offender supervision. I D L 11 JOLTSaz modernization continues T he Juvenile Online Tracking System (JOLTS) is used by all juvenile probation, detention, and court staff, manage juvenile offender caseload and tracks juvenile probationers. The Administrative Office of the Courts, Pima County, and Arizona’s less populated counties continue to reengineer and modernize this system through a project known as “JOLTSaz.” problems can impact an individual case. The elements identify concerns regarding the educational, behavioral, social, and case management systems that are involved for every case. The information collected from Finding 10 will be shared with stakeholders in Spring 2008, and is expected to assist policymakers, service providers, and child welfare professionals in rectifying the problems and service gaps that delay permanency for foster children. JOLTSaz represents a rewrite of the current JOLTS using a .NET application environment. In May 2007 each participating county received an update to the Dependency Caseflow “Detention Visitation” module. Management Progress The development of other modules of the JOLTSaz system continues. The “Infrastructure/Caseload Management” and “Intra-county transfer” modules are complete, and the first part of “Probation Supervision” is developed. Once the development process for all modules is complete roll out will begin statewide. JOLTSaz is designed to exchange information with Maricopa’s ICIS-Juvenile system, child welfare agencies, treatment providers other criminal justice agencies as part of the Criminal Justice Information Integration Project, as well as with the new general jurisdiction case and financial management system currently being prepared for implementation. Foster Care Review Board “Finding 10” D C ontinuing the success the “Dependency Caseflow Management” program, the Court Improvement Program held three regional trainings with county caseflow teams. The teams, typically led by the Presiding Juvenile Judge for the County, were made up of representatives from the Court, Child Protective Services, the Attorney General’s Office, private counsel and behavioral health. The one day meeting offered each county the opportunity to report on their progress since they began meeting in 2006. Participants were also given access to key child welfare data measures as well as information on statewide collaborative efforts for children involved in multiple systems. Finally, participants set goals for the upcoming year. Whether incorporating child welfare performance data into their plan or fast tracking identified dependency cases, impressive goals were shared at the end of each training. This program is effective in bringing together the right people to identify and address issues and barriers hampering efforts to provide for each child’s safety, permanency and well-being. uring the last several years, the Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) worked with a variety of stakeholders to develop Finding 10 — a list of 10 factors volunteers must consider during each review. Additionally, the team developed approximately 12 PROBATE RULES PROPOSED elements that FCRB volunteers might select during nder the leadership of Vice Chief Justice Rebecca a review that identify specific problem areas in each White Berch, the Probate Rules Committee case. drafted and submitted a proposed set of standardized, Finding 10 is unique because it helps identify how statewide Probate Rules. Standardization of a clear service gaps (lack of or no service available) or system Article continued on page 17 U 12 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. Access & fairness measured Updated training for new judges C T ourTools is a set of 10 court performance measures developed by the National Center for State Courts measures and improves court performance. The measures provide an opportunity for courts to examine areas of excellence and identify areas needing improvement. he newly designed curriculum for General Jurisdiction judges was used to train a total of 35 new judges in April and September 2007. Six recently retired judges served as faculty members and mentors adding their expertise to the program and a new dimension as they offered to be consulted before, during, or after a case. Between April and October of 2007, the AOC, working with local courts, implemented the first CourTools measure survey, Measure One: Access and Fairness, in all general jurisdiction courts across the state. The survey sought to measure the public’s perception of both accessibility and fairness within the court system. More than 5,800 surveys were collected from the fifteen general jurisdiction courts. The program received very good to excellent rating. Participants commended the networking opportunity provided to them, not only with other new commissioners and judges but with the mentors and faculty as well. Thirty faculty and committee members met in November 2007 to review the new curriculum. Discussions included what worked, what needs improvement, and The survey included ten questions regarding access, what activities can be added to enrich the program. five questions regarding fairness and collected various The goal is to ensure the program is equally effective pieces of demographic data regarding the court’s user for judges who are just coming onto the bench as well base. The survey was administered over a three day as those who may have been seated for a few months, those from rural counties as well as those from the larger period in most courts. counties and that adult learning styles are utilized so that • 91 percent respondents said that they were the program is a positive learning experience for all. treated with courtesy and respect. • 77 percent said that they way their case was 5th accreditation received handled was fair. • 78 percent said that the judge had the he Probation Certification Academy received its information necessary to make good decisions fifth accreditation from the American Probation about their cases. • 85 percent said that they left the court knowing and Parole Association (APPA) in summer 2007. The Academy goes through the accreditation process what to next about their cases. every three years. Once again, the probation unit was Due to the overwhelming success of implementing recognized as a national training standard in the field of CourTools Measure One in the general jurisdiction probation. An APPA executive stated, “The reviewers courts, the AOC has begun distributing the survey in were extremely impressed with the format of the lessons more than 160 limited jurisdiction courts across the plans, quality of the learning objectives and the content of information provided in the academy.” state. T 13 Debt Set –Off Program Update T he Debt Set-Off (DSO) Program works with the Arizona Department of Revenue to intercept taxpayer refunds to satisfy court ordered financial obligations. For calendar year 2006, the Debt SetOff Program disbursed $6.1 million to the program’s participants. For calendar year 2007 through midOctober, DSO staff forwarded more than $7.0 million to program participants — this is more than $1 million over this same period last year. collecting fines & fees FARE-ly T he Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement (FARE) Program is a statewide initiative of the judicial branch with the goals of compliance with and respect for court orders and the law, enhanced customer service, increased revenues, consistency and uniformity in case processing, and efficiencies in the collections process. The program is a public/private partnership involving the courts, other governmental entities, including the Motor Vehicle Division and Department of Revenue, the AOC and a private vendor, chosen through an open bidding process. In FY 2007 almost $30.2 million was collected in outstanding fines, fees and restitution. Since inception of the program in FY 2004 nearly $74 million has been recovered. More than 90 courts in 11 counties participate in the program. Bilingual web-based and telephone credit card payment began in 2004 and has collected more than $27.9 million. Out-of-state and out-of-country defendants make a significant portion of these payments. 14 Improving Communication & 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. Leadership development continues JURY RULES LEGISLATION UPDATE T he Administrative Office of the Courts (ACO) worked with jury personnel from trial courts around he Court Leadership Institute of Arizona (CLIA) experienced a busy and productive 2007, working the state to update, clarify and streamline the Arizona to provide Arizona’s courts with leadership development jury statutes and the corresponding Arizona Code of Judicial Administration jury management section. and succession planning programming and resources. T Many statutory provisions had not been updated for more that thirty-five years and were based upon outdated manual procedures. For example, one statute required jury commissioners to draw the names of prospective jurors in public — a long ago abandoned practice that had been carried out by placing names in a large barrel, spun by hand, with names drawn one by one in the presence of a group of citizens. Today, nearly all jury operations are automated. The statutes and Arizona To develop a comprehensive approach to leadership Code of Judicial Administration needed revision to development and succession planning, CLIA helped to reflect updated practices and technology, and the new coordinate a “Human Resources Summit” in September provisions accomplished this. which brought together human resources professionals from state courts. The participants helped define court Additionally, the second annual Jury Management and probation departments’ recruitment and retention Seminar was held in August 2007 in Bisbee, challenges. The Summit generated ideas to help meet Arizona. More than 30 Jury Commissioners, Court Administrators, Clerks of Court, and jury personnel the future personnel needs of Arizona’s courts. from around the state attended. The seminar covered Finally, CLIA coordinated the annual Arizona Court many timely topics including legal challenges to Leadership Conference. Under the leadership of Chief juror selection, non-English speaking jurors, and the Justice Ruth V. McGregor, this conference brought new jury legislation. Speakers included judges, jury together Arizona’s court leaders. Based on the court commissioners, attorneys, and AOC staff. The seminar leaders’ feedback and recommendations, the conference provided jury personnel the ability to learn new skills in featured employee recruitment and retention—key jury management and offered an opportunity to network with their peers and better serve the public. elements in CLIA‘s mission. CLIA sponsored a variety of leadership-focused programs. These programs included an in-state Leadership Institute in Judicial Education in March, a Faculty Skills Development in April, and several Institute for Court Management (ICM) sessions throughout the year. The ICM session registrations included courses on managing court financial resources, court human resources, and caseflow management. 15 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. REGULATORY BOARDS ESTABLISHED • C onsistent with the goals in “Good to Great,” the strategic agenda of the Judicial Branch, the Court established three additional regulatory boards: the Confidential Intermediary Board, Defensive Driving Board and Fiduciary Board. Composed of members of the regulated profession, judicial staff, public and other stakeholders, the boards hold public meetings and make all final decisions regarding applications for certification/licensure, and disposition of complaints alleging misconduct by a professional. The boards also make recommendations to the Court on policy issues of importance to the regulated profession. Additional information on the boards and their actions to date is available at: Confidential Intermediary Board: www.supreme.state.az.us/cip Defensive Driving Board: www.supreme.state.az.us/drive Fiduciary Board: www.supreme.state.az.us/fiduc Continue to develop standards and policies for e-filing; electronic case access; and electronic record storage, backup, and recovery. The e-Court Subcommittee of the Commission on Technology (COT) and its subsequent court-levelspecific sub-teams continue to push toward a unified, statewide system of e-filing in the following general areas: • • • Court to court filing, leveraging the electronic appeal process; Leveraging justice community information using a clearinghouse for case-related data; and Form-based attorney/public e-filing using standardized, interactive, statewide forms as the foundation. Progress in Appellate Courts Using OnBase as the electronic document management system (EDMS), implementation and integration with the case management system, Appellamation, is progressing at both Court of Appeals Division One and the Supreme Court. The statewide court-to-court electronic filing initiative began with the Superior e-Filing makes progress Court in Yavapai County and the Court of Appeals Division One, and has expanded to the Superior Court lectronic filing initiatives, part of the judiciary’s in Cochise County and Court of Appeals Division Two. strategic agenda, support the Court’s efforts to Ultimately, it will expand to the Arizona Supreme Court. take advantage of technology to manage court cases A “clerk review” function was added to Appellamation permitting the Court to either accept the record on efficiently and improve the access of law. appeal or reject it if unsuitable. The Supreme Court also The goals of early electronic filing projects are: ruled that electronic signature fulfills the requirement • Promote the use of technology within courts to in rule for a “signed judgment” in cases being appealed. facilitate the processing of cases in an efficient The Supreme Court modified its rule for submittals to manner. allow an electronic file to be submitted in place of paper • Develop simple, easy-to-use, web-based copies. interactive forms needed for high volume case Article continued on next page types. E 16 E-filing article continued from page 16 Progress in General Jurisdiction Courts There are many e-filing projects going on with general jurisdiction courts. These efforts include: • Continuing to test the multi-vendor filing model in the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The AOC is constructing an electronic filing manager program to act as a single front door for filings using Maricopa’s development as a starting point; • Receiving COT’s approval to begin accepting criminal filings electronically from justice partners beginning with the Supreme Court; • Constructing interactive forms for selfrepresented litigants’ use at the superior court level in Maricopa County; and • Maricopa County’s Clerk of the Court was authorized to destroy certain paper copies of imaged court documents as a pilot leading the way for a rule change enabling all clerks to eventually do so under strict conditions. IMPROVING COMMUNICATION CONTINUED Collaborative Summits T he Dependent Children Services Division held three regional summits to facilitate collaboration among representatives involved in the child welfare system. The objectives for the summits were twofold. First, they provided an excellent educational opportunity for both presenters and participants. And second, the setting provided an open arena to discuss topics critical to participants’ work with dependent children. Recognized leaders in their fields presented an array of topics that included attorney practices, teacher responsibilities, and challenges facing children aging out of the foster care system. The three summits drew more than 600 participants from each of Arizona’s 15 counties. Each summit included professionals from the Court, Child Protective Services, Behavioral Health, Juvenile Probation, Indian Tribes, as well as educators, foster parents and community volunteers – bringing together numerous Progress in Limited Jurisdiction Courts Six jurisdictions are receiving electronic citations from volunteers and professionals who work so hard for law enforcement now that a reliable interface exists Arizona’s foster children. between photo radar vans, redlight vendors, handheld devices, and the court’s case management system. Tucson Municipal and Oro Valley Municipal courts led the way, proving the tremendous time-saving and data quality improvement by using data directly from ticket writing devices. AOC completed a new release of AZTEC to accommodate auto-opened cases from electronic citation filings. Probate rules article continued from page 12 set of probate rules and setting forth those rules clearly so they are accessible to professionals and selfrepresented persons who participate in probate matters will allow the effective conduct of probate cases and assist the courts in providing effective oversight of the incapacitated and vulnerable individuals under the care of the professionals and family members. The public can comment on the rules which the Court will consider in fall 2008. The proposed Rule Petition R-07-0012: Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure can be viewed at the Court Rules Forum online at www.supreme.state.az.us. 17 Court Statistics by Fiscal year CASELOAD AND REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS • Arizona Courts had 2,666,450 case filings in FY 2007. • On average, there were 10,752 cases filed in Arizona Courts every working day. • On average, there were 1,344 cases filed in Arizona Courts every working hour. • Statewide case filings increased by 114,730 or 4.5%, while Municipal Courts filings increased by 81,100 or 5.6%. • Superior Court case filings increased 1.2%; terminations were up 2.3%. • Justice Court case filings increased by 3.5% in FY 2007. Combined criminal and civil traffic case filings in Maricopa County increased by 8.2% or 16,932. • In FY 2007, Municipal Court case filings statewide increased by 5.6%, while the rural Municipal Courts increased by 0.8%, during the same period. Maricopa and Pima counties case filings increased by 6.7% and 5.2% respectively. • 89,592 DUI cases were filed in Justice and Municipal Courts. This represents an increase of 2,374 case filings from FY 2006 or 2.7%. (Case filing in Justice and Municipal Courts are primarily counted by charges not defendants). • Civil traffic case filings account for 56.5% of all case filings in Justice and Municipal Courts. This case category increased by 91,500 case filings, or 7.1% from FY 2006 to FY 2007. • Statewide revenue in FY 2007 again outpaced case filings trends. Case filings increased by 4.5%, while revenue increased by 10.9%. The increase in revenue is due in part to the extensive collection efforts by the courts and AOC’s Fines and Restitution Enforcement (FARE) project. • Arizona courts have collected more than $2.14 billion in additional revenue over the $70 million benchmark established in FY 1988. FY 2007 Annual Clearance Rate by Court Level Annual Clearance Rate Court Level 108.7% Arizona Supreme Court 102.7% Court of Appeals, Division One 119.0% Court of Appeals, Division Two 88.9% Arizona Tax Court 96.4% Superior Court 98.9% Justice of the Peace Courts 105.5% 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 include original filings and transfer in cases. A clearance rate of 100% means a court has the exact number of outgoing cases as incoming cases during this fiscal year. 18 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 174 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 95 6 4 Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 30 9 2 7 6 In addition to the judicial positions listed above, there are approximately 97 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 140 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 5 6 10 8 2 5 3 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa 19 Judges 3 5 5 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 FY 2007 Case Filings by Court Level Appellate Court Level Case Filings Supreme Court 1,161 Court of Appeals, Division One Court of Appeals, Division Two 2,676 859 Appellate Total 4,696 General Jurisdiction Superior Court County Limited Jurisdiction Case Filings Case Filings County Justice Municipal Apache 1,117 Apache 9,883 1,783 Cochise 4,417 Cochise 44,386 8,281 Coconino 3,750 Coconino 27,462 24,632 Gila 2,210 Gila 14,337 7,411 Graham 1,410 Graham 7,878 3,328 3,058 442 23,236 4,682 Maricopa 406,251 1,052,739 Greenlee 366 Greenlee La Paz 866 La Paz Maricopa 132,081 Mohave 6,497 Mohave 46,774 29,905 Navajo 3,061 Navajo 33,035 5,311 Pima 29,531 Pima 178,636 277,015 Pinal 8,830 Pinal 44,607 27,796 Santa Cruz 2,335 Santa Cruz 9,831 12,184 Yavapai 8,184 Yavapai 41,280 49,156 Yuma 6,725 Yuma 26,012 28,127 916 Total 916,666 1,532,792 Tax Court Total 212,296 20 Arizona Supreme Court • Supreme Court FY 2007 case filings decreased 7.6% from cases filed in FY 2006. • Cases terminated by the court in FY 2007 increased 1.0% versus case terminations in FY 2006. • The difference between filings and terminations resulted in a pending caseload decrease of 24.0%. There were 420 pending cases on July 1, 2006, compared to 319 pending cases on June 30, 2007. Court of Appeals, Division One • Filings in FY 2007 decreased 5.3% due primarily to the continued tapering-off of a surge of petitions for post-conviction relief based on a landmark U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued in 2004. In contrast, direct appeals of criminal convictions rose 11.8%, from 636 in FY 2006 to 711 in FY 2007. Filings of civil case appeals decreased marginally, from 895 in FY 2006 to 869 in FY 2007, while remaining well ahead of FY 2004 (797) and FY 2005 (812). • FY 2007 case terminations decreased by 11.8%, returning to a more typical level after the unusually high number of terminations in FY 2006 resulting from the surge of petitions for post-conviction relief mentioned above. • Τhe pending caseload was increased by 2.0%, from 2,329 on July 1, 2006 to 2,375 on June 30, 2007, due in part to a statistical upward adjustment of 96 cases. Combined filings in civil and criminal appeals, which comprise the bulk of the caseload, increased by 3.2% from FY 2006 to FY 2007. Filings in all case types (excepting petitions for post-conviction relief) decreased slightly, from 2,328 in FY 2006 to 2,308 in FY 2007. Court of Appeals, Division Two 21 • Total filings in FY 2007 decreased 3.6% from FY 2006. Total criminal filings, the largest category, comprising 50.6% of total caseload decreased 2.7% from 447 in FY 2006 to 435 in FY 2007. • FY 2007 case terminations increased by 17.3%. • Total cases pending declined by 16.3%, from 1,007 in July 1, 2006 to 843 on June 30, 2007. 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 856 original cases were filed in the court during FY 2007 an increase of 13.2% from the 756 cases filed in FY 2006. • Of the FY 2007 cases filed, 416 were property tax actions, accounting for 48.6% of the total. • A total of 761 cases were terminated, 275 or 36.1% by judgment. • As of June 30, 2007, there were 743 cases pending in the tax court. Superior Court • Total case filings in FY 2007 increased by 1.2% from FY 2006. • Total case terminations kept pace with case filings as they increased by 2.3% during the same period. • Civil case filings increased 9.5% from 53,237 in FY 2006 to 58,291 in FY 2007. In the same period, civil case terminations were up 13.2% from 48,961 to 55,440. • Criminal case filings decreased 0.6% from 59,941 in FY 2006 to 59,601 in FY 2007. Criminal case terminations were flat during the same period from 55,831 to 55,836. • Domestic relations cases decreased 0.9% from 52,197 in FY 2006 to 51,720 in FY 2007, and domestic relations case terminations decreased 4.9% from 55,273 to 52,579. Domestic violence petition filings increased 10.4% in Superior Court from 8,826 to 9,744 in FY 2007. • • Juveniles with direct filings to adult court decreased 5.2%, from 553 in FY 2006 to 524 in FY 2007. Juvenile cases transferred to adult court decreased 11.1%, from 72 in FY 2006 to 64 in FY 2007. A total of 588 juvenile cases were either transferred or directly filed in adult court in FY 2007 compared to 625 in FY 2006, an decrease of 5.9% Emancipation of a Minor In FY 2007, 42 emancipation petitions were filed in Superior Court. During the same period, Superior Court granted 12 petitions, denied seven and 12 were withdrawn/dismissed. The reasons for granting the petitions included written consent, minors living on their own and an unsafe environment. There were 218,067 total cases pending on July 1, 2006, compared with 221,175 cases pending on June 30, 2007, an increase of 1.4%. 22 Justice of the Peace Courts • Total filings in FY 2007 increased 3.5% from FY 2006. Total case terminations increased 4.1%. • Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise almost two-thirds of all justice court filings, increased 4.6%, from 536,877 in FY 2006 to 561,399 in FY 2007. • Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case filings decreased 5.6% from 155,334 in FY 2006 to 146,650 in FY 2007. Criminal case terminations decreased 14.0% from 162,002 in FY 2006 to 139,242 in FY 2007. • Domestic violence petition filings decreased 4.9% in justice courts, from 11,723 to 11,152. Petitions for Injunctions Against Harassment increased 1.3% from 10,803 to 10,943. • Total cases pending rose by 3.4% from 651,888 on July 1, 2006 to 673,748 on June 30, 2007. Municipal Courts • Case filings in FY 2007 increased 5.6% from FY 2006. Total case terminations increased 5.3% in the same period. • Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise about three-fourths of all municipal court cases, increased 9.4%, from 1,048,225 in FY 2006 to 1,147,182 in FY 2007. • Criminal misdemeanor case filings increased 1.9% from 237,506 in FY 2006 to 242,080 in FY 2007. Criminal misdemeanor case terminations decreased 5.2% from 290,408 in FY 2006 to 275,243 in FY 2007. • Domestic violence petitions decreased 0.9% from 12,460 in FY 2006 to 12,344 in FY 2007. Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment decreased 0.2%, from 8,940 in FY 2006 to 8,919 in FY 2007. • Total cases pending increased 9.9%, from 835,644 on July 1, 2006 to 918,587 on June 30, 2007. 23 Juvenile Court Referrals • There were 72,351 referrals to juvenile court in FY 2007, a 0.6% decrease compared to 72,779 in the previous year. • 74,007 referrals were terminated in FY 2007, a 1.6% decrease compared to the 75,223 referrals terminated in FY 2006. Juvenile Probation/Corrections • The number of juveniles on probation at the end of FY 2007 increased 1.2% from 8,806 on July 1, 2006 to 8,916 on June 30, 2007. • A total of 8,799 adjudicated juveniles were placed on probation in FY 2007, a 1.3% increase from the 8,686 youths placed on probation in FY 2006. • 8,613 juveniles were released from probation, an increase of 0.8% from the 8,548 terminated last year. • 692 juveniles were committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY 2007, a decrease of 14.6% from the 810 committed last year. Adult Probation • • Juvenile Court Petitions The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of • Arizona adult probation departments at the end of FY 2007 increased 12.3% from 72,661 on July 1, 2006 to 82,222 on June 30, 2007. • Of the 82,822 under the jurisdiction of adult probation, 41,146 were on standard probation, 2,677 on intensive probation, and 35,234 were on administrative supervision (unsupervised, report only, deported, etc). 1,432 of the actively supervised probationers were interstate compact cases. 24 A total of 29,088 petitions were filed in FY 2007, a 0.3% increase from the 29,010 petitions filed in FY 2006. A total of 27,585 petitions were terminated in FY 2007, a 1.5% decrease from the 27,992 terminated in FY 2006. Statewide Revenue and Expenditures Summary Revenue • • Total statewide court revenue increased 10.9% from $323.2 million in FY 2006 to $358.5 million in FY 2007, reflecting the continuing efforts of the courts statewide to collect court-ordered fines, fees, and surcharges. See Graph A. 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 $2.14 billion in additional revenue. • Of the total court system revenue, the state received 38.7%, counties received 31.3% and cities and towns 30.0%. See Graph C. • 50.6% of total court revenue was generated by municipal courts, 24.4% by justice courts, 23.5% by Superior Court and 1.5% by appellate courts. See Graph D. • Total restitution payments for victims collected by courts decreased 6.1% from $20.5 million in FY 2006 to $19.2 million in FY 2007. Graph A — Arizona Court Revenue Graph B — Arizona Court Revenue Above Benchmark Graph C — Revenue Generated by Government Graph D — Revenue Received by Court 25 Expenditure • Total statewide court expenditures increased 10.6% from $631.6 million in FY 2006 to $698.8 million in FY 2007. See Graph A. • 64.6% of the total funds spent by the court system were from the counties, 20.7% from the state, 13.5% from cities and towns, and 1.2% from federal and private sources. See Graph B. • 70.8% of total court expenditures were in Superior Court (including probation), 13.5% in municipal courts, 9.6% at the appellate level (including statewide administration) and 6.1% in the justice courts. See Graph C. Graph A — Arizona Court Expenditures Graph B — Funds Expended by Source Graph C — Funds Expended by Court 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 2007 (July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007). All data received by the publication deadline is included, but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 2007 Arizona Courts Data Report in early 2008. © 2008 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. 26