Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Publication Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona Arizona Crime Trends : A System R e v i e w January 2009 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Vice-Chairperson DANIEL HUGHES, Chief Surprise Police Department Chairperson RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff JOHN R. ARMER Gila County Sheriff JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DUANE BELCHER, Chairperson Board of Executive Clemency DAVID K. BYERS, Director Administrative Office of the Courts CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff TERRY GODDARD Attorney General ROBERT HUDDLESTON, Chief Casa Grande Police Department BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney DAVID SANDERS Pima County Chief Probation Officer DORA SCHRIRO, Director Department of Corrections LINDA SCOTT Former Judge DANIEL G. SHARP, Chief Oro Valley Police Department GEORGE E. SILVA Santa Cruz County Attorney CARL TAYLOR Coconino County Supervisor ANDREW P. THOMAS Maricopa County Attorney ROGER VANDERPOOL, Director Department of Public Safety Mayor VACANT JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director PHILLIP STEVENSON, Director Statistical Analysis Center JOY LITZENBERGER Research Analyst MICHELLE NEITCH Research Analyst MATTHEW BILESKI Research Analyst Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 Data Sources 5 Population 6 Law Enforcement Index Offense Rates Violent Crime Index Offense Rates Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Index Offense Rates Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Index Offense Counts Violent Crime Index Offenses Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Index Offenses Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization National Crime Victimization Survey Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Motor Vehicle Theft Larceny/Theft Burglary Firearm Use and Violent Crime Murder Robbery Aggravated Assault 7 7 10 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 39 40 Courts and Probation Courts Superior Court County Superior Court Filings Justice Courts County Justice Court Filings Municipal Courts County Municipal Court Filings Probation Adult Standard Probation Restitution and Community Service Adult Intensive Probation Restitution and Community Service 42 42 42 44 45 46 48 48 50 50 51 52 54 Department of Corrections Correctional Facility Capacity Demographic Characteristics of Inmate Population Gender Age Race/Ethnicity Offense Type Inmate Special Populations Inmate Community Service 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 60 60 Juvenile Justice System Juveniles Referred Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Juveniles Detained Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Juveniles Diverted Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Juvenile Petitions Filed Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Juveniles in Adult Court Direct Files to Adult Court Gender 61 61 64 65 66 67 70 71 72 74 76 77 77 78 81 82 82 83 86 88 Race/Ethnicity Transfers to Adult Court Gender Race/Ethnicity Juveniles Placed on Standard Probation Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Juveniles Placed on Intensive Probation Age Gender Race/Ethnicity 89 90 92 93 94 96 97 98 99 102 103 104 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Prior Contact with the Juvenile Justice System 106 106 107 107 107 Conclusion 109 Executive Summary Arizona’s criminal justice system is a large and complex system with more than 480 agencies and related organizations. Challenging this system are dramatic increases in the population of our state as criminal justice agencies work to meet their mandates and keep pace with an ever changing context in which they do their work. On a biennial basis, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission prepares for the governor a criminal justice system review report. Available resources, the size and complexity of the criminal justice system and the nature of data sources influence the scope of the issues addressed in this report. In this edition of Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review, up to 10 years of data from law enforcement, the courts, corrections, and the juvenile justice system are compiled to give readers an overview of crime and criminal and juvenile justice system activity in Arizona. An analysis of the data included in this report reveals the following: Crime ¾ From 1997 to 2007 the number of violent crimes in Arizona reported to the police increased by approximately 7.7 percent. But because of the dramatic increase in the population of Arizona, the violent crime rate decreased by 22.6 percent. ¾ The number of property crimes in Arizona reported to the police decreased by 6.5 percent, which when adjusted for change in state’s population, resulted in a 32.8 percent decrease in the property crime rate. ¾ Arizona continues to have a higher percentage of violent crimes committed with a firearm than the nation as a whole. For example, in 2005 75.9 percent of homicides in Arizona were committed with a firearm compared to 67.9 percent nationally. In 2007, 69.6 percent of homicides in Arizona were committed with a firearm compared to 68 percent nationally. Courts ¾ Statewide, from 1999 to 2007 the number of felony case filings increased by 50.3 percent, from 38,281 to 57,551. ¾ From state fiscal year 1999 to 2007 the number of individuals on standard probation increased by 17.2 percent. ¾ From 1999 to 2007, the amount of restitution collected from standard probationers increased by 37.1 percent and the total amount of restitution collected during this time was approximately $114 million. 1 ¾ From 1999 to 2007, the number of community service hours completed by standard probationers increased from 488,695 hours in 1999 to 658,845 hours in 2007. At the minimum wage in Arizona ($6.90/hour), standard probationers performed community service work worth approximately $4,546,031 in 2007. Corrections ¾ From 1997 to 2007 the number of individuals incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections increased by 43.9 percent. ¾ At the end of calendar year 2007, 39.7 percent of Arizona inmates were in prison for violent offenses, 26.1 percent for property offenses, 20.1 percent for drug offenses, and 14.2 percent of other types of offenses. Juvenile Justice System ¾ From FY97 to FY07, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court remained relatively stable at approximately 50,000 youth. Adjusting for the increase in Arizona’s population, even though the number of referrals has remained stable, the referral rate has decreased by 31.6 percent. ¾ From FY97 to FY02 the number of juveniles held in detention in Arizona increased by 12.9 percent, from 12,094 to 13,660. Since FY02 there has been a steady decline in the number juveniles detained; and by FY07, the number of youth detained was nearly equivalent to the number in FY97. ¾ After an initial 52.1 percent increase from FY97 to FY98 in the number of juveniles transferred to adult court, from FY98 to FY05 the number of juveniles transferred to adult court decreased 54.1 percent from 1,083 in FY98 to 497 in FY05. Since FY05 the number of juveniles transferred to adult court has increased by 18.3 percent from 497 transferred in FY05 to 588 in FY07. ¾ From FY03 to FY07 the number of juveniles sentenced to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections has varied year-to-year by no more than nine percent. ¾ Although a low percentage of youth with only one prior adjudication are committed to ADJC (6.3 percent in FY07), from FY06 to FY07 there was a significant decrease in the percentage of new commitments to ADJC of youth with four or more prior adjudications and a corresponding increase in the percentage of new commitments of youth with two or three prior adjudications. 2 Introduction The dramatic growth in the population of Arizona challenges Arizona’s criminal justice system to keep pace. From 1997 to 2007 Arizona’s population increased by nearly 40 percent, from 4.5 million to 6.3 million people. During that time frame: ¾ The number of violent crimes in Arizona reported to the police increased by approximately 7.7 percent. But because of the dramatic increase in the population of Arizona, the violent crime rate decreased by 22.6 percent. ¾ The number of property crimes in Arizona reported to the police decreased by 6.5 percent, which when adjusted for change in state’s population, resulted in a 32.8 percent decrease in the property crime rate. ¾ Statewide, from 1999 to 2007 the number of felony case filings increased by 50.3 percent, from 38,281 to 57,551. ¾ From 1999 to 2007, the total number of case filings in Arizona’s Justice Courts increased by 16 percent. ¾ From state fiscal year 1999 to 2007 the number of individuals on standard probation increased by 17.2 percent. ¾ From 1997 to 2007 the number of individuals incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections increased by 43.9 percent. These trends illustrate a challenge unique to states that are experiencing dramatic population growth—as Arizona grows there is an increased burden on our criminal justice system even in light of improvements in public safety as measured by crime rates. It is important for policymakers and practitioners to recognize the paradox of increases in the number of crimes in Arizona and simultaneous decreases in most of Arizona’s crime rates. In Arizona and other states that are experiencing dramatic population growth, jurisdictions can experience improvements in public safety as measured by decreasing crime rates, while at the same time having to address an additional burden on the criminal justice system because of increases in the number of crimes that are occurring. Even when crime rates are down, increases in the number of crimes committed in a community affects a law enforcement agency’s ability to police its jurisdiction, the courts ability to adjudicate alleged offenders and probation’s ability to effectively supervise offenders in the community, and the correctional system’s ability to house and rehabilitate incarcerated offenders. 3 Arizona’s criminal justice system is a large and complex system with more than 480 agencies and related organizations. Available resources, the size and complexity of the criminal justice system, and the nature of data sources influence the scope of the data included in this report. In this edition of Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review, up to ten years of data from law enforcement, the courts, and corrections are compiled to give the reader an overview of crime and criminal justice system activity in Arizona that touches on the three major components of the justice system. This report accomplishes two primary objectives: 1) to provide an overview of the trends in crime and criminal justice system activity; and 2) to provide the governor, criminal justice stakeholders and the citizens of Arizona with a review of the criminal justice system in Arizona as described in Arizona Revised Statute §41-2405. Importantly, this report is not intended to be a comprehensive source where all questions about Arizona’s criminal justice system can be answered—the complexity of the criminal justice system and the decentralized nature of data sources make that goal unachievable. Instead, this report provides an overview of Arizona’s criminal justice system and the trends that are being seen in the data. It is our belief that the dialogue generated by discussion of data provides a foundation by which criminal and juvenile justice practitioners and policymakers can thoughtfully develop effective responses to the challenges of crime in Arizona. 4 Data Sources A goal of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s (ACJC) Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) is to serve as a central point of contact for a wide range of publicly available criminal justice data. Because the SAC does not generate criminal justice system data, developing the content for a data warehouse relies on obtaining data from other local, state, and federal agencies that generate and maintain relevant data. In creating this report, SAC staff obtained data from several sources (Table 1). Table 1: Data Sources Administrative Office of the Courts Arizona Department of Corrections Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Arizona Department of Public Safety Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program Juvenile Justice Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court National Crime Victimization Survey Data Annual Data Reports http://www.supreme.state.az.us/stats/ Corrections at a Glance http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports/glance.asp FY2007 Annual Report http://www.azdjc.gov/Offices/Research/Publications/FY%202007 %20data%20table.pdf Crime in Arizona Annual Reports http://www.azdps.gov/crimereport/default.asp Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys (The Annual Probation Survey, National Prisoner Statistics, Survey of Jails, and The Annual Parole Survey) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm Uniform Crime Reports http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System Reports http://www.supreme.state.az.us/jjsd/juvenilesproce/JuvProc.htm Criminal Victimization in the United States http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm 5 Population From 1997 to 2007, Arizona’s population grew approximately three times faster than the rest of the nation, increasing by 39.2 percent, compared to a 12.7 percent population increase for the nation. Between 2000 and 2005, Arizona was the second fastest growing state, behind Nevada1. From 2005 to 2006 alone, Arizona’s population increased by 3.6 percent. By 2006, Arizona was the fastest growing state in the nation2. Table 2 displays past and current population levels and Figure 1 displays year-to-year percent change for Arizona and the United States from 1997 to 2007. Table 2: Arizona and U.S. Population 1997-2007 Arizona National Year Population Population 1997 4,555,000 267,637,000 1998 4,669,000 270,296,000 1999 4,778,000 272,691,000 2000 5,130,632 281,421,906 2001 5,307,331 284,796,887 2002 5,441,125 287,973,924 2003 5,580,811 290,809,777 2004 5,739,879 293,656,842 2005 5,939,292 296,410,404 2006 6,166,318 299,398,484 2007 6,338,755 301,621,157 % Change 39.2% 12.7% Source: Crime in the United States Figure 1 Percent Change in Population from Previous Year 1997-2007 8.0% 7.0% Percent Change 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% Arizona National 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: FBI, Crime in the United States 1996-2007 1 2 Source: http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank02.html Source: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/009756.html 6 Law Enforcement The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) administers the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Initiated more than 70 years ago, the UCR program is a nationwide effort by law enforcement agencies across the country to voluntarily report data on a set of specific crimes that occur in their jurisdictions. The purpose of the UCR program is to provide reliable information for administrative, operational, and management activities. The data that is collected through the UCR program, particularly data on those crimes that form the property and violent crime indices, have become one of the most common and widely recognized social indicators of crime in the United States. As described earlier, crime rates and the number of crimes provide complementary but, at times, very different perspectives on crime and justice system activity in Arizona. In this section, crime index offense rates are reported and discussed, followed by the reporting and discussion of the number of index crimes from 1997 to 2007 for both Arizona and the nation. The primary value of these data is to assess change over time in crime within a jurisdiction, not to compare rates across jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction has unique crime and criminal justice issues that make comparisons across jurisdictions less valuable than an analysis of change over time in each jurisdiction. Because it is beyond the scope of this report and the resources available to provide an analysis of crime trends for every jurisdiction in Arizona, this section focuses on the statewide data to give criminal justice system policymakers, practitioners, and the general public a reliable and objective description of crime in Arizona. Additionally, because it also can be useful to understand local crime trends in the context of national trends, in the charts, tables, and discussion sections that follow, comparable national data also is provided. It is important to note that not all crimes are reported to law enforcement. Some of the reasons crimes are not reported include: the victim considers the offense too trivial to involve law enforcement, individuals are unaware of their victimization (e.g., fraud and identity theft), and the belief that some crimes are a personal matter. For these reasons, data that is collected through victimization surveys provide a complementary perspective on crime to that which is obtained through official statistics. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey is briefly reviewed later in this report. Index Offense Rates The Uniform Crime Reporting Program Part I index offense rate is simply the sum of the violent crime rate and the property crime rate, and is used as a standardized measure of overall crime in a jurisdiction. There are four violent index offenses (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and four property index offenses (arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) that are used to calculate the overall index 7 offense rates.3 Offense rates allow the amount of crime to be quantified and compared over time controlling for changes in population. This is particularly important in states such as Arizona that are experiencing dramatic population growth. In this report, offense rates are calculated per 100,000 residents in the population. From 1997 to 2007, the overall index offense rate in Arizona decreased 31.9 percent, while the index offense rate for the nation as a whole decreased 24.2 percent. During that same time, the violent index offense rate decreased 22.6 percent in Arizona and 23.6 percent in the United States. Similarly, from 1997 to 2007 the property crime rate decreased 32.8 percent in Arizona and 24.3 percent nationally. Tables 3 and 4 contain the reported violent offense, property offense, and overall index offense rates for 1997 through 2007. Table 3: Reported Index Offense Rates in the United States 1997-2007 Violent Index Offense Rate Property Index Offense Rate Overall Index Offense Rate 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 610.8 567.5 524.7 506.5 504.4 494.4 475 463.2 469.2 473.5 466.9 4,311.9 4,051.8 3,742.1 3,618.3 3,656.1 3,630.6 3,588.4 3,514.1 3,429.8 3,334.5 3,263.5 4,922.7 4,619.3 4,266.8 4,124.8 4,160.5 4,125.0 4,063.4 3,977.3 3,899.0 3,808.0 3.730.4 Table 4: Reported Index Offense Rates in Arizona 1997-2007 Violent Index Offense Rate Property Index Offense Rate Overall Index Offense Rate 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 623.7 577.9 551.2 531.7 540.3 554.5 513.2 504.4 513.2 501.4 482.7 6,571.3 5,997.0 5,345.4 5,297.8 5,537.1 5,849.8 5,632.4 5,073.3 4,838.0 4,627.9 4.414.0 7,195.0 6,574.9 5,896.6 5,829.5 6,077.4 6,404.3 6,145.6 5,577.7 5351.2 5,129.3 4.896.7 Even though index offense rates have declined from 1997 to 2007 in both Arizona and nation, each year Arizona had a significantly higher overall index offense rate than the nation. The difference between Arizona’s and the nation’s index offense rate is primarily a function of differences in the property index offense rate. From 1997 to 2007 the difference between Arizona’s and the nation’s violent index offense rate varied from 1.8 percent higher in 1996 to 12.2 percent higher in 2002. In contrast, the difference between Arizona’s and the nation’s property index offense rate ranged from a low of 38.8 percent higher in 2006 to 61.1 percent higher in 2002. Figures 2 and 3 show Arizona’s and the nation’s index offense rates over time and the contribution to each that were made by the property and violent offense rates. 3 Because of inconsistencies in reporting arson across law enforcement agencies nationally, arson is not included in the property crime and offense statistics included in this section of the report. 8 Figure 2 Reported Index Crime Rate 1997 - 2007 Arizona 8,000 Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents 7,000 6,000 5,000 Property Crime 4,000 Violent Crime 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3 Reported Index Crime Rate 1997 - 2007 United States 8,000 Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents 7,000 6,000 5,000 Property Crime 4,000 Violent Crime 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Although property and index offense rates provide a useful annual estimate of crime, which can be used to assess change over time, combining individual offenses to form an index can mask important differences within and across specific offenses. The next sections of this report look more closely at the violent and property offense indices, and each offense that is part of the indices, to better understand of how crime in Arizona has changed over time. 9 Violent Crime Index Offense Rates From 1997 to 2007, both Arizona and the nation experienced significant decreases in the violent offense rate (Figure 4). Even though Arizona’s violent offense rate has declined by 22.6 percent from 1997 to 2007, Arizona’s violent offense rate was consistently higher than the nation’s throughout this time period. It is also worth noting that since 2004, after seven consecutive years of year-to-year decreases in the violent offense rate, the violent offense rate increased slightly in 2005 and again in 2006. With the exception of 2000 to 2002, Arizona has generally experienced declining trends similar to the nation’s in the violent offense rate from 1997 to 2007. Figure 4 Reported Violent Crime Rate 1997 - 2007 700.0 600.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 610.8 567.5 524.7 506.5 504.4 494.4 475.0 463.2 469.2 473.5 466.9 Arizona 623.7 577.9 551.2 531.7 540.3 554.5 513.2 504.4 513.2 501.4 482.7 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter As defined by the UCR program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter is “the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.”4 Overall, the murder rates in Arizona and the nation are significantly lower in 2007 than in 1997 (9.8 and 17.6 percent decreases, respectively), with all the decrease occurring from 1997 to 2000 (Figure 5). Since 2000, Arizona’s and the nation’s murder rates have remained relatively 4 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html 10 stable, although Arizona’s year-to-year changes were subject to larger fluctuation because of the comparatively lower frequency of murder in Arizona compared to the nation as a whole (e.g., in 2007, 2.8 percent of all murders that occurred in the United States occurred in Arizona). Figure 5 Reported Murder/Non-Negligent Homicide Rate 1997 - 2007 9.0 8.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 6.8 6.3 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.6 Arizona 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.9 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.4 Forcible Rape As defined by the Uniform Crime Reporting program, forcible rape is “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”5 Attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force also are included. However, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded. Sexual attacks on males are not included in this offense category and are classified as assaults or other sexual offenses. Nationally, the rate of reported forcible rape was 16.4 percent lower in 2007 than in 1997. During this time, the national rate decreased from year-to-year with the exception of increases from 2001 to 2002 and 2003 to 2004. In contrast, during that same time period there was considerably more year-to-year fluctuation in Arizona’s rape rate. Although the Arizona’s rate was 10.7 percent lower in 2007 compared to 1997, Arizona experienced a general increase in the rape rate from 2001 to 2005 before falling through 2007 to its lowest rate since 2001. Figure 6 shows the forcible rape rate for Arizona and the United Stated from 1997 to 2007. 5 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html 11 Figure 6 Reported Forcible Rape Rate 1997 - 2007 40.0 35.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 35.9 34.5 32.7 32.0 31.8 33.1 32.1 32.4 31.7 30.9 30.0 Arizona 32.8 31.1 28.9 30.7 28.6 29.6 33.3 33.0 33.8 31.5 29.3 Robbery The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines robbery as “the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.”6 At both the national and state level, the robbery rate decreased from 1997 to 2007 (20.7 and 8.4 percent, respectively). In 1997 Arizona had a reported robbery rate that was 11 percent lower than the nation’s, but in 1998 those rates converged and have been mostly similar since. An exception to the consistency between the rate of robbery in Arizona and the nation is seen in a single year increase of approximately 14 percent in Arizona’s robbery rate from 2000 to 2001 and an equivalent decrease from 2001 to 2002. Illustrating the impact that Arizona’s major metropolitan areas have on the state’s crime rate, much of the increase in Arizona’s robbery rate from 2000 to 2001 can be explained by corresponding increases in the number of robberies that occurred during that time in Phoenix and Tucson (23 and 17.6 percent, respectively). It is also worth noting that since 2004, both the nation and Arizona has seen general increases in the robbery rate (7.2 and 12.8 percent, respectively) reversing a general 6 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html 12 trend since the late 1990s of declining robbery rates. Figure 7 presents reported robbery rates for Arizona and the United States by year for 1997 through 2007. Figure 7 Reported Robbery Rate 1997 - 2007 200.0 180.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 186.1 165.4 150.2 145.0 148.5 146.1 142.2 136.7 140.7 149.4 147.6 Arizona 165.7 165.2 152.5 146.3 167.1 147.0 136.5 134.5 144.4 149.6 151.7 Aggravated Assault According to the Uniform Crime Reporting program, an aggravated assault is an “unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury.”7 Aggravated assaults are often accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assaults that involve the display or threat to use a weapon are also included in this offense category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were successfully completed. From 1997 to 2007, both Arizona and the United States experienced significant decreases in the rate of aggravated assault (29.4 and 25.7 percent, respectively). Throughout this time period, Arizona’s and the nation’s aggravated assault rates consistently declined, except for a one-year increase from 2001 to 2002 in Arizona. Although the aggravated assault rate nationally has leveled off over the last four years, Arizona’s rate continued its general decline. Figure 8 shows reported aggravated assault rates from 1997 to 2007 for Arizona and the United States. 7 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html 13 Figure 8 Reported Aggravated Assault Rate 1997 - 2007 450.0 400.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 382.0 361.3 336.1 324.0 318.5 309.5 295.0 288.6 291.1 287.5 283.8 Arizona 417.1 373.6 361.6 347.7 337.1 370.8 335.5 329.6 327.4 312.7 294.3 In contrast to robbery where significant increases in Arizona’s two largest cities accounted for most of the anomalous single-year increase in robberies statewide, the single-year increase in aggravated assault from 2001 to 2002 cannot be explained by large increases in aggravated assaults occurring in just a few cities. This illustrates a limitation of measuring crime at the state level—although a state crime index can be useful in describing general trends over time in crime in Arizona, it tells us little about what is behind the observed trends that are often a function of crime and criminal justice system activity at the local level. 14 Property Crime Index Offense Rates In the UCR program, the property crime index is comprised of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. These offenses capture crimes where the object of the offense is the taking of money or property, but without force or the threat of force. Arson is included in this category because it is primarily the destruction of property, even though the offense can include the harming of individuals. However, because of variation in UCR program participation and local agency collection procedures, only limited data are available for arson.8 For this reason, the authors have excluded arson from the calculation of national and state property crime rates in this report. The property index offense rate decreased significantly nationally and in Arizona from 1997 to 2007. During that time, the property offense rate decreased 32.8 percent in Arizona and 24.3 percent in the United States. Although the nation experienced a steady decline in property offense rates, within Arizona’s overall decrease during this time from 2000 to 2002 the property offense rate in Arizona increased. This increase in the property index offense rate also was evident in the theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft offense rates during this same time described later in this report. Figure 9 shows the reported property crime rate from 1997 to 2007 for Arizona and the United States. Figure 9 Reported Property Crime Rate 1997 - 2007 7,000.0 6,000.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 5,000.0 4,000.0 3,000.0 2,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 8 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 4,311.9 4,051.8 3,742.1 3,618.3 3,656.1 3,630.6 3,588.4 3,514.1 3,429.8 3,334.5 3,263.5 Arizona 6,571.3 5,997.0 5,345.4 5,297.8 5,537.1 5,849.8 5,632.4 5,073.3 4,838.0 4,627.9 4,414.0 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/property_crime/index.html 15 Burglary The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines burglary “as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft.”9 Within this offense category there are three types of burglaries that are a function of how the offender entered or attempted to enter the structure: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. The burglary rate decreased nationally and in Arizona from 1997 to 2007 (21.4 and 30.8 percent, respectively). From 1997 to 2000, both the nation and Arizona experienced signficant and constant declines in the burglary rate. During that time, the burglary rate for the nation decreased by 20.7 percent and by 23.3 percent in Arizona. Since 2000 the burglary rate for the nation has been stable, while in Arizona, after two relatively small year-to-year increases from 2000 to 2002 the burglary rate continued to decline and is currently at the lowest rate in more than a decade. Figure 10 shows the burglary rate from 1997 to 2007 for Arizona and the United States. Figure 10 Reported Burglary Rate 1997 - 2007 1,400.0 1,200.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 United States Arizona 9 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 919.6 863.0 770.0 728.8 740.8 747.0 740.5 730.3 726.7 729.4 722.5 1,318.9 1,209.5 1,034.4 1,011.6 1,032.9 1,085.9 1,050.3 991.0 948.4 925.3 912.2 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/property_crime/burglary.html 16 Larceny-Theft Larceny-theft is “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another.”10 The types of thefts that are captured in this category include thefts of bicycles, motor vehicle parts and accessories, shoplifting, and pocket-picking. Although attempted larcenies and thefts are included in this offense category, property taken by force and violence or fraud is not. Additionally, motor vehicle theft is not included in this category as it is its own property index offense. The reported larceny/theft rate decreased in the United States and in Arizona between 1997 and 2007 (24.6 percent and 36 percent, respectively). During this time the larceny/theft rate for the nation decreased consistently. In contrast, after experiencing significant decreases from 1997 to 2000, Arizona experienced an increase in the larceny/theft rate from 2000 to 2002 before the rate resumed its decline through 2007. Figure 11 shows the reported burglary rate from 1997 to 2007 for Arizona and the United States. Figure 11 Reported Larceny-Theft Rate 1997 - 2007 4,500.0 4,000.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 3,500.0 3,000.0 2,500.0 2,000.0 1,500.0 1,000.0 500.0 0.0 10 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 2,886.5 2,729.0 2,551.4 2,477.3 2,484.6 2,450.7 2,414.5 2,362.3 2,286.3 2,206.8 2,177.8 Arizona 4,282.0 3,922.4 3,510.5 3,444.1 3,520.6 3,704.0 3,560.9 3,118.7 2,965.2 2,813.1 2,738.4 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/property_crime/larceny-theft.html 17 Motor Vehicle Theft Motor vehicle theft is defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program as “the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle.” 11 The types of vehicles that are captured in this category includes only those that operate on land including sport utility vehicles, automobiles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, motor scooters, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. Not captured in this category are farm equipment, bulldozers, airplanes, construction equipment, or water craft such as motorboats, sailboats, houseboats, or jet skis. Although property index offense rates in Arizona are historically higher than the nation’s, Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate is proportionally higher than any other property index offense rate. From 1997 to 2007 Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate was 90.3 percent (in 1999) to 144.8 percent (in 2002) higher than the nation’s. Nationally, the motor vehicle theft rate decreased by 18.5 percent from 1997 to 2000 and remained relatively constant through 2006 before decreasing again in 2007. Although Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate also declined by approximately 17.6 percent from 1997 to 1999, it increased by 32.4 percent from 1999 to 2002. From 2002 to 2007, Arizona’s motor vehicle theft rate decreased by approximately 28 percent to its lowest level in more than a decade. Figure 12 shows the reported motor vehicle theft rate from 1997 to 2007 for Arizona and the United States. Figure 12 Reported Motor Vehicle Theft Rate 1997 - 2007 1,200.0 Rate per 100,000 residents 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 11 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 United States 505.8 459.8 420.7 412.2 430.6 432.9 433.4 421.5 416.7 398.4 363.3 Arizona 970.4 865.1 800.5 842.1 983.6 1,059.9 1,021.3 963.5 924.4 889.5 763.4 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/property_crime/motor_vehicle_theft.html 18 Index Offense Counts Similar to many states around the country, since the late 1990s Arizona has experienced a significant decrease in crime rates. But unlike many states, at the same time that Arizona has seen a decrease in rates of crime, the state has seen an increase in the number of crimes that have occurred. Although crime rates provide for the measure of crime in a jurisdiction controlling for change in population, in jurisdictions such as Arizona that are experiencing dramatic increases in population, the number of crimes reported is a better indicator of how crime is impacting the criminal justice system. For states such as Arizona, an increase in the number of crimes increases the need for criminal justice system services, even during times when crime rates are decreasing. Although crime rates in Arizona have decreased indicating increased levels of public safety, increases in the frequency of crime signal a need for additional resources to be invested in the criminal justice system to allow agencies to effectively respond to their local crime problems. Importantly, the resources needed for Arizona’s criminal justice system to keep pace with increases in the frequency of crime includes resources that, at a minimum, maintain our ability to respond to increases in the number offenders and the Arizona citizens they have victimized. From 1997 to 2007, Arizona has experienced general reductions in the crime rates for all index offenses with the exception of forcible rape. This is consistent with national crime rates that declined significantly for all index offense rates during the same time period. Yet, Arizona’s declining crime rates, particularly the violent crime rate, are not occurring because of reductions in the number of crimes but instead are a function of increases in the population of Arizona. In Arizona, the violent crime rate has declined even thought the number of murders, forcible rapes, and robberies have increased (Figure 13). Nationally, from 1997 to 2007 both the violent and property crime rates and the number of violent and property crimes occurring have decreased significantly (Figure 14). This illustrates again the importance of analyzing both trends over time in the crime rate and trends over time in the number of crimes occurring in Arizona. The next section of this report describes change over time in the number of crimes that occurred in Arizona for the two crime indices and associated crime types. 19 Figure 13 Part I Crime in Arizona Percent Change 1997 - 2007 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Violent Crime Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary LarcenyTheft Motor Vehicle Theft Burglary LarcenyTheft Motor Vehicle Theft -10.0% -20.0% -30.0% -40.0% Rate per 100,000 Residents Incidents Figure 14 Part I Crime in the United States Percent Change 1997 - 2007 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Violent Crime Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime -10.0% -20.0% -30.0% -40.0% Rate per 100,000 Residents Incidents 20 Violent Crime Index Offenses From 1997 to 2007, Arizona has seen generally consistent increases in the number of violent crimes reported to police, with the exception of two year-to-year decreases from 1998 to 1999 and from 2002 to 2003 (Figure 15). Over the entire time period, the number of violent crimes increased 7.7 percent. Figure 15 Reported Part I Violent Crime in Arizona 1997 - 2007 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 28,411 29,984 26,334 27,281 28,675 30,171 28,638 28,952 30,478 30,916 30,600 21 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter After holding relatively stable from 1997 to 1999, Arizona has seen a generally increasing trend in the number of murders in Arizona from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 16). The number of reported murders increased 24.8 percent in Arizona between 1997 and 2007, with all of that increase occurring since 2000. Figure 16 Reported Murders in Arizona 1997 - 2007 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 375 376 384 359 400 387 441 414 445 465 468 22 Forcible Rape Although the number of forcible rapes reported to the police from 1997 to 2005 generally increased, since 2005 the numbers have declined. After a 34.5 percent increase from 1997 to 2005, since 2005 the number of forcible rapes reported to the police has declined by 7.5 percent. Over the entire time period from 1997 to 2007 the number of forcible rapes increased by 24.4 percent. Figure 17 contains information on the number of reported murders in Arizona between 1997 and 2007. Figure 17 Reported Forcible Rapes in Arizona 1997 - 2007 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1,492 1,451 1,383 1,577 1,518 1,608 1,856 1,896 2,006 1,941 1,856 23 Robbery From 1997 to 2007, Arizona experienced a 27.4 percent increase in the number of robberies reported to police. Within that time period there were two time periods where the number of reported robberies declined (1998 to 1999 and 2001 to 2003), but like most violent offenses, Arizona is experiencing a general increasing trend in the number of robberies. Figure 18 contains information on the number of reported robberies in Arizona between 1997 and 2007. Figure 18 Reported Robberies in Arizona 1997 - 2007 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 7,547 7,715 7,288 7,504 8,868 8,000 7,619 7,721 8,579 9,226 9,618 24 Aggravated Assault From 1997 to 2007, the number of aggravated assaults reported to law enforcement remained relatively stable (Figure 19). In 2007 the number of aggravated assaults was 1.8 percent lower than in 1997. During this time, the largest year-to-year change occurred from 2001 to 2002 when the number of aggravated assaults increased 12.8 percent, which was followed by a 7.2 percent decline from 2002 to 2003. Figure 19 Reported Aggravated Assaults in Arizona 1997 - 2007 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 18,997 17,442 17,279 17,841 17,889 20,176 18,722 18,921 19,448 19,284 18,658 25 Property Crime Index Offenses Although the number of property index offenses reported to the police in 2007 was 6.5 percent lower than in 1997, within that time period there were periods of both significant increase and decrease in the number of property index offenses. For example, from 1997 to 1999 and 2002 to 2006 Arizona experienced double digit percentage declines in the number of property index offenses reported to the police (14.7 and 12.1 percent, respectively). In contrast, from 1999 to 2002 Arizona experienced a 24.6 percent increase in the number of reported property index offenses. Figure 20 contains information on the number of reported property index offenses in Arizona from 1997 to 2007. Figure 20 Reported Part I Property Crimes in Arizona 1997 - 2007 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 299,323 280,001 255,401 271,811 293,874 318,296 314,335 291,203 287,345 285,370 279,794 26 Burglary From 1997 to 2007 the number of burglaries in Arizona decreased by 3.7 percent. Within that time period Arizona experienced a period of significant reduction in the number of burglaries from 1997 to 1999. During that two year period, the number of burglaries decreased by nearly 17.7 percent, which was followed by a three-year period of an equivalent overall increase in the number of burglaries. Since 2002, the number of burglaries in Arizona has remained relatively stable, varying year-to-year by less than three percent. Figure 21 contain information on the number of reported burglaries in Arizona from 1997 to 2007. Figure 21 Reported Burglaries in Arizona 1997 - 2007 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 60,077 56,473 49,423 51,902 54,821 59,087 58,613 56,885 56,328 57,055 57,825 27 Larceny-Theft From 1997 to 2007, Arizona experienced an overall decline in the number of larceny/thefts of 11 percent. During this time, there were two time periods of significant decreases in the number of larceny/thefts—1997 to 1999 when the number of larceny/thefts decreased by 14 percent, and 2002 to 2004 when the number decreased by 11.2 percent. In contrast, from 1999 to 2002 the number of larceny/thefts increased by 20.2 percent, which negated the decline achieved in the previous three years. Figure 22 contains information on the number of reported larceny/thefts in Arizona from 1997 to 2007. Figure 22 Reported Larceny/Thefts in Arizona 1997 - 2007 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 195,045 183,137 167,731 176,705 186,850 201,541 198,725 179,012 176,112 173,466 173,580 28 Motor Vehicle Theft From 1997 to 2007, the number of reported motor vehicle thefts increased by 9.5 percent. Importantly, the overall increase during this time is a function of a 50.1 percent increase in the number of motor vehicle thefts that occurred from 1999 to 2002. Since 2002, the number of motor vehicle thefts in Arizona has decreased by 16.1 percent. Figure 23 contains information on the number of reported motor vehicle thefts in Arizona from 1997 to 2007. Figure 23 Reported Motor Vehicle Thefts in Arizona 1997 - 2007 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Arizona 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 44,201 40,391 38,247 43,204 52,203 57,668 56,997 55,306 54,905 54,849 48,389 29 Victimization National Crime Victimization Survey Although the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program provides a source of generally uniform measures of criminal offenses reported to law enforcement within a state and across all states, the UCR program does not capture those offenses that go unreported. Research has revealed that there are multiple reasons why a crime victim might not report their victimization to the police, including: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ The crime is a personal/private matter; The crime is not important enough to report; Fear of reprisal by the offender(s); The crime was reported to another official; The crime will not be viewed as important by the police.12 Recognizing that official crime statistics (i.e., crime statistics collected by criminal justice system agencies describing agency activity) provide an extremely valuable, yet partial, view of crime in our communities, the Bureau of Justice Statistics began implementation of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 1973. The current version of the survey collects information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. Because the information is collected from individuals who have been victimized, the NCVS does not collect information on homicide or commercial crimes (e.g., store burglaries). Results from the 2006 NCVS indicate that approximately 49 percent of the violent crimes reported by survey respondents are reported to the police (Table 5). This is a slight increase in the 10 years since the 1996 survey, which estimated that 43 percent of the violent crimes described by victims were reported to law enforcement authorities.13 Additionally, there is significant variation in the percentage of crime reported to the police by type of offense. Motor vehicle theft is the crime with the highest percentage of victimizations reported to the police, while larceny/theft is the lowest. Table 5: Percentage of Crimes Reported to the Police, 2006 Type of crime Violent crimes Rape/sexual assault Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault Personal theft Property crimes Burglary Motor vehicle theft Theft Percent 48.9% 41.4% 56.9% 59.2% 44.3% 56.0% 37.7% 49.6% 81.0% 31.7% Although the NCVS data contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the nature and frequency of crime in the United States, the absence of Arizona-specific victimization data requires us to rely primarily on data from law enforcement, the courts 12 13 Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, 2003. Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000 Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv96.pdf 30 and correctional agencies to understand trends in crime and criminal justice system activity in Arizona. Yet, NCVS data can be used to better understand, among other things, how much crime goes unreported, trends in victimization over time, and nuances of the crime incident. Although unreported crime does not have a direct impact on criminal justice system agencies that are responsible for processing known offenders, unreported crime does have an impact on many crime victim service agencies. Even when crimes are not reported to law enforcement, the victims of those crimes often have needs to which the crime victim service system must respond. Victimization data helps to better understand the needs of crime victims and the program capacity that is necessary to effectively serve them. Another use of NCVS data is to confirm trends over time that appear in official data. For example, if the trends over time revealed by the two measures are similar, that provides more confidence that those trends are accurate perceptions of change over time and not a function of differences in reporting. This is particularly important for those crimes that are historically under-reported, including sexual assault and domestic violence.14 Finally, although there has been significant progress in implementing a National Incident Based Reporting System that captures more incident-level data than the UCR program, at the time this report was written there were 31 states that are NIBRS certified. Although Arizona is NIBRS certified, in 2007 only five agencies in Arizona were NIBRS certified. These agencies served three percent of Arizona’s population. The lack of detail about crime incidents that would be captured by NIBRS data if it were fully implemented is another limitation of official crime summary data that can be filled by the NCVS. Forcible Rape15 Although there are some differences between the NCVS and the UCR program in how forcible rape is defined (see footnote), comparing the NCVS data to UCR data illustrates the effect of factors that lead some crime victims to not report their victimization. Figure 24 and Table 6 compares the number of rape victimizations captured by the NCVS to the number of rapes reported to the police according to UCR. Figure 24 and Table 6 also illustrate the variation over time in the number of forcible rape victimizations and number of forcible rapes reported to the police. During the time 14 Felson, Richard and Paul-Phillippe Paré. 2005. “The Reporting of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault by Nonstrangers to the Police.” Final Report to the United States Department of Justice. Washington, DC 15 It is important to note that the UCR data on rape does not include sexual assaults where the victim is a male. In contrast, the NCVS data includes all sexual assault victimizations regardless of the victim’s gender. 31 period examined, the UCR data reflects much less variation over time in the frequency of rape than the NCVS data. From 1996 to 2006, the number of rapes reported to the police nationwide has been relatively consistent with no year-to-year changes greater than four percent. In contrast, after three consecutive years of increases in the number of rape victimizations, from 1999 to 2000 the number of rape victimizations decreased by approximately 31 percent and continued to decline for the next three years. Like many of the crime indicators, the rape victimization data reveals a general and significant decline in the frequency of rape since 1999, although it is worth noting that from 2005 to 2006 there was a notable increase in the number of rape victimizations reported by the NCVS. Figure 24 Forcible Rape, 1996-2006 NCVS and UCR 450,000 400,000 Number of Forcible Rapes 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UCR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2004 209,880 94635 2005 191,670 93,934 2006 272,350 92,455 NCVS Table 6: Forcible Rape, NCVS and UCR 1996 – 2006 NCVS UCR 1996 307,000 96,252 1997 311,000 96,122 1998 333,000 93,144 1999 383,000 89,107 2000 261,000 90,178 2001 248,000 90,491 2002 247,730 95,235 2003 198,850 93,433 32 Robbery The NCVS and UCR data reveal similar trends in robbery. Although the magnitude of the change over time varies considerably across data sources, both data sources reveal significant declines in the frequency of robbery during the last 1990s. After a period of time where the number of robberies remained relatively constant according to both data sources, since 2004 both data sources reveal upward trends in the frequency of robbery. Figure 25 and Table 7 contain data on the frequency of robbery by source. Figure 25 Robbery, 1996-2006 NCVS and UCR 1,200,000 Number of Robberies 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UCR 2002 2003 2004 2003 512,490 413,402 2004 501,820 401,470 2005 2006 NCVS Table 7: Robbery, NCVS and UCR 1996 - 2006 NCVS UCR 1996 1,134,000 535,594 1997 944,000 497,950 1998 886,000 447,186 1999 810,000 409,670 2000 732,000 408,016 2001 631,000 422,921 2002 512,490 420,806 2005 624,850 417,122 2006 711,570 447,403 33 Aggravated Assault Similar to the trends revealed in the robbery data reported above, both the NCVS and UCR data reveal generally similar trends in the frequency of aggravated assault. Although the magnitude of the change over time is different, both data sources reveal consistent year-to-year declines in the frequency of aggravated assault from 1996 to 2002. From 2002 to 2006, there is divergence in the trends across the two data sources. While the NCVS data suggests that the frequency of aggravated assault has increased since 2002, the UCR data reveals a much more stable level of aggravated assaults reported to the police. Figure 26 and Table 8 contain data on the frequency of aggravated assault by data source. Figure 26 Aggravated Assault, 1996-2006 NCVS and UCR 2,500,000 Number of Aggravated Assaults 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UCR NCVS UCR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 NCVS Table 8: Aggravated Assault, NCVS and UCR 1996 - 2006 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1,910,000 1,037,049 1,883,000 1,022,492 1,674,000 976,583 1,503,000 916,383 1,293,000 911,706 1,222,000 907,219 990,110 891,407 1,101,110 857,921 1,030,080 847,381 1,052,260 862,947 1,354,750 860,853 34 Motor Vehicle Theft The NCVS and UCR data on motor vehicle theft reveal the greatest level of convergence between the two data sources. This is not surprising considering that of the crimes captured by the two data sources motor vehicle theft is the offense that has the highest percentage of victimizations reported to police. Both data sources reveal a general decline in the frequency of motor vehicle theft from 1996 to 2000, followed by a slight overall increase from 2000 to 2003. Since 2003, both data sources reveal slight declines in the number of motor vehicle victimizations. Figure 27 and Table 9 contain data on the frequency of motor vehicle theft by data source. Figure 27 Motor Vehicle Theft, 1996-2006 NCVS and UCR 1,600,000 Number of Motor Vehicle Thefts 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UCR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 NCVS Table 9: Motor Vehicle Theft, NCVS and UCR 1996 - 2006 NCVS UCR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1,387,000 1,394,238 1,433,000 1,353,707 1,138,000 1,242,781 1,068,000 1,147,305 937,000 1,160,002 1,009,000 1,226,457 988,760 1,246,646 1,032,470 1,260,471 1,014,770 1,237,851 978,120 1,235,226 993,910 1,192,809 35 Larceny/Theft Although the magnitude of the change over time varies considerably across data sources, NCVS and the UCR data reveal somewhat similar trends in larceny/theft in the late 1990s. Both sources reveal significant declines in the number of larceny/thefts from 1996 to 1999, 12 percent and 22 percent, respectively. From 1999 to 2002 the NCVS data reveal a continuation of the sharp declines in the number of larceny/theft victimizations, but since 2002 the frequency of larceny/theft victimization has increased slightly. In contrast, since 1999 the decline in the number of larceny/thefts reported to the police slowed considerably but continued through 2006. Figure 28 and Table 10 contain data on the frequency of larceny/theft by data source. Figure 28 Larceny/Theft, 1996-2006 NCVS and UCR 25,000,000 Number of Larceny/Thefts 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UCR NCVS UCR 1996 1997 1998 21,120,000 7,904,685 19,749,000 7,725,470 17,703,000 7,376,311 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 NCVS Table 10: Larceny/Theft, NCVS and UCR 1996 - 2006 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 16,495,000 6,957,412 14,916,000 6,971,590 14,135,000 7,076,171 13,494,750 7,057,379 14,198,290 7,021,588 14,211,940 6,937,089 13,605,590 6,776,807 14,275,150 6,607,013 36 Burglary The NCVS and UCR data also reveal general consistency in change over time in the frequency of burglary. Both the NCVS and UCR program reveal significant declines in the number of burglaries from 1996 to 2000, 18 percent and 29 percent, respectively. Similar to other crime-specific NCVS data, the decline in the number of burglary victimizations continues beyond that seen in the UCR data. Yet, since 2002 both data sources reveal an increasing trend in the number of burglaries. Figure 29 and Table 11 contain data on the frequency of burglary by data source. Figure 29 Burglary, 1996-2006 NCVS and UCR 6,000,000 Number of Burglaries 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UCR NCVS UCR 1996 1997 1998 4,845,000 2,506,400 4,635,000 2,461,120 4,054,000 2,332,735 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 NCVS Table 11: Burglary, NCVS and UCR 1996 - 2006 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 3,652,000 2,099,739 3,444,000 2,050,992 3,140,000 2,109,767 3,055,720 2,151,252 3,395,620 2,153,464 3,427,690 2,144,446 3,456,220 2,154,126 3,539,760 2,183,746 37 Firearm Use and Violent Crime Arizona continues to have a higher percentage of violent crimes committed with a firearm than the nation as a whole. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program collects information on firearm use by offenders involved in homicides, robberies, and aggravated assaults. All homicides that were reported in Crime in the United States, but not all robberies and aggravated assaults, include the supplemental data on weapon use. Only those cases where supplemental data was provided are used for the Arizona and national totals in this section of the report. Murder Most homicides in Arizona and nationwide involve a firearm. Since 2002, approximately two-thirds of homicides in the United States have been committed with a firearm. In Arizona, the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm ranged from 1.6 to 9.1 percent higher. In 2007, 69.6 percent of homicides in Arizona were committed with a firearm, which was the lowest percentage in six years. Figure 30 and Table 12 compare the number and percentage of homicides involving a firearm in Arizona and the United States. Figure 30 Percent of Murders Involving a Firearm 2002 - 2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2002 AZ 2002 US 2003 AZ 2003 US 2004 AZ 2004 US Firearm 2005 AZ 2005 US 2006 AZ 2006 US 2007 AZ 2007 US No Firearm 38 Table 12: Murder with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States 2002 – 2007 Total Murders Arizona Murders with a Firearm Percent Total Murders United States Murders with a Firearm Percent 2002 382 290 75.9% 14,263 9,528 66.8% 2003 439 311 70.8% 14,465 9,659 66.8% 2004 2005 2006 2007 409 440 462 464 295 334 343 323 72.1% 75.9% 74.2% 69.6% 14,210 14,965 14,990 14,831 9,385 10,158 10,177 10,086 66.0% 67.9% 67.9% 68.0% Robbery Similar to the homicide firearm data, the percentage of robberies involving a firearm is higher in Arizona than the nation. From 2002 to 2007, approximately half of all Arizona robberies involved the use of a firearm. During that time, the percentage of robberies involving a firearm in Arizona ranged from 5.4 to 12.7 higher in Arizona than nationally. Figure 31 and Table 13 compare the number and percentage of robberies involving the use of a firearm in Arizona and the United States. Figure 31 Percent of Robberies Involving a Firearm 2002 - 2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2002 AZ 2002 US 2003 AZ 2003 US 2004 AZ 2004 US Firearm 2005 AZ 2005 US 2006 AZ 2006 US 2007 AZ 2007 US No Firearm 39 Table 13: Robberies with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States 2002 – 2007 Arizona Robberies with a Firearm 3,716 Percent 2002 Total Robberies 7,816 United States Robberies with a Firearm 139,657 Percent 47.5% Total Robberies 332,005 2003 7,490 3,616 48.3% 326,960 136,626 41.8% 2004 7,632 3,855 2005 6,675 3,655 50.5% 321,299 130,554 40.6% 54.8% 338,110 142,471 42.1% 2006 9,002 4,437 2007 9,437 4,648 49.3% 372,137 157,275 42.3% 49.3% 365,861 156,191 42.7% 42.1% Aggravated Assault Similar to homicide and robbery, from 2002 to 2007 firearms were used in a higher percentage of aggravated assaults in Arizona than nationally. During that time, the percentage of aggravated assaults involving a firearm in Arizona ranged from 4.8 to 7.9 percent higher than in the nation as a whole. Figure 32 and Table 14 compare the number and percentage of aggravated assaults involving a firearm in Arizona to the nation. Figure 32 Percent of Aggravated Assaults Involving a Firearm 2002 - 2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2002 AZ 2002 US 2003 AZ 2003 US 2004 AZ 2004 US Firearm 2005 AZ 2005 US 2006 AZ 2006 US 2007 AZ 2007 US No Firearm 40 Table 14: Aggravated Assaults with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States 2002 – 2007 Arizona 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Aggravated Assaults 18,857 18,136 18,483 15,104 18,155 16,952 United States Aggravated Assaults with a Firearm Percent 4,604 4,895 4,916 3,892 5,353 4,863 24.4% 27.0% 26.6% 25.8% 29.5% 28.7% Total Aggravated Assaults 724,753 701,242 715,376 720,762 731,229 720,652 Aggravated Assaults with a Firearm Percent 137,704 133,836 137,988 151,118 160,319 153,326 19.0% 19.1% 19.3% 21.0% 21.9% 21.3% 41 Courts and Probation16 Courts The judicial system in Arizona is large and complex. It consists of a series of courts, which include appellate courts, superior courts, justice courts, and municipal courts and an array of support services, which assist the court in the processing of cases. Arizona has two appellate courts: the Court of Appeals with two divisions, which is the intermediate appellate court; and the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the state and has administrative supervision over all the courts in Arizona. Its primary duties are to review appeals and to provide rules of procedure for all the Arizona courts. Although there was some relatively significant year-to-year variability from 1999 to 2007 in the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Court of Appeals, in 2007 the number of cases filed was just 6.8 percent lower than in 1999.17 The most significant year-to-year change in the number of cases filed in that time period occurred in 2005 when there was a 12 percent increase over the previous year in the number of cases filed. In contrast, since 2000 there has been a general declining trend in the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Supreme Court. From 1999 to 2007 the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Supreme Court declined by 12 percent. Table 15 contains data on the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Table 15: Appellate Court Case Filings FY1999 – FY2007 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Court of Appeals 3,792 3,513 3,462 3,619 3,713 3,457 3,871 3,716 3,535 Supreme Court 1,319 1,402 1,248 1,224 1,190 1,170 1,164 1,256 1,161 Superior Court The Superior Court, which has a division in each of the 15 counties in Arizona, is the state’s only general jurisdiction court. Superior Court judges hear all types of cases except civil actions when the award is less than $5,000.00, small claims, minor offenses including civil traffic violations, and violations of city codes and ordinances. In addition, the Superior Court acts as an appellate court to hear appeals from decisions made in the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts. 16 All of the data presented in the Courts and Probation section of this report was drawn from the web site of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and includes information from the most recent nine years of available data. 17 In this section, the data reported is based on fiscal year activity. 42 Statewide, from 1999 to 2007 the number of cases filed in Superior Courts increased each year. By 2007 the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Superior Courts was 21.1 percent higher than in 1999. Table 16 contains data on the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Superior Courts from 1999 to 2007. Table 16: Total Filings In Superior Court FY1999 – FY2007 1999 174,494 2000 177,607 2001 178,470 2002 181,680 2003 192,129 2004 204,681 2005 205,516 2006 208,847 2007 211,380 Figure 33 depicts the number of felony case filings in Superior Court from 1999 to 2007. Throughout this time period, the number of felony case filings in Arizona’s Superior Courts increased every year, except for 2006 to 2007. Over the entire time period the number of felony case filings increased by 50.3 percent, from 38,281 filings in 1999 to 57,551 in 2007. Figure 33 Felony Filings by Fiscal Year FY1999 - FY2007 70,000 60,000 Number of Felony Filings 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Felony Filings FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 38,281 40,317 43,462 45,322 50,884 54,420 54,426 57,885 57,551 43 County Superior Court Filings When looking at Superior Court case filings by county (Table 17) there is significant variation across counties in the number of case filings over time. From 1999 to 2007, the largest percentage increase in Superior Court case filings occurred in Pinal County where the number of filings increased by 44.2 percent. In contrast, Gila County experienced little year-to-year and overall variation in the number of case filings. All other counties experienced double-digit percentage increases in the number of Superior Court case filings. Table 17: Superior Court Case Filings by County FY1999 – FY2007 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 % Change 99-07 Apache 885 878 883 750 876 1,065 1,044 1,081 1,117 26.2% Cochise 3,569 3,545 3,675 3,706 3,958 4,448 4,259 4,441 4,417 23.8% Coconino 3,337 3,052 3,416 3,415 3,360 3,851 3,591 3,895 3,750 12.4% Gila 2,216 2,551 2,098 2,267 2,353 2,358 2,338 1,976 2,210 -0.3% Graham 1,262 1,329 1,325 1,392 1,210 1,352 1,327 1,429 1,410 11.7% Greenlee 280 321 349 318 318 321 341 296 366 30.7% La Paz Maricopa 724 675 768 802 969 951 994 935 866 19.6% 108,056 111,164 111,057 113,235 121,132 128,876 127,890 130,100 132,081 22.2% Mohave 5,496 5,570 5,581 5,645 5,282 5,113 5,901 6,319 6,497 18.2% Navajo 2,754 3,043 3,128 2,754 2,852 3,204 2,855 3,047 3,061 11.1% Pima 26,565 26,390 26,509 26,262 28,186 30,165 31,069 30,161 29,531 11.2% Pinal 6,123 6,253 6,683 7,306 7,161 7,801 8,291 8,646 8,830 44.2% Santa Cruz 1,750 1,549 1,504 1,690 1,832 1,728 1,973 2,329 2,335 33.4% Yavapai 5,892 6,172 6,291 6,727 6,933 7,235 7,486 7,970 8,184 38.9% Yuma 5,585 5,115 5,203 5,411 5,707 6,213 6,157 6,222 6,725 20.4% From 1999 to 2007, the number of felony case filings in Arizona’s Superior Courts increased by 50.4 percent from 38,262 to 57,551 felony case filings (Table 18). At the county level, the largest percentage increase in felony filings occurred in Yavapai County where they experienced a 131.3 percent increase from 1999 to 2007. In contrast, Gila County had a 6.9 percent decrease in the number of felony filings during that same time. From 1999 to 2007, every county experienced significant year-to-year changes in the number of criminal case filings. Although county level felony case filings overall have increased, between 1999 and 2007 every county experienced both significant year-to-year increases and decreases in the number of felony filings. During this time period all counties experienced double-digit or more percentage increases in the number of felony filings, with the exception of the decrease in Gila County described earlier and an 8.4 percent increase in the number of felony filings in Pima County. TOTAL SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL FILING S AND COUNTY 44 Table 18: Superior Court Felony Case Filings by County FY1999 – FY2007 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 % Change 99-07 Apache 237 248 252 218 270 360 344 340 291 22.8% Cochise 555 662 774 879 1,001 791 827 804 737 32.8% Coconino 915 784 982 998 1,006 1,277 1,229 1,226 1,048 14.5% Gila 770 994 695 803 822 650 766 638 717 -6.9% Graham 334 393 374 381 307 332 409 371 458 37.1% Greenlee 43 72 115 92 70 88 66 80 93 116.3% 230 268 350 420 424 480 498 426 344 49.6% Maricopa 24,233 26,041 28,107 29,990 34,818 36,748 35,953 38,975 38,599 59.3% Mohave 1,302 1,301 1,512 1,400 1,520 1,490 1,557 1,764 1,833 40.8% Navajo 845 897 936 800 966 1,187 795 1,149 1,358 60.7% Pima 4,906 4,533 4,812 4,149 4,208 4,962 5,717 5,540 5,318 8.4% Pinal 1,067 1,140 1,305 1,553 1,685 1,688 1,937 1,984 1,798 68.5% 282 155 245 243 302 236 324 330 324 14.9% 1,323 1,405 1,663 2,007 2,158 2,465 2,504 2,756 3,060 131.3% La Paz Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 1,220 1,315 1,340 1,389 1,327 1,666 1,500 1,502 1,573 28.9% Total 38,262 40,208 43,462 45,332 50,884 54,420 54,426 57,885 57,551 50.4% Justice Courts From 1999 to 2007, the total number of case filings in Arizona’s Justice Courts increased by 16 percent (Table 19). During this same time, criminal traffic case filings increased by 71.5 percent. Although there was larger year-to-year percentage changes in the number of non-traffic misdemeanor cases filed in Justice Courts, there was a 1.4 percent decline in nonTable 19: Justice Court Filings, but Fiscal Year and Type18 traffic misdemeanor FY1999 – FY 2007 case filings from 1999 Criminal Non-Traffic Fiscal Year Felonies Total Traffic Misdemeanors* to 2007. Finally, during 85,025 121,042 41,279 790,234 this same time there 1999 2000 93,359 124,451 41,540 848,713 was a 34 percent 2001 92,632 116,371 39,852 862,924 98,607 121,428 39,112 876,940 decrease in the 2002 104,974 122,891 26,209 862,413 number of felony filings 2003 2004 105,277 116,582 27,008 848,721 in Arizona’s Justice 2005 109,946 115,695 27,117 856,153 2006 122,095 127,437 27,869 885,441 Courts. 2007 145,849 119,400 27,250 916,666 *Non-Traffic Misdemeanors include Traffic Failure to Appear filings Figure 34 illustrates the types of cases filed in Arizona Justice Courts and the percentage of all filings that are made up of each case type. In 1999, 5.2 percent of all case filings in Arizona’s Justice Courts were felony filings. By 2007, three percent of all cases filed in Justice Court were 18 Civil traffic cases and non-criminal ordinance violations (e.g., parking tickets) are also included in the total case filings column of this table. Because the purpose of this report is to describe crime trends, only criminal traffic and non-traffic misdemeanor filings are reported separately from the other case types filed in Justice Courts. 45 for a felony. Throughout this time period, approximately 70 percent of all cases filed in Arizona’s Justice Courts were civil filings (e.g., civil traffic, small claims, forcible detainer, etc.) and non-criminal violations of local ordinances. Figure 34 Justice Court Filings by Type FY1999 - FY2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Other FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 542,888 589,363 614,069 617,793 608,339 599,854 603,395 608,040 624,167 Felony 41,279 41,540 39,852 39,112 26,209 27,008 27,117 27,869 27,250 Non-Traffic Misd. 121,042 124,451 116,371 121,428 122,891 116,582 115,695 127,437 119,400 Criminal Traffic 85,025 93,359 92,632 98,607 104,974 105,277 109,946 122,095 145,849 County Justice Court Filings Although there was a 16 percent increase in the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Justice Courts from 1999 to 2007, four counties (Apache, Coconino, Gila, and Pima) experienced small percentage decreases in the number of cases filed in their Justice Courts during this time. In contrast, the largest percentage increases in the number of cases filed in county Justice Courts occurred in Graham and La Paz counties (65.9 and 56.2 percent, respectively). Not surprisingly, the largest increase in the number of cases filed occurred in Maricopa County Justice Courts. When looking at only felony filings in Justice Courts, three counties experienced an overall reduction in the number of felony case filings in Justice Courts: Coconino, Gila, and Maricopa counties. Maricopa County has virtually eliminated felony case filings in Justice Courts, which helps explain the reduction in felony filings in Justice Courts statewide. Table 20 contains data on the number of Justice Court case filings by county and type of case. 46 Table 20: Justice Court Case Filings by County19 FY1999 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 19 Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Felony Total 1999 1,758 838 414 10,978 6,816 4,621 1,219 42,508 4,609 3,451 2,927 27,814 1,727 3,340 978 15,961 625 514 382 4,749 164 402 60 2,274 4,569 1,817 531 14,879 24,865 31,824 18,807 311,371 4,537 6,730 2,507 37,626 5,117 6,473 908 30,588 16,160 45,495 8,852 192,032 4,849 6,662 1,234 33,334 1,062 1,163 317 8,066 4,188 4,163 1,248 32,506 3,979 3,549 895 25,548 2000 1,886 908 509 9,849 8,484 5,539 1,278 48,319 4,700 3,552 2,951 31,455 1,860 3,586 925 18,052 639 406 427 6,242 167 206 78 2,288 5,712 2,308 484 18,194 28,339 32,841 18,111 332,128 5,043 7,798 2,552 39,334 3,866 5,827 878 25,214 15,963 46,629 8,963 200,804 5,376 5,713 1,372 43,190 1,330 996 369 9,613 5,637 4,934 1,371 39,631 4,357 3,208 1,272 24,400 2001 1,658 972 486 9,754 9,677 5,704 1,274 51,243 4,667 3,121 3,126 32,042 1,536 2,611 524 16,166 557 483 362 5,953 221 369 108 2,660 4,648 2,289 655 16,516 27,134 29,681 16,661 335,016 5,047 7,989 2,751 39,504 3,960 5,563 1,026 25,177 15,427 41,659 8,225 199,951 5,691 6,053 1,288 47,226 1,715 1,275 460 12,528 7,153 4,875 1,582 46,591 3,541 3,727 1,324 22,597 2002 1,837 1,062 439 9,858 10,366 6,556 1,436 51,681 4,687 3,551 3,378 31,951 1,413 3,248 436 18,603 637 461 370 6,748 276 300 126 2,502 4,218 2,333 639 15,557 31,368 29,534 15,279 351,278 5,849 8,748 2,383 39,903 3,386 5,057 1,044 25,282 18,047 44,272 8,167 208,794 5,489 6,133 1,404 42,282 1,418 1,386 487 11,212 6,149 5,346 1,847 40,629 3,467 3,441 1,677 20,660 2003 2,336 844 471 9,030 10,827 7,550 1,985 51,654 4,749 3,085 2,957 29,692 1,448 2,604 430 14,372 582 466 323 5,968 207 274 123 1,893 3,606 1,963 571 14,791 35,023 32,566 11 355,170 7,792 8,467 2,812 43,998 3,249 5,750 1,555 22,762 19,346 42,434 8,625 200,990 5,015 6,805 2,094 40,300 1,245 1,255 445 10,954 5,699 5,242 2,094 38,143 3,850 3,586 1,713 22,696 2004 2,049 944 716 9,559 10,069 8,279 1,896 46,150 4,873 3,971 2,399 28,771 1,407 1,957 156 15,186 575 550 423 5,819 162 335 127 1,584 4,004 2,354 821 16,945 34,625 30,367 1 348,040 7,889 9,543 3,000 49,008 3,783 5,943 1,734 24,526 18,709 34,413 9,225 189,106 6,369 7,539 1,803 44,475 1,405 1,071 402 10,496 6,527 5,314 2,339 36,914 2,831 4,002 1,966 22,142 2005 1,919 711 698 8,215 8,680 8,381 2,141 43,008 4,929 3,162 1,376 24,514 1,328 2,255 209 15,480 705 610 497 5,610 136 221 71 1,279 3,416 2,043 870 15,864 39,298 30,969 3 375,970 7,263 9,464 3,583 46,483 4,389 6,930 1,129 21,221 21,744 34,636 9,761 186,581 6,016 7,324 2,009 46,415 1,518 1,229 471 9,906 5,491 4,593 2,594 34,369 3,114 3,167 1,705 21,238 2006 2,490 857 590 10,771 8,744 9,026 1,849 46,623 5,641 3,128 1,666 28,489 1,550 2,657 109 15,402 519 439 402 5,688 165 234 100 1,810 4,889 1,570 684 19,066 53,449 30,401 0 374,560 5,733 9,205 4,009 44,723 5,212 6,911 1,824 31,937 16,737 45,306 9,757 185,682 5,561 6,971 1,475 43,779 1,195 1,349 450 9,430 6,502 4,905 2,971 41,340 3,708 4,478 1,983 26,141 2007 2,187 836 607 9,883 7,937 7,998 1,378 44,386 4,981 2,713 1,633 27,462 1,422 2,360 105 14,337 680 703 610 7,878 265 275 111 3,058 5,792 1,633 614 23,236 76,232 34,468 0 406,251 5,500 8,677 3,708 46,774 5,427 6,913 1,773 33,035 18,009 34,810 9,708 178,636 5,630 7,075 1,264 44,607 1,082 1,325 516 9,831 7,168 4,920 3,205 41,280 3,537 4,694 2,018 26,012 Ibid. 47 Municipal Courts There were 1,532,792 cases filed in Arizona’s Municipal Courts in 2007, which is a 5.8 percent increase in the number of cases filed since 1999 (Table 22). From 1999 to 2007 the percentage of all Municipal Court cases filed that were criminal traffic and nontraffic misdemeanors remain virtually unchanged. The percentage of all cases filed in Arizona’s Municipal Courts that were criminal traffic cases was 11.4 percent in 1999 and 11.7 percent in 2007. Similarly, the percentage of all cases filed that were non-traffic misdemeanor cases was 15.9 percent in 1999 and 15.8 percent in 2007. The majority of cases (63% in 2007) filed in Municipal Courts are for civil traffic offenses. Table 22: Municipal Court Filings by Type20 FY1999 – FY 2007 Non-Traffic Fiscal Year Criminal Traffic Total Misdemeanors 1999 165,600 230,787 1,448,590 2000 167,981 212,518 1,420,683 2001 145,688 224,703 1,394,866 2002 157,274 219,166 1,360,306 2003 168,537 233,507 1,468,863 2004 173,246 234,139 1,439,452 2005 172,825 238,156 1,469,243 2006 171,258 237,418 1,451,725 2007 179,625 242,080 1,532,792 County Municipal Court Filings Although there was a relatively small percentage increase in the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Municipal Courts statewide, there was much larger county level variation. Seven of Arizona 15 counties experienced increases in the number of Municipal Court case filings. The largest percentage increases occurred in La Paz (62.8 percent) and Yavapai (54.9 percent) counties. In contrast, the other eight Arizona counties experienced declines in the number of Municipal Court case filings. The largest percentage decreases occurred in Navajo (39.2 percent) and Cochise (35 percent) counties. Table 23 contains data on Municipal Court case filings by county and type of filing. 20 Civil traffic cases and non-criminal ordinance violations (e.g., parking tickets) are also included in the total case filings column of this table. Because the purpose of this report is to describe crime trends, only criminal traffic and non-traffic misdemeanor filings are reported separately from the other case types filed in Municipal Courts. 48 Table 23: Municipal Court Case Filings by County21 FY1999 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 21 Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misd. Total 1999 212 647 1,971 952 1,420 12,744 2,826 10,572 33,885 1,004 1,192 9,410 397 828 3,552 54 123 565 372 375 2,876 122,765 118,285 955,462 4,278 9,896 29,556 491 759 8,734 21,328 64,700 288,517 3,622 8,139 26,981 1,312 1,264 16,594 2,562 6,097 31,733 3,425 6,490 26,010 2000 206 606 1,806 865 1,247 11,426 4,595 15,033 38,381 855 971 8,117 455 715 3,460 47 82 367 432 457 3,121 121,555 106,788 928,174 5,863 10,969 35,923 585 871 9,373 20,850 52,919 277,836 4,452 8,433 30,293 1,319 1,722 15,092 2,829 6,884 35,056 3,073 4,821 22,258 2001 216 651 1,987 682 1,098 14,617 2,630 10,553 27,462 616 923 6,811 500 942 3,859 80 130 684 438 419 2,926 105,026 105,606 886,627 3,778 10,306 31,322 510 754 8,310 20,501 71,733 305,213 3,758 7,840 30,573 1,135 1,822 13,093 3,199 7,036 37,863 2,619 4,890 23,519 2002 201 495 1,747 623 954 11,390 2,840 11,224 26,503 749 895 6,285 385 859 3,154 63 133 691 579 409 3,132 111,686 98,648 851,718 3,381 9,240 23,995 775 1,372 9,938 24,366 71,832 317,367 3,637 8,018 28,622 1,229 1,913 14,615 4,131 7,083 36,102 2,629 6,091 25,047 2003 261 716 2,015 553 786 9,501 3,041 10,879 26,804 739 979 6,672 439 802 3,012 77 84 489 643 427 3,700 118,965 106,599 955,006 3,454 10,003 24,383 762 1,396 7,948 28,015 78,641 321,294 4,128 7,596 30,086 995 1,722 15,409 3,627 7,034 37,605 2,838 5,843 24,939 2004 228 593 1,638 572 730 8,589 3,125 10,484 27,017 850 950 8,680 460 760 3,218 76 58 550 582 507 3,293 122,438 109,525 956,475 4,350 10,198 29,586 473 683 6,071 27,088 76,410 281,845 4,018 7,507 29,538 1,198 1,713 17,890 4,696 7,940 41,862 3,092 6,081 23,200 2005 196 575 1,464 538 835 9,527 3,118 9,355 26,066 835 922 7,257 331 925 3,071 58 68 408 493 437 3,657 124,037 113,818 1,003,469 5,125 10,743 29,959 236 215 4,747 24,811 78,672 272,299 3,708 7,280 24,010 1,069 1,664 20,142 5,139 6,596 40,426 3,131 6,051 22,741 2006 319 524 1,598 313 790 8,910 3,027 9,704 25,370 872 1,020 7,589 347 922 3,330 110 144 526 547 739 4,277 124,080 110,544 986,865 4,588 11,924 31,164 190 181 5,274 22,479 76,603 262,843 4,118 8,588 27,306 971 1,512 16,898 5,762 7,602 45,001 3,535 6,621 24,774 2007 329 599 1,783 377 690 8,281 2,940 9,920 24,632 740 1,135 7,411 399 1,085 3,328 65 155 442 480 555 4,682 133,022 117,185 1,052,739 3,593 11,641 29,905 207 179 5,311 22,729 75,590 277,015 4,423 7,263 27,796 933 1,230 12,184 5,503 7,449 49,156 3,885 7,404 28,127 Ibid. 49 Probation The Adult Probation Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) oversees the statewide administration of adult probation programs and services in accordance with statutory and administrative guidelines. This division works with the courts, probation departments, and a variety of non-court agencies and organizations throughout Arizona. The information provided in this section of the report focuses on offenders on standard and intensive probation and reflects the number of probationers of each type on the last day of the fiscal year. It is also important to note that the numbers included in this section’s tables and figures are cumulative totals; in other words, the number of probationers reported in these data are not only those sentenced to probation during that year, but are those currently under probation supervision at the end of each fiscal year irrespective of when they were sentenced to probation. Adult Standard Probation The purpose of standard probation supervision in Arizona is to protect the public through effective community-based supervision and enforcement of court orders and affording offenders opportunities to initiate positive changes in their lives. Standard probation is a less restrictive form of probation than intensive probation and those placed on this type of supervision are deemed to be at lower risk for re-offending. Minimum supervision requirements of standard probationers are set by A.R.S. § 12253(2) and vary according to supervision level (i.e., maximum, medium, and minimum). Each probation department has the authority to implement more stringent supervision requirements than are established by statute. From 1999 to 2007, the total number of standard probationers increased by 27.2 percent. This includes both active probationers and absconders.22 As the number of offenders on standard probation has increased, so too has the percentage of probationers who are identified as absconders. In 1999, 18.3 percent of standard probationers were identified as absconders; that percentage increased to 24.7 percent by 2007. Figure 35 reports the number of standard probationers by type and year. 22 Absconders are defined by the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 6-201 as, “a probationer who has moved from the primary place of residence without permission of the probation officer and whose whereabouts are unknown.” A.R.S. § 12-253(7) requires adult probation officers to file a petition to revoke probation and request the court to issue a warrant if the probationer is not located within three months. Local probation departments have the authority to file a petition to revoke sooner than three months if it is warranted by the circumstances surrounding the case. 50 Figure 3523 Number of Standard Probationers FY1999 - FY2007 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Absconders 7,366 7,591 9,158 9,680 10,357 11,233 12,290 12,851 FY2007 12,664 Active 32,916 32,809 33,021 35,509 33,071 33,880 34,229 37,105 38,585 Restitution and Community Service Two of the most common conditions placed on probationers are restitution and community service. These conditions require probationers to repay the financial harm they have done to their victims Table 24: Dollar Amount Collected from Standard and engage in service to their Probationers, FY1999 – FY2007 Total % of Total communities. From 1999 to 2007, Restitution Collections* Collections the amount of restitution collected 1999 $9,941,058 $23,308,833 42.6% from standard probationers 2000 $10,811,352 $27,532,737 39.3% increased by 37.1 percent and the 2001 $11,846,548 $29,300,464 40.4% total amount of restitution 2002 $16,922,226 $43,503,699 38.9% collected during this time was 2003 $11,782,706 $34,900,494 33.8% approximately $114 million. During 2004 $11,573,429 $34,483,007 33.6% $12,356,619 $36,459,324 33.9% the same time, total collections 2005 2006 $15,120,673 $41,821,179 36.2% increased by 83.9 percent. Table $13,633,506 $42,863,335 31.8% 24 reports the amount of 2007 *Total collections include restitution to victims, reimbursement of criminal restitution and total collections by justice system costs, fines/surcharges, and probation fees paid. year. 23 The AOC did not include absconder data in its 2007 online data report. This data was obtained through personal communication on January 6, 2009. 51 From 1999 to 2007, the number of community service hours completed by standard probationers increased 34.8 percent, from 488,695 hours in 1999 to 658,845 hours in 2007 (Figure 36). At the minimum wage in Arizona at the time this report was written ($6.90/hour), in 2007 standard probationers performed community service work worth approximately $4,546,031 to the communities in which they are living. Figure 3624 Community Service Hours Completed Standard Adult Probationers FY1999 - FY2007 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Hours FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 488,695 743,738 759,643 775,624 865,364 813,823 828,201 742,319 658,845 Adult Intensive Probation Adult Intensive Probation Supervision is a sentencing alternative that provides a higher degree of control, intervention, and surveillance than standard probation to offenders who would otherwise be incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections or as a result of a technical violation of standard probation. This type of probation provides intensive supervision through probation officer or surveillance officer teams of two or three persons. Intensive Probation requires supervision teams to have face-to-face contact with probationers a minimum of 4-16 times per month, depending on which phase of the program the probationer is in. As is the case with the supervision 24 The AOC did not include community service hour data in its 2007 online data report. This data was obtained through personal communication on January 6, 2009. 52 requirements of standard probationers, each probation department has the authority to establish more stringent supervision requirements than are established by statute. Although there was variability in the direction of year-to-year changes in the total number of offenders on intensive probation, from 1999 to 2007 the total number of offenders supervised decreased by nine percent. Similarly, from 1999 to 2007 the number of active probationers on intensive supervision decreased by 8.1 percent. From 1999 to 2007 there was also significant year-to-year variation in the percentage of intensive probationers identified as absconders.25 In 2007, 30.1 percent of offenders on intensive probation were identified as absconders. Figure 37 reports the number of standard probationers by type and year. Figure 3726 Number of Intensive Probationers FY1999 - FY2007 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Absconders Active FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 806 864 963 955 952 1,084 864 1,062 1,151 3,401 3,379 3,384 3,085 2,400 2,923 3,001 2,879 2,677 25 For offenders on intensive probation, adult probation officers are required to file a petition to revoke probation and request the court to issue a warrant if the probationer is not located within 72 hours. Local probation departments have the authority to file a petition to revoke sooner than 72 hours if it is warranted by the circumstances surrounding the case. 26 The AOC did not include absconder data in its 2007 online data report. This data was obtained through personal communication on January 6, 2009. 53 Restitution and Community Service From 1999 to 2007, the amount of restitution collected from offenders on intensive probation alone decreased by 7.5 percent from $837,425 to $774,511. During the same time, total collections decreased by 6.1 percent. Table 42 reports the amount of restitution and total collections by year. Table 25: Dollar Amount Collected from Intensive Probationers, FY1999 – FY2007 Total % of Restitution Collections* Collections 1999 $837,425 $5,424,198 15.4% 2000 $840,034 $5,449,658 15.4% 2001 $797,075 $4,971,997 16.0% 2002 $818,587 $4,948,160 16.5% 2003 $799,493 $4,356,818 18.4% 2004 $761,283 $3,972,280 19.2% 2005 $880,939 $5,259,899 16.7% 2006 $676,758 $4,936,728 13.7% 2007 $774,511 $5,093,211 15.2% From 1999 to 2007, the number of community service hours *Total collections include restitution to victims, reimbursement of criminal justice system costs, fines/surcharges, probation fees, and taxes paid. completed by offenders on standard probation decreased 39.5 percent, from 993,655 hours in 1999 to 600,816 hours in 2007 (Figure 38). It is worth noting that offenders on intensive probation, whose numbers are approximately one-tenth that of probationers on standard probation, performed nearly as many community service hours in 2007 as standard probationers. In part, this can be explained by minimum community service requirements of offenders on intensive probation of not less than 40 hours monthly for those who are not full-time students.27 At the minimum wage in Arizona at the time this report was written ($6.90/hour), offenders on intensive probation performed community service work worth approximately $4,145,630 to the communities in which they were living in 2007. 27 A.R.S. § 13-914(6) 54 Figure 3828 Community Service Hours Completed Intensive Adult Probationers FY1999 - FY2007 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Hours FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 993,655 997,423 927,563 830,192 719,807 615,182 730,573 655,123 600,816 28 The AOC did not include community service hours data in its 2007 online data report. This data was obtained through personal communication on January 6, 2009. 55 Department of Corrections The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) houses adult offenders convicted of felonies in Arizona and sentenced to state confinement. The ADC also maintains segregated prison facilities for juveniles sentenced in adult courts in Arizona. Currently, ADC is responsible for 10 large prison complexes across Arizona. The Department also runs the Arizona Correctional Release Center in Tucson for Women, and contracts for the privatization of seven prisons in Arizona and Oklahoma. According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistic’s National Corrections Reporting Program, and more recent data from the Arizona Department of Corrections, from 1997 to 2007 the number of inmates incarcerated Table 26: Number of Prisoners in Arizona at the end of each calendar year Incarcerated in Arizona and the United has increased by 60.7 percent. In contrast, States on December 31st of Each Year29 Arizona United States from 1997 to 2006 (the most recent year 23,484 1,242,153 national data is available) the number of 1997 1998 25,515 1,300,573 prisoners incarcerated nationally on the last 1999 25,986 1,363,701 day of each year increased by 26.5 percent. 2000 26,510 1,391,261 During the same time period (1997 to 2006), 2001 27,710 1,406,031 the percentage increase in the number of 2002 29,359 1,440,144 31,170 1,468,601 Arizona prisoners (52.8 percent) was nearly 2003 32,515 1,497,100 twice the percentage increase in prisoners 2004 2005 33,565 1,527,929 nationally. Table 43 contains information on 2006 35,892 1,570,861 the number of prisoners in Arizona and the 2007 37,746 -United States over time. Correctional Facility Capacity Arizona Department of Corrections is one of 23 states that were operating at more than 100 percent of their capacity at the end of calendar year 2006.30 As of December 31, 2006 ADC was running a deficit of 4,595 beds, which was 14.7 percent over capacity. By the end of calendar year 2007, the bed deficit had been reduced to 3,272 beds, which was 9.5 percent over capacity.31 With the exception of two months, throughout this time the number of inmates increased each month. Since the end of calendar year 2007, the number of inmates continued to increase, challenging Arizona’s correctional system to keep pace. 29 The 1996 – 2006 data for both Arizona and the United States was obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Corrections Reporting Program. The 2007 for Arizona and the United States was not available from BJS, therefore, the 2007 Arizona data was obtained from the web site of the Arizona Department of Corrections. 30 “Prisoners in 2006”, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf 31 http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports/2YearTrend.asp 56 Demographic Characteristics of Inmate Population The inmate data reported in the rest of this section of the report was retrieved from the ADC web site.32 The information available on ADC’s site is much more comprehensive than what is included here. The ADC information in this report is simply intended to provide readers with a general overview of the characteristics of inmates incarcerated in ADC facilities. For additional detail on prisoners in Arizona, visit the ADC web site. Finally, where the national data is available and comparable, this section includes data on the demographic characteristics of inmates in state and federal prisons in the United States. Gender At the beginning of fiscal year 2007, 8.8 percent of Arizona inmates were female (Table 27). From July 2006 to December 2007, the percentage increased slightly to 9.2 percent. The percentage of all inmates in Arizona who are female is slightly higher than national percentage. At the end of calendar year 2006, 8.8 percent of all Arizona inmates were female compared to 7.2 percent of all state and federal prisoners.33 Table 27: End of Month Arizona Inmate Population July 2006 – December 2007 Male Female Total Jul-06 31,796 3,062 34,858 Aug-06 31,966 3,120 35,086 Sep-06 32,127 3,159 35,286 Oct-06 32,447 3,154 35,616 Nov-06 32,573 3,162 35,735 Dec-06 32,647 3,148 35,795 Jan-07 32,574 3,146 35,720 Feb-07 32,718 3,137 35,855 Mar-07 33,112 3,172 36,284 Apr-07 33,327 3,194 36,521 May-07 33,486 3,241 36,727 Jun-07 33,809 3,279 37,088 Jul-07 33,839 3,377 37,216 Aug-07 34,105 3,377 37,482 Sep-07 34,166 3,391 37,557 Oct-07 34,228 3,408 37,636 Nov-07 34,197 3,421 37,618 Dec-07 34,286 3,460 37,746 32 33 http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports.asp “Prisoners in 2006”, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf 57 Age On the last day of December 2007, nearly half of all Arizona inmates were between the ages of 25 – 39 and slightly more than one-fourth were between the ages of 40 – 54 (Table 28). These percentages are very similar to national figures obtained at year’s end 2006. Among all prisoners in state and federal prisons nationwide, 49 percent were between the ages of 25 – 39 and 29.6 percent were between the ages 40 – 54.34 Table 28: Age of Arizona Inmates December 2007 <18 0.3% 18 – 24 16.5% 25 – 39 49.4% 40 – 54 28.5% 55+ 5.2% Race/Ethnicity As of the last day of December 2007, approximately 41.7 percent of ADC inmates were Caucasian, 38.4 percent Hispanic, 13.3 percent African-American, 5.1 percent Native American and 1.5 percent Asian/Other (Table 29). Because of significant differences in reporting methods used at the state and national level for the race and ethnic composition of their respective populations, the race and ethnicity of Arizona inmates is not compared to national data. Table 29: Race and Ethnicity of Arizona Inmates December 2007 Caucasian 41.7% 34 African American 13.3% Native American 5.1% Hispanic 38.4% Asian/ Other 1.5% Ibid. 58 Offense Type Publicly available data on ADC prisoners includes a description of the types of offenses for which inmates were sentenced to prison. Figure 39 contains data on the number of inmates and parolees by offense type in December 2007. At the end of calendar year 2007, 39.7 percent of Arizona inmates were in prison for violent offenses, 26.1 percent for property offenses, 20.1 percent for drug offenses, and 14.2 percent of other types of offenses.35 Nationally in 2004, the most recent year national inmate offense data is available, 52 percent of state inmates were sentenced to prison for a violent offense, 21 percent for a property offense, 20 percent for a drug offense, and 7 percent for a public-order offense.36 Figure 39 Offenders by Type of Offense Arizona Department of Corrections December 2007 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - Violent Crimes Property Crimes Drug Crimes Inmates 14,977 9,799 7,595 Other 5,375 Parolees 1,359 2,219 1,914 1,315 35 Violent offenses include murder, assault, robbery and sex crimes. Property offenses include burglary and theft. Drug crimes include possession, sale and manufacture of drugs. Other offenses include driving under the influence and weapons offenses. 36 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm 59 Inmate Special Populations Figure 40 provides information on inmate populations of special interest, including but not limited to, the number of prisoners on death row, the numbers of prisoners who are serving life sentences, and the number prisoners who have been identified as criminal aliens. At year’s end 2007, 0.3 percent of inmates are on death row, 3.8 percent were serving a life sentence, and 13.7 percent were criminal aliens. Figure 40 Special Population Groups Arizona Department of Corrections December 2007 6,000 5,182 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,703 1,451 781 1,000 117 131 Death Row Minors 265 Security Threat Groups Protective Segregation Life Sentence < 6 month to serve from intake Criminal Aliens Inmate Community Service Table 30: Inmate Hours of Community Even though offenders incarcerated in Service, 2007 Arizona’s correctional facilities are Community Betterment 120,801 removed from their communities, they are Public Sector Work Crews 1,314,400 provided opportunities to give back to ADOT Crews 217,796.5 citizens of Arizona. In 2007, inmates Fire Suppression/Brush-Abatement 291,160.5 provided nearly 2 million hours of Total 1,944,158 community service in the form of community betterment activities, public sector work crews, Arizona Department of Transportation crews, and fire suppression and brush abatement service (Table 30). At the minimum wage in Arizona at the time this report was written ($6.90/hour), ADC prisoners performed community service work worth approximately $13,414,690 in 2007. 60 Juvenile Justice System The Juvenile Justice Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, in coordination with the 15 county juvenile courts, is responsible for the effective administration of juvenile justice programs for delinquent and incorrigible youth. Juvenile justice activities are to be implemented consistent with constitutional, statutory, and administrative requirements, which focus on accountability, treatment, and rehabilitation as well as protection of the community and youth. The following data are from the Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System annual reports.37 As was the case with data sources used in previous sections of this report, the original data source contains information above and beyond what is reported here. The data that appears in this section is used to simply provide a general, but comprehensive overview of several measures of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice system activity. Juveniles Referred Police, parents, school officials, probation officers or other agencies or individuals can make a referral requesting that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over juvenile’s conduct. Referrals can be "paper referrals" issued as citations or police reports, or "physical referrals" in which the juvenile is physically brought to Juvenile Court. A juvenile can be referred more than once in a given year. The data that follow reflect an unduplicated count of juveniles referred within each year. From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2007, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court remained relatively stable at approximately 50,000 youth (Figure 41). During this same time, the juvenile population ages 8 – 17 was estimated to have increased from 668,233 to 946,686. Adjusting for this population increase, even though the number of referrals has remained stable, the referral rate has decreased by 31.6 percent. This again illustrates the paradox seen in Arizona justice system data that reflects reductions in crime without corresponding reductions in the burden on Arizona’s criminal justice system agencies. 37 http://www.supreme.state.az.us/jjsd/juvenilesproce/JuvProc.htm 61 Figure 41 Juveniles Referred FY1997 - FY2007 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 49,588 49,878 48,436 48,395 48,677 When looking at the offense class for which the juvenile was referred, from 1997 to 2007 the largest percentage of juveniles was referred were misdemeanors followed by felonies (Figure 42 and Table 31). During the time period analyzed, the percentage of all referrals that were for misdemeanor offenses generally increased from 1997 to 2005, before leveling off in 2006 and 2007. The percentage of all referrals that were for felonies decreased from 1997 to 1999 and throughout the rest of the time period remained relatively stable. In 2007, 29.9 percent of all referrals to juvenile court were for a felony offense. Significantly, the third largest offense class for referrals to juvenile court was for status offenses. Status offenses are behaviors that are illegal for children, but would not be considered criminal if committed by an adult (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, running away from home, truancy, etc.). Generally, throughout this time period approximately one out of every six referrals to Arizona’s Juvenile Court was for a status offense. 62 Figure 42 Juveniles Referred - Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 - FY2007 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1,766 2,101 2,183 2,319 2,547 2,805 2,656 2,453 2,491 2,203 0 Other 296 252 413 484 499 560 587 664 607 570 497 Status 9,400 9,652 8,869 8,596 9,341 8,737 8,203 8,089 7,655 8,593 Administrative 2007 8,437 2,163 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Misdemeanor 21,567 22,064 21,916 22,782 23,902 23,504 23,949 24,071 23,544 22,815 23,022 Felony 17,181 16,940 14,865 14,353 14,985 14,793 14,193 14,601 14,139 14,214 14,558 Table 31: Percent of Juveniles Referred by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 Felony 34.2 Misdemeanor 43.0 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 18.7 Other 0.6 Administrative 3.5 Total 100.0 1998 33.2 43.3 18.9 0.5 4.1 100.0 1999 30.8 45.4 18.4 0.9 4.5 100.0 2000 29.6 46.9 17.7 1.0 4.8 100.0 2001 29.2 46.6 18.2 1.0 5.0 100.0 2002 29.4 46.6 17.3 1.1 5.6 100.0 2003 28.6 48.3 16.5 1.2 5.4 100.0 2004 29.3 48.3 16.2 1.3 4.9 100.0 2005 29.2 48.6 15.8 1.3 5.1 100.0 2006 29.4 47.1 2007 29.9 47.3 17.8 1.2 4.6 100.0 4.4 17.3 1.0 0.0 100.0 As one would expect, Maricopa County has the most referrals of all Arizona counties (Table 32) and accounts for approximately half of all referrals statewide (Table 33). Pima County refers the second highest number of youth to juvenile court, accounting for approximately one out of five referrals statewide. From 1997 to 2007, the number of youth referred to the juvenile justice system increased in five of Arizona’s 15 counties: Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma. 63 Table 32: Juveniles Referred by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 424 1,849 2,166 1,072 486 172 234 24,000 1,795 1,284 10,192 2,074 470 1,872 2,120 50,210 1998 419 1,703 2,195 1,050 558 157 201 24,659 1,836 1,313 9,913 2,149 500 1,821 2,535 51,009 1999 346 1,625 1,896 1,058 484 103 193 22,818 1,858 1,158 9,742 2,035 789 1,886 2,255 48,246 2000 365 1,651 1,873 985 521 104 135 23,133 1,898 1,308 9,787 2,056 764 1,844 2,110 48,534 2001 309 1,658 1,829 851 513 103 190 26,145 2,225 1,272 9,595 2,222 633 1,849 1,880 51,274 2002 276 1,496 1,790 827 493 81 188 25,414 2,196 1,195 9,498 2,121 699 1,893 2,232 50,399 2003 282 1,553 1,753 923 437 84 204 24,680 2,218 1,128 9,193 2,325 702 1,737 2,369 49,588 2004 272 1,510 1,633 1,027 392 82 193 24,743 2,161 1,137 9,461 2,265 741 1,645 2,616 49,878 2005 235 1,325 1,568 983 389 72 135 23,852 2,030 1,009 9,627 2,308 762 1,669 2,472 48,436 2006 230 1,315 1,499 924 410 72 132 24,492 1,889 894 9,446 2,003 715 1,794 2,580 48,395 2007 258 1,215 1,318 841 462 98 151 25,437 1,927 917 8,921 2,171 601 1,713 2,647 48,677 2005 0.5 2.7 3.2 2.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 49.2 4.2 2.1 19.9 4.8 1.6 3.5 5.1 100.0 2006 0.5 2.7 3.1 1.9 0.9 0.2 0.3 50.6 3.9 1.9 19.5 4.1 1.5 3.7 5.3 100.0 2007 0.5 2.5 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.2 0.3 52.3 4.0 1.9 18.3 4.5 1.2 3.5 5.4 100.0 Table 33: Percent of Juveniles Referred by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 0.8 3.7 4.3 2.1 1.0 0.3 0.5 47.8 3.6 2.6 20.3 4.1 0.9 3.7 4.2 100.0 1998 0.8 3.3 4.3 2.1 1.1 0.3 0.4 48.3 3.6 2.6 19.4 4.2 1.0 3.6 5.0 100.0 1999 0.7 3.4 3.9 2.2 1.0 0.2 0.4 47.3 3.9 2.4 20.2 4.2 1.6 3.9 4.7 100.0 2000 0.8 3.4 3.9 2.0 1.1 0.2 0.3 47.7 3.9 2.7 20.2 4.2 1.6 3.8 4.4 100.0 2001 0.6 3.2 3.6 1.7 1.0 0.2 0.4 51.0 4.3 2.5 18.7 4.3 1.2 3.6 3.7 100.0 2002 0.6 3.0 3.6 1.6 1.0 0.2 0.4 50.4 4.4 2.4 18.9 4.2 1.4 3.8 4.4 100.0 2003 0.6 3.1 3.5 1.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 49.8 4.5 2.3 18.5 4.7 1.4 3.5 4.8 100.0 2004 0.6 3.0 3.4 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.4 49.6 4.3 2.3 19.0 4.5 1.5 3.3 5.2 100.2 Age From FY97 to FY07 there has been a slight shift in the age of youth that are referred to the juvenile justice system. During this time, the percentage of all referrals made up of youth ages 8 – 14 declined. In contrast, the percentage of youth ages 15 – 17 that are referred to the juvenile justice system has increased. In FY97, 64.5 percent of all referrals were of youth ages 15 – 17. In FY07, that percentage had increased to 68.9 percent (Table 35). 64 Table 34: Juveniles Referred by Age FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown Total 1997 241 423 732 1,315 2,564 4,705 7,333 9,600 10,955 11,850 492 50,210 1998 312 472 826 1,369 2,644 4,844 7,285 9,455 11,051 12,100 651 51,009 1999 264 455 787 1,228 2,571 4,651 6,747 8,968 10,461 11,533 581 48,246 2000 252 485 790 1,333 2,414 4,596 7,264 9,038 10,031 11,797 534 48,534 2001 284 561 838 1,429 2,805 4,997 7,400 9,602 10,452 12,422 484 51,274 2002 285 458 770 1,377 2,706 4,876 7,053 9,321 10,640 12,362 551 50,399 2003 270 459 734 1,259 2,595 4,734 6,959 8,938 10,444 12,607 589 49,588 2004 197 385 578 1,175 2,603 4,709 7,313 9,301 10,382 12,596 639 49,878 2005 198 328 513 1,059 2,304 4,530 7,180 9,235 10,270 12,258 561 48,436 2006 167 338 544 1,013 2,127 4,279 7,016 9,531 10,448 12,394 538 48,395 2007 194 311 481 960 2,010 4,043 6,576 9,566 11,006 12,976 554 48,677 2005 0.4 0.7 1.1 2.2 4.8 9.4 14.8 19.1 21.2 25.3 1.2 2006 0.4 0.7 1.1 2.1 4.4 8.8 14.5 19.7 21.6 25.6 1.1 2007 0.4 0.6 1.0 2.0 4.1 8.3 13.5 19.7 22.6 26.7 1.1 Table 35: Percent of Juveniles Referred by Age FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown 1997 0.5 0.8 1.5 2.6 5.1 9.4 14.6 19.1 21.8 23.6 1.0 1998 0.6 0.9 1.6 2.7 5.2 9.5 14.3 18.5 21.7 23.7 1.3 1999 0.6 0.9 1.6 2.6 5.3 9.6 14.0 18.6 21.7 23.9 1.2 2000 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.8 5.0 9.5 15.0 18.6 20.7 24.3 1.1 2001 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.8 5.5 9.8 14.4 18.7 20.4 24.2 0.9 2002 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.7 5.4 9.7 14.0 18.5 21.1 24.5 1.1 2003 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.5 5.2 9.6 14.0 18.0 21.1 25.4 1.2 2004 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.4 5.2 9.4 14.7 18.7 20.8 25.3 1.3 Gender Among youth that are referred to the juvenile justice system, males make up approximately two-thirds of referrals and females make up one-third. From FY97 to FY07 the percentage of all referrals to the juvenile justice system that were females ranged from a low of 31.9 percent in 1997 to a high of 34.8 percent in 2005 (Figure 43). 65 Figure 43 Juveniles Referred by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 6 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Female 16,022 16,598 15,636 16,160 17,050 17,194 16,788 16,742 16,854 16,320 16,251 Male 34,182 34,406 32,609 32,372 34,224 33,205 32,800 33,136 31,582 32,075 32,426 Unknown 2007 Race/Ethnicity38 Each year from FY97 to FY07, the percentage of all youth referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system that is Caucasian decreased. In FY97 Caucasian youth made up 53.4 percent of all youth referred and by FY07 that percentage had decreased to 45 percent. During this same time frame, the percentage of all referred youth that are Hispanic increased from 33.3 to 40.0 percent and the percentage referred that is AfricanAmerican increased from 6.6 to 7.8 percent. The percentage of all youth referred that were of other racial/ethnic categories remained relatively stable (Table 36 and 37). 38 One of the four core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 for states receiving federal juvenile justice funding is the monitoring and addressing of disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system. For a comprehensive assessment of racial and ethnic disparity in Arizona’s juvenile justice system, see http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/ComMinorities/docs.htm. 66 Table 36: Juveniles Referred by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 16,709 17,343 16,790 17,335 18,510 18,558 18,186 18,979 18,910 19,305 19,491 African American 3,321 3,291 3,149 3,070 3,298 3,179 3,224 3,502 3,505 3,669 3,787 Caucasian 26,822 26,503 24,767 24,468 25,792 25,095 24,748 23,925 22,439 22,009 21,915 Native American 2,823 3,034 2,736 2,829 2,777 2,736 2,614 2,727 2,796 2,449 2,474 Asian/Pacific Islander 249 242 239 301 288 240 238 247 232 283 300 Other 132 249 318 172 229 201 165 136 166 143 103 Unknown Total 154 347 247 359 380 390 413 362 388 537 607 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 49,588 49,878 48,436 48,395 48,677 Table 37: Percent of Juveniles Referred by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hispanic 33.3 34.0 34.8 35.7 36.1 36.8 36.7 38.1 39.0 39.9 40.0 African American 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.5 7.0 7.2 7.6 7.8 Caucasian 53.4 52.0 51.3 50.4 50.3 49.8 49.9 48.0 46.3 45.5 45.0 Native American 5.6 6.0 5.7 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.1 5.1 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 Other 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 Unknown 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 Juveniles Detained Juvenile detention in Arizona is used for the secure but temporary custody of juveniles that have been referred to the juvenile justice system. According to the Juvenile Justice Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a juvenile in Arizona may be detained for any of the following reasons: 1. If there is probably cause to believe that the juvenile committed the acts alleged in the petition, and there is reasonable cause to believe: a. That otherwise the juvenile would not be present at any hearing; b. That the juvenile is likely to commit an offense injurious to himself or others; c. That the juvenile must be held for another jurisdiction; d. That the interests of the juvenile or the public require custodial protection. 2. As a condition of probation.39 Statewide, from FY97 to FY02 the number of juveniles held in detention in Arizona increased (Figure 44) by 12.9 percent, from 12,094 to 13,660. Since 2002 there has been a steady decline in the number juveniles detained. By 2007 the number of youth detained was nearly equivalent to the number of youth detained in 1997. 39 Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System: FY2006. Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice Services Division. Research and Information Unit. 67 Figure 44 Juveniles Detained FY1997 - FY2007 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 12,094 13,022 12,639 13,075 13,594 13,660 12,913 12,688 12,079 12,068 12,107 Importantly, not all youth detained are a result of a referral; some youth are detained during the course of the year for court holds, warrants, probation consequences, or are held for another jurisdiction. Approximately two-third of detentions is a result of a new referral to the juvenile justice system. This was the case for most years from FY97 to FY07, with the exception of FY99 when slightly more than half (55%) of youth detained were detained because of a referral. Of those youth detained on a referral to the juvenile justice system, the majority are the result of a felony (Figure 45). From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of all detentions that were of youth charged with a felony ranged from a low of 50 percent in FY03 to 61.3 percent in FY97. Approximately one-fourth to one-third of all youth detained committed a misdemeanor as their most serious offense, and in 2007 13.8 percent of detentions were for a result of violations of probation and ordinances. 68 Figure 45 Juveniles Detained - Offense Class of the Most Serious Offense FY1997 - FY2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 876 1,009 660 1,018 1,060 1,171 1,244 1,116 1,169 1,010 0 Other 4 34 12 46 32 52 57 55 42 48 58 Status 245 373 273 257 218 208 193 213 135 144 Administrative 2007 152 1,065 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Misdemeanor 2,054 2,392 2,196 2,743 2,999 2,992 2,837 2,821 2,545 2,493 2,226 Felony 5,026 5,153 4,050 4,744 4,939 4,676 4,326 4,436 4,139 4,079 4,226 Table 38: Percent of Juveniles Detained by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Felony 61.3 57.5 56.3 53.9 53.4 51.4 50.0 51.3 51.5 52.5 Misdemeanor 25.0 26.7 30.5 31.1 32.4 32.9 32.8 32.7 31.7 32.1 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 3.0 4.2 3.8 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.5 1.7 1.9 Other 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 Administrative 10.7 11.3 9.2 11.6 11.5 12.9 14.4 12.9 14.6 13.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2007 54.7 28.8 13.8 2.0 0.8 0.0 100.0 As is expected given their number of referrals made, Maricopa County has the highest number of youth detained of all Arizona counties (Table 39) and accounts for approximately half of all youth detained statewide (Table 40). Pima County detains the second highest number of youth. From FY97 to FY07 the number of youth detained in Maricopa County decreased by 9.1 percent from 6,419 in FY97 to 5,832 in FY07. In contrast, although the number of youth detained in Pima County has been declining since FY01, the number of youth detained in FY07 was 8.6 percent higher than in FY97. From 1997 to 2007, the number of youth detained increased in eight of Arizona’s 15 counties: Gila, Graham, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, and Yuma. 69 Table 39: Juveniles Detained by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 156 402 421 217 86 84 62 6,419 372 337 1,683 600 221 472 562 12,094 1998 154 402 598 242 103 81 58 6,890 379 296 1,796 730 243 459 591 13,022 1999 117 385 763 319 86 131 36 6,310 371 294 1,797 643 249 525 613 12,639 2000 150 340 610 399 86 102 24 6,503 362 352 1,890 810 253 596 598 13,075 2001 117 354 395 460 180 32 38 6,648 379 394 2,385 739 251 629 593 13,594 2002 119 332 453 484 189 30 34 6,577 395 343 2,346 834 264 632 628 13,660 2003 147 367 356 343 190 27 37 6,186 388 256 2,288 787 253 547 741 12,913 2004 157 379 304 444 148 29 51 5,973 345 199 2,303 756 296 492 812 12,688 2005 124 304 303 325 155 29 35 5,568 389 192 2,197 790 312 578 778 12,079 2006 123 276 291 450 142 30 35 5,633 392 169 2,090 783 259 578 817 12,068 2007 131 259 294 477 185 21 33 5,823 410 170 1,827 752 275 569 881 12,107 2005 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.7 1.3 0.2 0.3 46.1 3.2 1.6 18.2 6.5 2.6 4.8 6.4 100.0 2006 1.0 2.3 2.4 3.7 1.2 0.3 0.3 46.7 3.3 1.4 17.3 6.5 2.2 4.8 6.8 100.0 2007 1.1 2.1 2.4 3.9 1.5 0.2 0.3 48.1 3.4 1.4 15.1 6.2 2.3 4.7 7.3 100.0 Table 40: Percent of Juveniles Detained by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 53.1 3.1 2.8 13.9 5.0 1.8 3.9 4.7 100.0 1998 1.2 3.1 4.6 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 52.9 2.9 2.3 13.8 5.6 1.9 3.5 4.5 100.0 1999 0.9 3.1 6.0 2.5 0.7 1.0 0.3 49.9 2.9 2.3 14.2 5.1 2.0 4.2 4.9 100.0 2000 1.2 2.6 4.7 3.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 49.7 2.8 2.7 14.5 6.2 1.9 4.6 4.6 100.0 2001 0.9 2.6 2.9 3.4 1.3 0.2 0.3 48.9 2.8 2.9 17.5 5.4 1.9 4.6 4.4 100.0 2002 0.9 2.4 3.3 3.5 1.4 0.2 0.3 48.2 2.9 2.5 17.2 6.1 1.9 4.6 4.6 100.0 2003 1.1 2.8 2.8 2.7 1.5 0.2 0.3 47.9 3.0 2.0 17.7 6.1 2.0 4.2 5.7 100.0 2004 1.2 3.0 2.4 3.5 1.2 0.2 0.4 47.1 2.7 1.6 18.2 6.0 2.3 3.9 6.4 100.1 Age From FY97 to FY07 there has been little change in the age of youth that are placed in Arizona’s detention centers. During this time period, there has been a very slight increase in the percentage of 16- and 17-year-olds in detention and a corresponding decrease in the percentage of 8-to-15-year-olds in detention (Tables 41 and 42). The slight shift in a larger percentage of older youth being detained is evident in the small 70 increase over time in the average age of youth being detained from a low of 15.36 in FY01 to a high of 15.62 in FY07. Table 41: Juveniles Detained by Age FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown Total 1997 2 12 46 110 323 794 1,580 2,514 3,088 3,563 62 12,094 1998 9 29 70 136 340 849 1,671 2,590 3,309 3,955 64 13,022 1999 4 20 59 152 361 941 1,578 2,445 3,173 3,849 57 12,639 2000 6 35 64 158 418 949 1,803 2,421 3,151 4,001 69 13,075 2001 5 39 92 161 419 992 1,836 2,683 3,227 4,063 77 13,594 2002 7 22 59 170 404 983 1,781 2,676 3,379 4,099 80 13,660 2003 6 23 63 120 334 829 1,572 2,420 3,226 4,239 81 12,913 2004 7 21 40 113 356 835 1,548 2,448 3,158 4,100 62 12,688 2005 6 16 43 97 266 747 1,516 2,330 3,047 3,939 72 12,079 2006 3 16 44 125 268 688 1,459 2,373 3,005 4,036 51 12,068 2007 2 13 39 80 233 650 1,339 2,347 3,193 4,151 60 12,107 2005 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 2.2 6.2 12.6 19.3 25.2 32.6 0.6 2006 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.0 2.2 5.7 12.1 19.7 24.9 33.4 0.4 2007 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.9 5.4 11.1 19.4 26.4 34.3 0.5 Table 42: Percent of Juveniles Detained by Age FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown 1997 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 2.7 6.6 13.1 20.8 25.5 29.5 0.5 1998 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.6 6.5 12.8 19.9 25.4 30.4 0.5 1999 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.2 2.9 7.5 12.5 19.3 25.1 30.5 0.5 2000 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.2 3.2 7.3 13.8 18.5 24.1 30.6 0.5 2001 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.2 3.1 7.3 13.5 19.7 23.7 29.9 0.6 2002 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.2 3.0 7.2 13.0 19.6 24.7 30.0 0.6 2003 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 2.6 6.4 12.2 18.7 25.0 32.8 0.6 2004 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 2.8 6.6 12.2 19.3 24.9 32.3 0.5 Gender Although nearly one-third of juvenile referrals from FY97 to FY07 are female, a smaller percentage, approximately one-fourth, is detained. During this time period the percentage of youth detained that are female ranged from a low of 21.9 percent in FY97 to a high of 26.0 percent in FY05 (Figure 46). Since FY05, the percentage of detentions that are female has decreased to 22.9 percent in FY07. 71 Figure 46 Juveniles Detained by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Female 2,646 3,068 2,902 3,171 3,314 3,493 3,299 3,238 3,136 3,000 2,767 Male 9,447 9,953 9,736 9,903 10,280 10,167 9,614 9,450 8,943 9,068 9,340 Unknown 2007 Race/Ethnicity Although approximately half of youth referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system are Caucasian, the percentage of detained youth that are Caucasian is consistently less than the percentage referred. As was noted above, the percentage of referrals of Caucasian youth ranged from 53.4 percent in FY97 to 45 percent in FY07. During this same time period, the percentage of detentions of Caucasian youth ranged from a 46.7 percent in FY97 to 36.7 percent in FY07. In contrast, the percentage of detentions that are of Hispanic, African-American, and Native American youth all increased during this time period. Figure 47 and Tables 43 and 44 contain data on the number and percentage of youth detained by race/ethnicity. 72 Figure 47 Juveniles Detained by Ethnicity FY1997 - FY2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1997 Hispanic 1998 1999 2000 African American Caucasian 2001 2002 Native American 2003 2004 2005 Asian/Pacific Islander 2006 Other 2007 Unknown Table 43: Juveniles Detained by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hispanic 4,652 4,980 4,893 5,119 5,427 5,692 5,497 5,381 5,153 5,293 5,581 African American 1,060 1,125 1,060 1,066 1,127 1,037 1,065 1,106 1,089 1,201 1,179 Caucasian 5,645 6,026 5,629 5,782 5,914 5,897 5,455 5,172 4,834 4,554 4,444 Native American 643 805 897 925 907 895 783 810 851 860 782 Asian/Pacific Islander 51 43 61 79 72 55 40 52 54 44 56 Other 37 39 76 72 113 54 35 132 67 87 41 6 4 23 32 34 30 38 35 31 29 24 12,094 13,022 12,639 13,075 13,594 13,660 12,913 12,688 12,079 12,068 12,107 2006 43.9 10.0 37.7 7.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 2007 46.1 9.7 36.7 6.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 Unknown Total Table 44: Percent of Juveniles Detained by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown 1997 38.5 8.8 46.7 5.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 1998 38.2 8.6 46.3 6.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 1999 38.7 8.4 44.5 7.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 2000 39.2 8.2 44.2 7.1 0.6 0.6 0.2 2001 39.9 8.3 43.5 6.7 0.5 0.8 0.3 2002 41.7 7.6 43.2 6.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 2003 42.6 8.3 42.2 6.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 2004 42.4 8.7 40.8 6.4 0.4 1.0 0.3 2005 42.7 9.0 40.0 7.1 0.5 0.6 0.3 73 Juveniles Diverted Many youth that are referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system are given opportunities to be diverted from formal juvenile court processing. Those who are statutorily excluded from diversion include youth who are chronic felony offenders (i.e., juveniles that have had two prior and separate adjudications for an offense that would be considered a felony if they were an adult), violent felony offenders, and those who are alleged to have committed an offense involving driving under the influence. For those juveniles that are not statutorily excluded from participation in a diversion program and except as provided in A.R.S. §8-323, the county attorney has sole discretion whether to divert youth. In order to be accepted into a diversion program, the youth must admit responsibility for the offense and successful completion of diversion is conditioned on the meeting of one or more consequences as described in statute.40 Figure 48 Juveniles Diverted FY1997 - FY2007 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 17,232 21,552 21,630 21,776 22,305 22,480 21,923 20,877 20,309 20,081 19,222 From FY97 to FY98, the number of juveniles who were successfully diverted from further juvenile court processing increased significantly (Figure 48). Since FY98, the number of youth successfully diverted remained relatively stable until FY02 when the 40 A.R.S. §8-321 74 number of successful diversions began to decline. From FY02 to FY07 the number of successful diversions decreased by 14.5 percent. Table 45: Percent of Juveniles Diverted by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 20.1 56.5 Felony Misdemeanor Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 21.1 Other 0.5 Administrative 1.8 1998 17.7 57.8 1999 15.6 58.7 2000 14.9 57.2 2001 15.2 56.3 2002 13.8 57.2 2003 13.7 59.8 2004 13.3 61.0 2005 15.5 60.7 2006 14.3 59.9 2007 13.6 61.4 22.7 0.3 1.5 23.8 0.8 1.2 26.0 0.5 1.4 27.3 0.2 1.0 27.3 0.2 1.5 24.9 0.3 1.3 24.0 0.5 1.2 22.2 0.4 1.2 24.7 0.4 0.8 0.7 24.0 0.3 0.0 When looking at the offense class for which youth were diverted from further involvement in Arizona’s juvenile justice system, the majority of diversions were of youth charged with a misdemeanor offense. From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of diversions of misdemeanor offenders ranged from a low of 56.5 percent in FY97 to a high of 61.4 percent in FY07 (Table 45). Additionally, a significant percentage of diversions from FY97 to FY07 were also of youth charged with status or felony offenses, although the percentage of diversions of youth charged with a felony offense declined from 20.1 percent in FY97 to 13.6 percent in FY07. Table 46: Juveniles Diverted by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 146 936 1,107 454 204 87 74 5,785 704 308 4,699 763 51 1,097 817 17,232 1998 164 969 1,100 453 369 87 91 9,774 694 436 4,345 968 77 923 1,102 21,552 1999 147 931 1,162 553 243 47 113 9,448 811 337 4,713 894 289 952 990 21,630 2000 135 1,017 990 455 277 38 75 9,618 865 328 4,923 903 228 991 933 21,776 2001 130 1,043 927 399 259 37 111 10,570 731 303 4,891 944 140 1,036 784 22,305 2002 77 940 854 378 182 16 108 11,189 684 315 4,741 881 168 939 1,008 22,480 2003 97 974 852 386 159 18 120 10,952 673 283 4,655 701 187 918 948 21,923 2004 78 908 828 353 126 28 95 10,114 653 272 4,765 657 157 832 1,011 20,877 2005 54 850 808 348 137 13 71 9,722 604 265 4,916 727 111 869 814 20,309 2006 63 859 740 306 151 14 54 9,795 598 209 4,628 634 76 935 1,019 20,081 2007 65 794 609 322 144 18 64 10,184 580 150 3,882 433 121 925 931 19,222 Of the 15 counties in Arizona, 12 diverted fewer youth in FY07 than in FY97 (Table 46). In most of these counties, the declines in diversions are consistent with a decline in their counties’ referrals. Only Mohave and Pinal County referred more youth to the juvenile court and both diverted fewer juveniles. Maricopa, Santa Cruz, and Yuma were 75 the three counties in Arizona that had more youth diverted from further involvement in the juvenile justice system in FY07 than in FY97, which may be in part a function of increases in their counties number of referrals. Age Generally speaking, there has been stability in the age of youth who are diverted from further involvement in the juvenile justice system (Tables 47 and 48). Although there was some very slight year-to-year variation in the percentage of youth diverted by age of the juvenile, that variation rarely exceeded a one percent change from one year to the next. When comparing the age of juveniles diverted to the age of juveniles referred, a slightly higher percentage of younger youth were diverted than those referred. For example, in FY07 38.5 percent of youth diverted were 14 years old or less; in contrast, 29.9 percent of youth referred were 14 years old or less. Table 47: Juveniles Diverted by Age, FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown Total 1997 112 177 311 603 1,159 2,113 3,007 3,358 3,516 2,864 12 17,232 1998 163 264 452 779 1,572 2,722 3,547 4,130 4,310 3,565 48 21,552 1999 132 262 466 732 1,553 2,687 3,647 4,310 4,206 3,556 79 21,630 2000 142 269 439 789 1,463 2,705 3,965 4,479 4,161 3,326 38 21,776 2001 160 307 470 816 1,607 2,794 3,937 4,614 4,075 3,450 75 22,305 2002 169 272 474 843 1,660 2,807 3,812 4,455 4,196 3,641 151 22,480 2003 169 288 436 776 1,624 2,702 3,638 4,321 4,133 3,693 143 21,923 2004 88 227 329 670 1,513 2,616 3,760 4,301 3,852 3,396 125 20,877 2005 92 182 283 599 1,343 2,579 3,689 4,196 3,883 3,385 78 20,309 2006 92 178 303 594 1,237 2,427 3,624 4,291 3,858 3,412 65 20,081 2007 97 167 247 518 1,131 2,115 3,206 4,199 3,955 3,515 72 19,222 2005 0.5 0.9 1.4 3.0 6.6 12.7 18.2 20.7 19.1 16.7 0.4 100.0 2006 0.5 0.9 1.5 3.0 6.2 12.1 18.1 21.4 19.2 17.0 0.3 100.0 2007 Table 48: Percent of Juveniles Diverted by Age, FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown Total 1997 0.7 1.0 1.8 3.5 6.7 12.3 17.5 19.5 20.4 16.6 0.1 100.0 1998 0.8 1.2 2.1 3.6 7.3 12.6 16.5 19.2 20.0 16.5 0.2 100.0 1999 0.6 1.2 2.2 3.4 7.2 12.4 16.9 19.9 19.5 16.4 0.4 100.0 2000 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.6 6.7 12.4 18.2 20.6 19.1 15.3 0.2 100.0 2001 0.7 1.4 2.1 3.7 7.2 12.5 17.7 20.7 18.3 15.5 0.3 100.0 2002 0.8 1.2 2.1 3.8 7.4 12.5 17.0 19.8 18.7 16.2 0.7 100.0 2003 0.8 1.3 2.0 3.5 7.4 12.3 16.6 19.7 18.9 16.9 0.7 100.0 2004 0.4 1.1 1.6 3.2 7.3 12.5 18.0 20.6 18.5 16.3 0.6 100.1 0.9 1.3 2.7 5.9 11.0 16.7 21.8 20.6 18.3 0.4 99.5 76 Gender Although nearly one-third of juvenile referrals from FY97 to FY07 are female, a slightly larger percentage of females, approximately four out of every ten, are diverted. During this time period the percentage of youth diverted who are female ranged from a low of 35.9 percent in FY97 to a high of 40.7 percent in FY05 (Figure 49). Figure 49 Juveniles Diverted by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Female 6,180 7,979 7,952 8,470 8,602 9,045 8,680 8,276 8,256 7,991 7,687 Male 11,049 13,570 13,678 13,305 13,703 13,435 13,243 12,601 12,053 12,090 11,535 Unknown 2007 Race/Ethnicity Consistent with changes over time in the number and percentage of youth referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system by race and ethnicity, the percentage of Hispanic and African-American youth diverted from further involvement in the juvenile justice system increased from FY97 to FY07 while the percentage of Caucasian youth decreased (Tables 49 and 50). 77 Table 49: Juveniles Diverted by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 5,255 7,122 7,371 7,589 7,901 8,197 7,775 7,761 7,737 7,896 2007 7,460 837 1,152 1,232 1,153 1,257 1,243 1,325 1,363 1,348 1,297 1,241 9,933 11,815 11,518 11,490 11,609 11,474 11,319 10,329 9,704 9,466 9,164 998 1,147 1,145 1,074 1,054 1,093 1,023 1,044 1,095 909 852 Native American Asian/Pacific Islander 105 124 132 161 129 123 134 115 125 151 141 Other 48 101 131 75 112 108 88 67 82 57 35 56 91 101 234 243 242 259 198 218 305 329 17,232 21,552 21,630 21,776 22,305 22,480 21,923 20,877 20,309 20,081 19,222 Unknown Total Table 50: Percent of Juveniles Diverted by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 30.5 33.1 34.1 34.9 35.4 36.5 35.5 37.2 38.1 39.3 38.8 African American 4.9 5.4 5.7 5.3 5.6 5.5 6.0 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.5 Caucasian 57.6 54.8 53.3 52.8 52.1 51.0 51.6 49.5 47.8 47.1 47.7 Native American 5.8 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.0 5.4 4.5 4.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 Other 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 Unknown 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.7 Juvenile Petitions Filed Juvenile petitions are filed by the county attorney’s office alleging delinquent behavior and requesting juvenile court jurisdiction over the alleged delinquent offender. Petitions initiate the formal juvenile court processing of youth. After general increases in the number of petitions filed from FY97 to FY00, the number of petitions filed since FY00 has declined slightly (Figure 50). From FY97 to FY00, the number of juvenile petitions increased 13.9 percent. From FY00 to FY07, there has been a similar decrease in the number of petitions filed, returning the number of petitions filed to approximately the same level in FY07 that was seen in FY97. 78 Figure 50 Juvenile Petitions Filed FY1997 - FY2007 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 17,733 18,496 18,186 20,204 19,983 19,036 17,903 18,799 18,329 18,055 17,958 Although the number of petitions filed in FY07 was approximately equivalent to the number of petitions filed in FY97, an analysis of the offense class for which those petitions were filed reveals a significant shift in the types of offenses for which petitions were filed (Tables 51 and 52). The percentage of all petitions filed in FY97 of youth charged with a felony offense was 57.1 percent, but by FY07 that percentage declined to 45.3 percent of all petitions filed. Over this same time, there is a somewhat corresponding increasing shift in the percentage of petitions filed of youth charged with misdemeanor offenses, from 30.1 percent in FY97 to 38.8 percent in FY07. Table 51: Juveniles Petitions Filed by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 10,127 9,621 8,876 8,362 8,679 8,281 7,566 8,278 8,058 8,254 8,137 Misdemeanor 5,329 Violations of Probation & Ordinances 6,097 6,500 8,037 7,362 7,245 7,087 7,543 7,296 7,118 6,962 Felony 2007 2,080 Status 596 692 651 1,578 1,519 927 803 755 637 616 734 Other 7 0 70 83 16 14 44 50 51 57 45 1,673 2,086 2,089 2,144 2,407 2,569 2,403 2,173 2,287 2,010 0 Administrative Unknown Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,733 18,496 18,186 20,204 19,983 19,036 17,903 18,799 18,329 18,055 17,958 79 Table 52: Percent of Juveniles Petitions Filed by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 Felony 57.1 Misdemeanor 30.1 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 3.4 Other 0.0 Administrative 9.4 Unknown 0.0 1998 52.0 33.0 3.7 0.0 11.3 0.0 1999 48.8 35.7 3.6 0.4 11.5 0.0 2000 41.4 39.8 7.8 0.4 10.6 0.0 2001 43.4 36.8 2002 43.5 38.1 7.6 0.1 12.1 0.0 4.9 0.1 13.5 0.0 2003 42.3 39.6 4.5 0.3 13.4 0.0 2004 44.0 40.1 4.0 0.3 11.6 0.0 2005 44.0 39.8 3.5 0.3 12.5 0.0 2006 45.7 39.4 2007 45.3 38.8 3.4 0.3 11.1 0.0 11.6 4.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Change over time in the number of petitions filed by each county is mostly consistent with the changes over time in the number of referrals in each county; in other words, in most counties the direction of the change (i.e., increases or decreases) in the number of petitions filed is in the same direction as the number of referrals. Three counties were exceptions to these trends, Coconino, Pinal, and Yavapai. From FY97 to FY07, in Coconino and Yavapai counties the number of referrals decreased and the number of petitions filed increased (Tables 53 and 54). In contrast, in Pinal County the number of referrals increased from FY97 to FY07 and the number of petitions filed decreased. Table 53: Juveniles Petitions Filed by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 166 455 540 386 263 61 94 9,110 547 382 3,313 892 280 528 716 17,733 1998 156 464 604 371 277 68 71 9,838 621 391 3,063 795 296 597 884 18,496 1999 124 430 538 374 285 44 77 9,214 553 431 2,994 949 466 704 1,003 18,186 2000 142 420 536 367 266 49 36 10,921 568 445 3,193 1,106 515 716 924 20,204 2001 156 435 533 334 264 63 50 10,719 560 448 3,394 947 383 679 1,018 19,983 2002 108 432 641 364 276 44 45 9,464 560 430 3,364 1,072 371 758 1,107 19,036 2003 112 453 563 344 229 46 69 8,699 592 417 3,280 979 411 612 1,097 17,903 2004 154 511 597 354 233 45 71 9,223 662 405 3,285 1,004 474 616 1,165 18,799 2005 144 373 539 295 216 46 43 9,086 637 453 3,172 1,077 517 686 1,045 18,329 2006 128 436 554 281 234 46 49 9,169 651 344 2,918 923 496 670 1,156 18,055 2007 126 420 545 356 245 53 55 9,497 573 300 2,638 857 376 731 1,186 17,958 80 Table 54: Percent of Juveniles Petitions Filed by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 1997 0.9 2.6 3.1 2.2 1.5 0.3 0.5 51.4 3.1 2.2 18.7 5.0 1.6 3.0 4.0 1998 0.8 2.5 3.3 2.0 1.5 0.4 0.4 53.2 3.4 2.1 16.6 4.3 1.6 3.2 4.8 1999 0.7 2.4 3.0 2.1 1.6 0.2 0.4 50.7 3.0 2.4 16.5 5.2 2.6 3.9 5.5 2000 0.7 2.1 2.7 1.8 1.3 0.2 0.2 54.1 2.8 2.2 15.8 5.5 2.6 3.5 4.6 2001 0.8 2.2 2.7 1.7 1.3 0.3 0.3 53.6 2.8 2.2 17.0 4.7 1.9 3.4 5.1 2002 0.6 2.3 3.4 1.9 1.5 0.2 0.2 49.7 2.9 2.3 17.7 5.6 2.0 4.0 5.8 2003 0.6 2.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 0.3 0.4 48.6 3.3 2.3 18.3 5.5 2.3 3.4 6.1 2004 0.9 2.7 3.2 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.4 49.0 3.5 2.2 17.5 5.3 2.5 3.3 6.2 2005 0.8 2.0 2.9 1.6 1.2 0.3 0.2 49.6 3.5 2.5 17.3 5.9 2.8 3.7 5.7 2006 0.7 2.4 3.1 1.6 1.3 0.3 0.3 50.8 3.6 1.9 16.2 5.1 2.8 3.7 6.4 2007 0.7 2.3 3.0 2.0 1.4 0.3 0.3 52.9 3.2 1.7 14.7 4.8 2.1 4.1 6.6 Age As was seen in the age of youth being referred to the juvenile justice system over time, from FY97 to FY07 there has been a corresponding shift in the age of youth for which petitions are filed. During this time, the percentage of all petitions filed of youth ages 8 – 15 declined. In contrast, the percentage of youth ages 16 and 17 for which petitions were filed increased slightly; in FY97, 49.6 percent of all petitions filed were of youth ages 16 and 17. In FY07, that percentage had increased to 54.4 percent (Table 55). Table 55: Percent of Juveniles Petitions Filed by Age FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown 1997 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.9 3.9 7.9 14.4 20.7 25.0 24.6 0.2 1998 0.2 0.6 1.2 2.0 4.2 8.3 14.4 19.8 24.7 24.6 0.2 1999 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.9 4.3 8.9 14.2 19.7 24.0 25.0 0.1 2000 0.2 0.7 1.1 2.0 4.2 8.8 14.8 20.0 22.8 25.4 0.1 2001 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.2 4.7 9.2 14.1 20.1 22.9 24.6 0.2 2002 0.2 0.5 1.1 2.1 4.1 9.0 13.9 19.8 24.1 25.1 0.2 2003 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.7 3.7 8.3 13.7 19.3 24.3 27.5 0.2 2004 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.6 4.1 7.8 14.0 19.8 23.8 27.4 0.2 2005 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.3 3.4 7.8 14.6 20.2 24.5 26.8 0.2 2006 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.5 3.2 7.2 13.9 20.7 24.9 27.6 0.1 2007 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 3.0 6.8 13.0 20.3 26.0 28.4 0.2 81 Gender Generally speaking, approximately one-fourth of all petitions filed are for females, ranging from a low of 21.8 percent in FY97 to a high of 26.9 percent in FY05 (Figure 51). From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of all petitions filed that are female ranged from a low of 21.8 in FY97 to a high of 26.9 in FY05. These percentages are considerably lower than the percentage of all referrals that are female, suggesting that a larger percentage of female youth for whom referrals are made are being successfully diverted from further involvement in the juvenile justice system than male youth. Figure 51 Juvenile Petitions Filed by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Female 3,865 4,367 4,336 5,186 5,150 5,036 4,717 4,860 4,938 4,533 4,285 Male 13,867 14,129 13,850 15,017 14,833 14,000 13,186 13,939 13,391 13,522 13,673 Unknown 2007 Race/Ethnicity Although approximately half of youth referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system are Caucasian, the percentage of petitions filed for Caucasian youth is consistently lower than the percentage referred. The percentage of referrals that were Caucasian ranged from 53.4 percent in FY97 to 45 percent in FY07. During this same time period, the percentage of petitions filed on Caucasian youth ranged from 48.2 percent in FY97 to 40.2 percent in FY07. In contrast, the percentage of all petitions filed that are of Hispanic and African-American youth increased during the same time period. Tables 56 82 and 57 contain data on the number and percentage of youth for whom petitions were filed by race/ethnicity. Table 56: Juvenile Petitions Filed by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hispanic 6,596 6,760 6,798 7,843 7,902 7,659 7,328 7,778 7,611 7,738 7,821 African American 1,492 1,544 1,490 1,567 1,503 1,454 1,320 1,555 1,613 1,653 1,673 Caucasian 8,544 8,988 8,697 9,381 9,184 8,662 8,111 8,168 7,707 7,410 7,225 Native American 962 1,058 1,076 1,166 1,143 1,081 966 1,112 1,210 1,077 1,049 Asian/Pacific Islander 81 67 61 107 97 77 68 82 66 76 86 Other 46 64 51 81 75 60 45 42 58 47 38 Unknown 12 15 13 59 79 43 65 62 64 54 66 17,733 18,496 18,186 20,204 19,983 19,036 17,903 18,799 18,329 18,055 17,958 2006 42.9 9.2 41.0 6.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 2007 43.6 9.3 40.2 5.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 Total Table 57: Percent of Juvenile Petitions Filed by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown 1997 37.2 8.4 48.2 5.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 1998 36.6 8.4 48.6 5.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 1999 37.4 8.2 47.8 5.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 2000 38.8 7.8 46.4 5.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 2001 39.5 7.5 46.0 5.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 2002 40.2 7.6 45.5 5.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 2003 40.9 7.4 45.3 5.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 2004 41.4 8.3 43.5 6.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 2005 41.5 8.8 42.1 6.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 Juveniles in Adult Court Like most states around the country, there are several methods for Arizona juveniles charged with a delinquent offense to have their case transferred to adult court. The “mandatory” transfer of a juvenile’s case to adult court occurs if the juvenile is 15 years of age or older and is accused of any of the following offenses: 1. First degree murder; 2. Second degree murder; 3. Forcible sexual assault; 4. Armed robbery; 5. Any other violent felony offense;41 6. Any felony offense committed by a chronic felony offender;42 or 7. Any felony offense that is properly joined to an offense listed above.43 41 Other violent offense is defined by A.R.S. §13-501(G)(5a) as aggravated assault, drive-by shooting, or discharging a firearm at a structure. 42 Chronic felony offender is defined by A.R.S. §13-501(G)(2) as a juvenile who has had two prior and separate adjudications and dispositions for conduct that would constitute a historical prior felony conviction if the juvenile had been tried as an adult. 43 A.R.S. §13-501(A)1-7 83 The “mandatory prior” transfer of a juvenile’s case to adult court occurs when the juvenile has been accused of a criminal offense and previously has been convicted of a felony offense in adult court.44 “Discretionary” transfers give county attorneys the option of moving a juvenile’s case to adult court if the juvenile is at least 14 years of age and is accused of any of the following offenses: 1. A class 1 felony; 2. A class 2 felony; 3. A class 3 felony in violation of any offense in A.R.S. §13-10-17, A.R.S. §13-19, or A.R.S. §13-23; 4. A class 3, 4, 5, or 6 felony involving the intentional infliction of serious physical injury, or use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or instrument. 5. Any felony offense committed by a chronic felony offender; or 6. Any offense properly joined to any of the offenses listed above.45 Finally, the county attorney may request that a juvenile be transferred to adult court, which results in a transfer hearing. If the judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that probable cause exists to believe that the juvenile committed the offense and that public safety would be served best by transferring the case to adult court, the judge will order the case transferred.46 The data that follows both summarizes the use of the transfer provisions across all types of transfers and in some cases looks at each type of transfer separately. After an initial 52.1 percent increase from FY97 to FY98 in the number of juveniles transferred to adult court, from FY98 to FY05 the number of juvenile transferred to adult court decreased 54.1 percent from 1,083 juveniles in FY98 to 497 in FY05 (Figure 52). Since FY05, the number of juveniles transferred to adult court has increased by 18.3 percent from 497 juveniles transferred in FY05 to 588 in FY07. 44 45 46 A.R.S. §13-501(C) A.R.S. §13-501(B)1-6 A.R.S. §8-237(A-C) 84 Figure 52 Juveniles Filed in Adult Court FY1997 - FY2007 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 712 1,083 883 762 668 575 567 498 497 564 588 When looking at the different types of transfers to adult court from FY98 to FY07, the two types of transfers that result in the largest percentage of youth being tried in adult court are mandatory and discretionary transfers (Figure 53). In most years, approximately one-third of all transfers are a result of a juvenile of sufficient age committing an offense that requires the case to be tried in adult court and another approximate third are transferred to adult court because of county attorneys exercising their discretion to do so within the parameters set out in statute. The increase in the total number of juveniles transferred to adult court from FY05 to FY07 is mostly explained by a 42.5 percent increase in the number of mandatory transfers to adult court. 85 Figure 53 Pathways for Juveniles Filed in Adult Court FY1998 - FY2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Transfer 336 114 147 85 98 97 105 95 73 2007 64 Discretionary 284 307 237 247 197 199 140 164 157 181 Chronic 84 114 80 68 62 40 61 57 77 78 Mandatory Prior Conviction 19 39 47 42 32 46 26 14 38 27 Mandatory 360 309 251 226 186 185 166 167 219 238 Direct Files to Adult Court In Arizona, direct files to adult court include mandatory, mandatory prior conviction, chronic, and discretionary transfers. What these types of transfers have in common is that the court has no authority to deny the transfer. Instead, the transfer decision is defined in statute and either pre-determined by the offense for which the juvenile was charged, the age of the juvenile, and in some cases the criminal history of the juvenile (i.e., chronic felony offender), or the result of the discretion given to county attorneys to have a juvenile’s case tried in adult court consistent with statute. From FY98 to FY07, direct files accounted for a low of 69 percent of all transfers to adult court in FY98 to a high of 90.1 percent in FY07. Because the majority of transfers of juveniles to adult court are direct filed, the trend over time in the number of direct files is consistent with the trend over time in the number of all transfers to adult court (Figure 54). 86 Figure 54 Juveniles with Direct File to Adult Court FY1997 - FY2007 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 66 747 769 615 583 477 470 393 402 491 524 Given the concentration of the majority of the population of the state in two metropolitan areas (Maricopa and Pima counties), it not surprising that these two counties account for the vast majority of direct file transfers to adult court (Table 58). From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of all direct files to adult court that occurred in Maricopa and Pima counties ranged from 80.3 percent in FY99 to 90.9 percent in FY04 (Table 59). It is also worth noting that, although their numbers are relatively low, both Pinal and Yuma counties have seen significant percentage increases in the number of direct files of juveniles to adult court from FY05 to FY07 (100 and 183.3 percent, respectively). 87 Table 58: Number of Juveniles Direct Filed to Adult Court by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 52 0 0 6 2 1998 0 15 8 15 6 0 4 470 21 5 143 36 1999 3 16 11 5 12 0 2 469 17 15 148 32 2000 0 7 11 7 12 0 2 393 9 6 117 32 2001 1 9 11 5 11 0 2 365 8 8 122 11 2002 0 4 10 1 1 0 0 296 12 5 112 14 2003 0 11 6 1 1 1 0 301 4 4 96 22 2004 1 2 9 1 0 0 0 258 3 0 99 10 2005 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 280 9 2 82 9 2006 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 334 6 2 100 15 2007 0 0 6 1 4 0 0 368 4 1 96 18 0 2 3 66 3 8 13 747 3 11 25 769 3 10 6 615 8 8 14 583 4 5 13 477 7 5 11 470 2 2 6 393 6 1 6 402 2 3 15 491 8 1 17 524 2006 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.0 1.2 0.4 20.4 3.1 0.4 0.6 3.1 2007 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 70.2 0.8 0.2 18.3 3.4 1.5 0.2 3.2 Table 59: Percent of Juveniles Direct Filed to Adult Court by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 1997 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.8 0.0 0.0 9.1 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.6 1998 0.0 2.0 1.1 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 62.9 2.8 0.7 19.1 4.8 0.4 1.1 1.7 1999 0.4 2.1 1.4 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.3 61.0 2.2 2.0 19.3 4.2 0.4 1.4 3.3 2000 0.0 1.1 1.8 1.1 2.0 0.0 0.3 63.9 1.5 1.0 19.0 5.2 0.5 1.6 1.0 2001 0.2 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.9 0.0 0.3 62.6 1.4 1.4 20.9 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.4 2002 0.0 0.8 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 62.1 2.5 1.1 23.5 2.9 0.8 1.1 2.7 2003 0.0 2.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 64.0 0.9 0.9 20.4 4.7 1.5 1.1 2.3 2004 0.3 0.5 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.7 0.8 0.0 25.2 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2005 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.7 2.2 0.5 20.4 2.2 1.5 0.3 1.5 Gender The vast majority of juveniles direct filed to adult court are males. From FY97 to FY07 males accounted for approximately 90 to 95 percent of all direct files to adult court (Figure 55). 88 Figure 55 Juveniles Direct Filed to Adult Court by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Female 6 49 48 31 31 30 29 21 24 25 2007 32 Male 60 698 721 584 552 447 441 372 378 466 492 Race/Ethnicity With the exception of FY97, Hispanic youth made up the largest percentage of youth direct filed to adult court (Tables 60 and 61). Although Hispanic youth constituted 33 to 40 percent of youth referred to the juvenile justice system from FY97 to FY07, during that same time they comprised 35 to 61 percent of all direct files to adult court. Even though there has been significant year-to-year variation in the percentage of Hispanic youth direct filed to adult court, over time the percentage has generally increased to where almost two out of every three youth direct filed to adult court in FY07 were Hispanic. Table 60: Number of Direct Files to Adult Court by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown Total 1997 23 24 16 3 0 0 0 66 1998 353 79 273 35 5 1 1 747 1999 365 95 275 29 4 1 0 769 2000 301 72 200 31 3 0 8 615 2001 295 61 188 25 5 4 5 583 2002 235 49 157 27 2 1 6 477 2003 271 53 121 23 0 1 1 470 2004 221 52 104 15 1 0 0 393 2005 216 60 101 13 6 1 5 402 2006 249 78 136 21 3 2 2 491 2007 320 74 107 18 2 2 1 524 89 Table 61: Percentage of Direct Files to Adult Court by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown 1997 34.9 36.4 24.2 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 47.3 10.6 36.6 4.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 1999 47.5 12.4 35.8 3.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 2000 48.9 11.7 32.5 5.0 0.5 0.0 1.3 2001 50.6 10.5 32.3 4.3 0.9 0.7 0.9 2002 49.3 10.3 32.9 5.7 0.4 0.2 1.3 2003 57.7 11.3 25.7 4.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 2004 56.2 13.2 26.5 3.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 2005 53.7 14.9 25.1 3.2 1.5 0.3 1.2 2006 50.7 15.9 27.7 4.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 2007 61.1 14.1 20.4 3.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 Transfers to Adult Court Since the late 1990s, the number of youth transferred through a process where the county attorney may request that a juvenile’s case be transferred to adult court has dropped dramatically (Figure 56). In FY97, 646 juveniles had their cases transferred to adult court in this manner and by FY99 that number had dropped to 114. This precipitous decline in the number of juveniles transferred to adult court can be explained, in part, by the introduction of direct file transfer options that took effect in July 1997. Since FY00, the number of youth transferred to adult court has declined to a low of 64 youth transferred in FY07. Figure 56 Juveniles Transferred to Adult Court FY1997 - FY2007 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 646 336 114 147 85 98 97 105 95 71 64 90 Not surprisingly, the vast majority of youth transferred to adult court were charged with a felony offense (Tables 62 and 63). With the exception of FY03, more than 90 percent of youth transferred to adult court were charged with a felony. Interestingly, after the direct files options were introduced, there was a slight increase in the percentage of transfers of youth whose most serious charges were misdemeanors. Prior to FY00, no more than 3.8 percent of transfers to adult court were of juveniles charged with a misdemeanor. In FY00, 9 percent of youth transferred to adult court had as their most serious charge a misdemeanor. Since FY00 there has been significant year-to-year variation in the percentage of youth transferred to adult court where the most serious offense in the incident was a misdemeanor, ranging from a low of 4.8 percent in FY04 to a high of 12.4 percent in FY03. Table 62: Number of Transfers to Adult Court by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 Felony 633 Misdemeanor 12 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 0 Other 0 Administrative 1 Total 646 1998 325 11 1999 114 0 2000 132 13 2001 78 7 2002 91 7 2003 83 12 2004 100 5 2005 90 5 2006 67 4 2007 59 5 0 0 0 336 0 0 0 114 1 1 0 147 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 98 0 0 2 97 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 64 Table 63: Percentage of Transfers to Adult Court by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 Felony 98.0 Misdemeanor 1.9 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 0.0 Other 0.0 Administrative 0.2 1998 96.7 3.3 1999 100.0 0.0 2000 89.8 8.8 2001 91.8 8.2 2002 92.9 7.1 2003 85.6 12.4 2004 95.2 4.8 2005 94.7 5.3 2006 93.2 6.9 2007 92.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 In most years, the two most populous counties in Arizona, Maricopa and Pima, accounted for the majority of transfers of juveniles to adult court from FY97 to FY07 (Tables 64 and 65). Every year, Maricopa County accounted for the largest percentage of transfers statewide, ranging from a low of 48.2 percent in FY01 to a high of 71.2 percent in FY06. Although Pima County is the second most populous county in Arizona, in FY02 and FY03, Gila County transferred more youth to adult court than Pima County and in FY05 and FY07, Yavapai County transferred more youth to adult court than any other county except for Maricopa. 91 Table 64: Number of Transfers to Adult Court by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 0 8 6 17 7 0 2 421 34 13 84 22 5 9 18 646 1998 1 0 4 4 1 0 1 236 9 6 52 4 0 9 9 336 1999 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 65 2 4 27 0 0 4 4 114 2000 1 1 0 7 3 0 0 84 8 4 20 6 0 8 5 147 2001 0 2 0 4 2 1 0 41 3 2 18 9 1 2 0 85 2002 0 1 1 15 0 0 0 51 2 4 10 2 5 7 0 98 2003 0 4 0 11 0 0 0 52 4 1 10 1 0 4 10 97 2004 1 2 0 3 1 1 0 56 4 1 16 5 0 10 5 105 2005 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 64 4 0 9 0 3 11 3 95 2006 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 52 1 0 5 0 0 5 6 71 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 40 4 1 2 0 0 9 7 64 2006 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 71.2 1.4 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.9 8.2 97.3 2007 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 62.5 6.3 1.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 14.1 10.9 100.0 Table 65: Percentage of Transfers to Adult Court by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 0.0 1.2 0.9 2.6 1.1 0.0 0.3 65.2 5.3 2.0 13.0 3.4 0.8 1.4 2.8 100.0 1998 0.3 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 70.2 2.7 1.8 15.5 1.2 0.0 2.7 2.7 100.0 1999 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.8 0.0 1.8 57.0 1.8 3.5 23.7 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 100.0 2000 0.7 0.7 0.0 4.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 5.4 2.7 13.6 4.1 0.0 5.4 3.4 100.0 2001 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.7 2.4 1.2 0.0 48.2 3.5 2.4 21.2 10.6 1.2 2.4 0.0 100.0 2002 0.0 1.0 1.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 2.0 4.1 10.2 2.0 5.1 7.1 0.0 100.0 2003 0.0 4.1 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.6 4.1 1.0 10.3 1.0 0.0 4.1 10.3 100.0 2004 1.0 1.9 0.0 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.0 53.3 3.8 1.0 15.2 4.8 0.0 9.5 4.8 100.2 2005 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.4 4.2 0.0 9.5 0.0 3.2 11.6 3.2 100.0 Gender As is the case with most juvenile justice processes, males accounted for the majority of transfers to adult court from FY97 to FY07 (Figure 57). The transfer of males to adult court ranged from a high of 97.9 percent in FY05 to a low of 87.3 percent in FY06. 92 Figure 57 Juveniles Transferred to Adult Court by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Female 29 19 6 11 2 12 11 9 2 9 2007 2 Male 617 317 108 136 83 86 86 96 93 62 62 Race/Ethnicity With the exception of FY00, from FY97 to FY07 Hispanic youth accounted for the largest percentage of transfers to adult court (Tables 66 and 67). During this time the percentage of all youth transferred who were of Hispanic ethnicity ranged from a low of 38.1 percent in FY00 to a high of 71.2 percent in FY06. During this same time, with the exception of FY00, Caucasian youth accounted for the second largest percentage of youth transferred to adult court, ranging from a low of 21.9 percent in FY06 to a high of 48.3 in FY00. Table 66: Number of Transfers to Adult Court by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 282 158 51 56 45 47 53 63 47 50 36 African American 80 51 20 17 2 6 8 3 5 4 5 Caucasian 247 110 37 71 32 41 29 36 39 16 21 Native American 29 12 5 3 6 3 6 1 3 1 2 Asian/Pacific Islander 6 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Other 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Unknown Total 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 646 336 114 147 85 98 97 105 95 71 64 93 Table 67: Percentage of Transfers to Adult Court by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 56.3 Hispanic 43.7 47.0 44.7 38.1 52.9 48.0 54.6 60.0 49.5 71.2 African American 12.4 15.2 17.5 11.6 2.4 6.1 8.3 2.9 5.3 5.5 7.8 Caucasian 38.2 32.7 32.5 48.3 37.7 41.8 29.9 34.3 41.1 21.9 32.8 Native American 4.5 3.6 4.4 2.0 7.1 3.1 6.2 1.0 3.2 1.4 3.1 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juveniles Placed on Standard Probation Most youth who are adjudicated delinquent in Arizona are placed on standard probation. Juveniles who are placed on standard probation are given a set of conditions with which they must comply. Some of those conditions are standard conditions that apply to all youth on probation (e.g., scheduled contacts with a probation officer and law-abiding behavior) and some are added conditions based on the needs of the youth and the circumstances of the case. Figure 58 Disposition of Standard Probation FY1997 - FY2007 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 8,989 9,436 9,199 10,830 11,039 10,870 10,244 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 94 After a general increase from FY97 to FY01, from FY01 to FY05 there was a gradual and general decrease in the number of youth placed on standard probation (Figure 58). Since FY05 the number of youth placed on standard probation has remained relatively constant, with only very small increases in the number of youth placed on standard probation. The most serious offense for which youth placed on standard probation were charged has remained relatively constant throughout the time period examined (Tables 68 and 69). From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation for a felony offense ranged from a low of 47.1 percent in FY03 to a high of 56.9 percent in FY97. Similarly, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation who were charged with a misdemeanor offense remained relatively constant, ranging from a low of 29.2 percent in FY97 to a high of 35.8 percent in FY06. Table 68: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Felony 5,111 5,230 4,844 5,326 5,292 5,355 4,825 5,025 4,936 5,082 5,280 Misdemeanor Violations of Probation & Ordinances 2,625 2,939 3,013 3,573 3,442 3,599 3,556 3,754 3,507 3,599 3,404 1,037 Status 280 243 234 695 907 506 417 373 298 249 293 Other 90 99 137 216 162 156 155 172 160 142 143 Administrative Total 883 925 971 1,020 1,236 1,254 1,291 1,200 1,142 994 0 8,989 9,436 9,199 10,830 11,039 10,870 10,244 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 Table 69: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 Felony 56.9 Misdemeanor 29.2 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 3.1 Other 1.0 Administrative 9.8 1998 55.4 31.2 1999 52.7 32.8 2000 49.2 33.0 2001 47.9 31.2 2002 49.3 33.1 2003 47.1 34.7 2004 47.8 35.7 2005 49.2 34.9 2006 50.5 35.8 2007 52.0 33.5 2.6 1.1 9.8 2.5 1.5 10.6 6.4 2.0 9.4 8.2 1.5 11.2 4.7 1.4 11.5 4.1 1.5 12.6 3.5 1.6 11.4 3.0 1.6 11.4 2.5 1.4 9.9 10.2 2.9 1.4 0.0 From FY97 to FY07 the percentage of youth placed on standard probation by county has remained relatively stable (Tables 70 and 71). As is expected, Maricopa and Pima counties accounted for the majority of youth placed on standard probation; approximately seven out of every 10 youth placed on standard probation were from Maricopa and Pima Counties. 95 Table 70: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 102 173 343 224 159 43 43 4,789 259 232 1,469 334 157 249 413 8,989 1998 100 210 379 208 171 39 46 5,187 289 242 1,496 270 119 232 448 9,436 1999 83 149 313 190 187 30 27 4,933 235 257 1,484 277 250 280 504 9,199 2000 75 161 317 205 156 32 27 6,088 263 322 1,798 306 292 344 444 10,830 2001 108 170 292 169 171 47 25 6,355 259 311 1,882 290 153 319 488 11,039 2002 75 145 425 208 184 35 23 5,895 303 305 1,893 299 199 340 541 10,870 2003 68 178 391 173 174 34 35 5,575 246 292 1,777 262 242 286 511 10,244 2004 76 205 369 194 157 31 44 5,690 324 202 1,847 315 212 300 558 10,524 2005 86 127 318 165 161 31 30 5,452 332 217 1,727 373 208 313 503 10,043 2006 80 178 348 150 143 37 29 5,553 327 174 1,663 328 224 335 497 10,066 2007 93 191 310 182 175 34 32 5,605 367 222 1,458 363 186 349 590 10,157 Table 71: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 1997 1.1 1.9 3.8 2.5 1.8 0.5 0.5 53.3 2.9 2.6 16.3 3.7 1.8 2.8 4.6 1998 1.1 2.2 4.0 2.2 1.8 0.4 0.5 55.0 3.1 2.6 15.9 2.9 1.3 2.5 4.8 1999 0.9 1.6 3.4 2.1 2.0 0.3 0.3 53.6 2.6 2.8 16.1 3.0 2.7 3.0 5.5 2000 0.7 1.5 2.9 1.9 1.4 0.3 0.3 56.2 2.4 3.0 16.6 2.8 2.7 3.2 4.1 2001 1.0 1.5 2.7 1.5 1.6 0.4 0.2 57.6 2.4 2.8 17.1 2.6 1.4 2.9 4.4 2002 0.7 1.3 3.9 1.9 1.7 0.3 0.2 54.2 2.8 2.8 17.4 2.8 1.8 3.1 5.0 2003 0.7 1.7 3.8 1.7 1.7 0.3 0.3 54.4 2.4 2.9 17.4 2.6 2.4 2.8 5.0 2004 0.7 2.0 3.5 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.4 54.0 3.1 1.9 17.6 3.0 2.0 2.9 5.3 2005 0.9 1.3 3.2 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.3 54.3 3.3 2.2 17.2 3.7 2.1 3.1 5.0 2006 0.8 1.8 3.5 1.5 1.4 0.4 0.3 55.2 3.3 1.7 16.5 3.3 2.2 3.3 4.9 2007 0.9 1.9 3.1 1.8 1.7 0.3 0.3 55.2 3.6 2.2 14.4 3.6 1.8 3.4 5.8 Age Consistent with the slight upward shift in the age of youth being referred and petitioned to the juvenile justice system, over time 16- and 17-year-olds have comprised a larger percentage of youth placed on standard probation (Tables 72 and 73). In FY97 48.9 percent of all youth placed on standard probation were 16 or 17 years old. By FY07 the percentage of all youth placed on standard probation who were 16 or 17 years old had increased to 56.7 percent. 96 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown Total 1997 3 18 66 143 343 775 1,315 1,929 2,216 2,171 10 8,989 Table 72: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Age FY1997 – FY2007 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 2 6 0 3 3 1 0 14 21 17 22 11 9 7 8 57 54 67 67 40 42 28 23 175 126 136 142 120 109 76 63 350 335 382 417 349 327 325 256 814 757 952 977 963 848 787 704 1,459 1,379 1,656 1,705 1,594 1,447 1,464 1,400 1,935 1,920 2,295 2,427 2,308 2,032 2,228 2,121 2,274 2,228 2,524 2,546 2,601 2,528 2,520 2,554 2,342 2,370 2,783 2,724 2,868 2,885 3,073 2,891 15 7 12 12 13 14 15 23 9,436 9,199 10,830 11,039 10,870 10,244 10,524 10,043 2006 1 6 19 76 240 684 1,396 2,146 2,500 2,984 14 10,066 2007 3 6 22 92 197 635 1,317 2,114 2,607 3,144 20 10,157 Table 73: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Age FY1997 – FY2007 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown 1997 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.6 3.8 8.6 14.6 21.5 24.7 24.2 0.1 1998 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.9 3.7 8.6 15.5 20.5 24.1 24.8 0.2 1999 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.4 3.6 8.2 15.0 20.9 24.2 25.8 0.1 2000 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.3 3.5 8.8 15.3 21.2 23.3 25.7 0.1 2001 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.3 3.8 8.9 15.5 22.0 23.1 24.7 0.1 2002 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.1 3.2 8.9 14.7 21.2 23.9 26.4 0.1 2003 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.1 3.2 8.3 14.1 19.8 24.7 28.2 0.1 2004 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 3.1 7.5 13.9 21.2 24.0 29.2 0.1 2005 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 2.6 7.0 13.9 21.1 25.4 28.8 0.2 2006 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.4 6.8 13.9 21.3 24.8 29.6 0.1 2007 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.9 6.3 13.0 20.8 25.7 31.0 0.2 Gender Generally speaking, approximately one-fourth of all youth placed on standard probation are female, ranging from a low of 23.3 percent in FY97 to a high of 26.9 percent in FY02 (Figure 59). 97 Figure 59 Juvenile Dispositions of Standard Probation by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Female 2,097 2,312 2,361 2,820 2,951 2,928 2,740 2,698 2,694 2,517 2,397 Male 6,892 7,124 6,838 8,010 8,088 7,942 7,504 7,826 7,349 7,549 7,760 Race/Ethnicity From FY97 to FY07, Caucasian youth made up the largest percentage of youth placed on standard probation (Tables 74 and 75). Although over time, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation that are Caucasian decreased from a high of 51.9 percent in FY98 to a low of 42.8 percent in FY07. During this same time, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation that are Hispanic has increased from a low of 33.8 percent in FY98 to a high of 41.6 percent in FY07. Table 74: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 3,147 3,190 3,231 3,924 4,174 4,202 3,991 4,221 3,953 4,185 4,220 654 695 644 765 773 737 757 775 828 842 895 4,590 4,894 4,661 5,367 5,327 5,199 4,828 4,838 4,515 4,325 4,342 Native American 520 590 596 655 615 627 564 595 657 612 604 Asian/Pacific Islander 40 38 37 61 57 51 45 49 39 49 57 Other 32 25 27 44 44 33 35 23 29 29 17 African American Caucasian Unknown Total 6 4 3 14 49 21 24 23 22 24 22 8,989 9,436 9,199 10,830 11,039 10,870 10,244 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 98 Table 75: Percentage Dispositions of Standard Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown 1997 35.0 7.3 51.1 5.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 1998 33.8 7.4 51.9 6.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 1999 35.1 7.0 50.7 6.5 0.4 0.3 0.0 2000 36.2 7.1 49.6 6.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 2001 37.8 7.0 48.3 5.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 2002 38.7 6.8 47.8 5.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 2003 39.0 7.4 47.1 5.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 2004 40.1 7.7 46.0 5.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 2005 39.4 8.2 45.0 6.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 2006 41.6 8.4 43.0 6.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 2007 41.6 8.8 42.8 6.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 Juveniles Placed on Intensive Probation Some youth who are adjudicated delinquent in Arizona and remain in the community are subject to higher levels of supervision and conditions than youth placed on standard probation (i.e., intensive probation). Juveniles placed on intensive probation are those who the court believes requires a higher level of supervision and structure, but that can be provided in the community rather than in a residential treatment facility or the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. Youth on intensive probation typically are subject to an increase in the number of face-to-face contacts with probation officers, increased level of structured activity, increased restrictions on unsupervised time outside of the home, and increases in the frequency of drug testing, if applicable. Accordingly, probation officers who supervise youth on intensive probation have lower caseloads than those supervising standard probationers. After an increase from FY97 to FY98, the number of juveniles placed on intensive probation has consistently declined through FY07 (Figure 60). Since FY98 the number of juvenile placed on intensive probation has declined by 25.6 percent from 2,718 youth in FY98 to 2,023 in FY07. 99 Figure 60 Dispositions of Juvenile Intensive Probation (JIPS) FY1997 - FY2007 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Juveniles 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2,408 2,718 2,572 2,552 2,549 2,512 2,432 2,265 2,193 2,069 2,023 Similar to trends in placements to standard probation, the most serious offense for which youth were charged who were placed on intensive probation has remained relatively constant throughout the time period examined (Tables 76 and 77). From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation for a felony offense ranged from a low of 50.0 percent in FY00 to a high of 58.7 percent in FY97. Similarly, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation who were charged with a misdemeanor offense remained relatively constant, ranging from a low of 14.5 percent in FY06 to a high of 19.8 percent in FY01. Not surprisingly, a lower percentage of youth charged with a misdemeanor offense are placed on intensive probation than are placed on standard probation. Table 76: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 Felony 1,413 Misdemeanor 416 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 12 Other 3 Administrative 564 Total 2,408 1998 1,543 454 1999 1,394 465 2000 1,277 479 2001 1,290 505 2002 1,268 425 2003 1,218 447 2004 1,197 354 2005 1,107 367 2006 1,145 299 2007 1,103 310 4 4 713 2,718 11 2 700 2,572 4 10 782 2,552 4 3 747 2,549 5 10 804 2,512 4 11 752 2,432 0 10 704 2,265 0 9 710 2,193 4 7 614 2,069 600 3 7 0 2,023 100 Table 77: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 58.7 56.8 54.2 50.0 50.6 50.5 50.1 52.9 50.5 55.3 54.5 Misdemeanor 17.3 Violations of Probation & Ordinances 16.7 18.1 18.8 19.8 16.9 18.4 15.6 16.7 14.5 15.3 Status 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Other 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 Felony 29.7 Administrative 23.4 26.2 27.2 30.6 29.3 32.0 30.9 31.1 32.4 29.7 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The percentage of youth placed on intensive probation by county has remained relatively stable in most counties from FY97 to FY07 (Tables 78 and 79). The notable exceptions to this trend are Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, and Yuma counties where they have seen significant increases in the number of youth placed on intensive probation during a time when the number of youth placed on probation in the other counties has decreased. In contrast to standard probation where approximately seven out of every 10 youth placed on standard probation are from Maricopa and Pima Counties, only five out of every 10 youth placed on intensive probation are from the two most populous counties in Arizona. Table 78: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 1997 17 94 72 36 36 17 12 1,144 90 56 414 90 25 86 219 2,408 1998 23 112 71 55 31 17 6 1,251 141 74 449 110 36 106 236 2,718 1999 14 97 65 67 26 14 10 1,206 109 91 407 95 39 108 224 2,572 2000 23 103 57 50 33 12 7 1,195 122 56 360 123 48 118 245 2,552 2001 18 102 65 43 41 10 9 1,171 115 66 389 123 40 127 230 2,549 2002 17 96 72 42 31 19 4 1,143 109 68 382 126 43 131 229 2,512 2003 22 109 55 44 32 9 6 1,087 114 72 347 137 38 125 235 2,432 2004 27 103 70 36 37 7 8 885 105 56 362 135 48 119 267 2,265 2005 18 97 58 34 25 9 10 939 114 59 289 118 42 117 264 2,193 2006 15 79 51 37 35 7 6 851 119 56 243 125 29 153 263 2,069 2007 15 77 60 35 30 11 9 853 142 47 212 112 42 133 245 2,023 101 Table 79: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by County FY1997 – FY2007 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 1997 0.7 3.9 3.0 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.5 47.5 3.7 2.3 17.2 3.7 1.0 3.6 9.1 1998 0.9 4.1 2.6 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.2 46.0 5.2 2.7 16.5 4.1 1.3 3.9 8.7 1999 0.5 3.8 2.5 2.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 46.9 4.2 3.5 15.8 3.7 1.5 4.2 8.7 2000 0.9 4.0 2.2 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.3 46.8 4.8 2.2 14.1 4.8 1.9 4.6 9.6 2001 0.7 4.0 2.6 1.7 1.6 0.4 0.4 45.9 4.5 2.6 15.3 4.8 1.6 5.0 9.0 2002 0.7 3.8 2.9 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.2 45.5 4.3 2.7 15.2 5.0 1.7 5.2 9.1 2003 0.9 4.5 2.3 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.3 44.7 4.7 3.0 14.3 5.6 1.6 5.1 9.7 2004 1.2 4.6 3.1 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.4 39.1 4.6 2.5 16.0 6.0 2.1 5.3 11.8 2005 0.8 4.4 2.6 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.5 42.8 5.2 2.7 13.2 5.4 1.9 5.3 12.0 2006 0.7 3.8 2.5 1.8 1.7 0.3 0.3 41.1 5.8 2.7 11.7 6.0 1.4 7.4 12.7 2007 0.7 3.8 3.0 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.4 42.2 7.0 2.3 10.5 5.5 2.1 6.6 12.1 Age As has been seen in other stages of the juvenile justice process, there has been a shift in the age of youth being placed on intensive probation (Tables 80 and 81). From FY97 to FY07, a larger percentage of youth 16 and 17 years old were placed on intensive probation. In FY97 54.2 percent of all youth placed on intensive probation were 16 or 17 years old. By FY07 the percentage of all youth placed on intensive probation who were 16 or 17 years old increased to 60.4 percent. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown Total Table 80: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Age, FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 3 3 2 2 2 0 14 14 13 9 8 13 6 6 4 47 56 36 45 30 32 37 38 19 120 176 143 174 138 120 125 120 97 374 343 347 379 364 341 290 292 320 545 629 600 555 599 545 554 502 485 738 769 715 687 704 745 665 662 627 565 723 711 694 697 710 752 640 635 2 3 2 4 4 4 1 3 6 2,408 2,718 2,572 2,552 2,549 2,512 2,432 2,265 2,193 2006 0 0 0 6 14 84 284 456 593 630 2 2,069 2007 0 0 1 0 26 82 236 455 602 619 2 2,023 102 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown Total Table 81: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Age, FY1997 – FY2007 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 0.9 5.0 6.5 5.6 6.8 5.4 4.8 5.1 5.3 4.4 15.5 12.6 13.5 14.9 14.3 13.6 11.9 12.9 14.6 22.6 23.1 23.3 21.8 23.5 21.7 22.8 22.2 22.1 30.7 28.3 27.8 26.9 27.6 29.7 27.3 29.2 28.6 23.5 26.6 27.6 27.2 27.3 28.3 30.9 28.3 29.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 100.0 2006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 4.1 13.7 22.0 28.7 30.5 0.1 100.0 2007 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.3 4.1 11.7 22.5 29.8 30.6 0.1 100.0 Gender In contrast to standard probation where approximately one-fourth of youth placed on standard probation are female, less than 20 percent of youth placed on intensive probation are female (Figure 61). From FY97 to FY03, there was a consistent increase in the percentage of placements to intensive probation of female youth. In FY97 females comprised 10.7 percent of all intensive probationers and 17.2 percent in FY03. From FY03 to FY06 that percentage remained relatively stable, followed by a subsequent decrease from 18.2 percent in FY06 to 13.0 percent in FY07 in the percentage of all placements to intensive probation of female youth. 103 Figure 61 Dispositions of Juvenile Intensive Probation (JIPS) by Gender FY1997 - FY2007 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Female Male 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 257 363 346 360 370 377 419 375 359 346 2007 262 2,151 2,355 2,226 2,192 2,179 2,135 2,013 1,890 1,834 1,723 1,761 Race/Ethnicity In contrast to the racial and ethnic composition of youth on standard probation over time, since FY02 Hispanic youth have comprised the largest percentage of all youth placed on intensive probation (Tables 82 and 83). Overall, this is a function of an overall shift in the racial and ethnic composition of youth placed on intensive probation over time. From FY97 to FY07, the percentage of youth placed on intensive probation who are Hispanic and Native American has increased (43.7 to 48.7 and 3.5 to 4.8, respectively) while the percentage for Caucasian and African-American youth has declined (43.0 to 37.7 and 9.1 to 8.3, respectively). Table 82: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown Total 1997 1,052 220 1,035 85 10 5 1 2,408 1998 1,158 240 1,208 96 12 4 0 2,718 1999 1,069 219 1,156 117 7 3 1 2,572 2000 1,099 182 1,154 104 7 6 0 2,552 2001 1,117 193 1,126 100 9 3 1 2,549 2002 1,126 195 1,057 117 11 5 1 2,512 2003 1,087 181 1,047 103 5 8 1 2,432 2004 1,058 174 941 82 5 3 2 2,265 2005 1,044 177 856 101 6 7 2 2,193 2006 982 181 806 89 6 4 1 2,069 2007 985 167 763 96 7 5 0 2,023 104 Table 83: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY1997 – FY2007 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown 1997 43.7 9.1 43.0 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 1998 42.6 8.8 44.4 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 1999 41.6 8.5 45.0 4.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 2000 43.1 7.1 45.2 4.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 2001 43.8 7.6 44.2 3.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 2002 44.8 7.8 42.1 4.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 2003 44.7 7.4 43.1 4.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 2004 46.7 7.7 41.6 3.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 2005 47.6 8.1 39.0 4.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 2006 47.5 8.8 39.0 4.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 2007 48.7 8.3 37.7 4.8 0.4 0.3 0.0 105 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is responsible for housing juveniles adjudicated delinquent and committed to the department by the juvenile court. It is also responsible for juvenile parole and interstate probation and parole supervision. ADJC operates and maintains four secure care facilities for the custody, treatment, and education of committed juveniles: Adobe Mountain School, Black Canyon School, Catalina Mountain School, and Eagle Point School. The ADJC goal is for each juvenile to receive rehabilitative services that are appropriate to the juvenile’s age, risk, needs, abilities, and committing offense. This includes education, individual and group counseling, psychological services, health care, and recreation. In addition, treatment groups and specialized housing units focus on juveniles with histories of violence, substance abuse, or sexual offenses. The data that appears in this section are for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 and are publicly available from the ADJC web site.47 In addition to the data included in this report, there is a wealth of information about the department and its operations available on its web site. The data that appears in this section of the report is used to provide a general overview of the number and characteristics of youth committed to ADJC over time. Table 84: Number of New Commitments, FY2003 – FY2007 Year FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 Number of New Commitments 752 688 696 674 734 From FY03 to FY07 the number of juveniles sentenced to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections has varied year-to-year by no more than nine percent (Table 84). After declining by 8.5 percent from FY03 to FY04, the number of new commitments remained relatively stable until FY07 when there was an 8.9 percent increase in the number of new commitments over the previous year. Age From FY03 to FY07, the distribution of new commitments to ADJC by age has changed little (Table 85). Approximately nine out of 10 youth committed to ADJC from FY03 to FY07 were 15 - 17 years of age. Table 85: Percent of New Commitments by Age FY2003 – FY2007 < 13 14 15 16 17 FY03 2.0% 9.4% 21.4% 32.7% 34.4% FY04 1.6% 10.2% 21.7% 31.8% 34.7% FY05 2.6% 9.3% 22.0% 33.8% 32.3% FY06 2.4% 9.1% 20.3% 31.9% 36.4% FY07 2.0% 8.3% 22.8% 31.6% 35.3% 47 http://www.azdjc.gov/Offices/Research/Publications/FY%202007%20data%20table.pdf 106 Gender From FY04 to FY06 there was an increase in the percentage of new commitments to ADJC who were female (Table 86). The increase in the percentage of new commitments that were female were driven by both an increase in the number of females committed to ADJC during this time and a similar decrease in the number of new commitments who were male (Table 87). But by FY07, the gender composition of new commitments to ADJC had returned to FY03 levels. Table 86: Percent of New Commitments by Gender FY2003 – FY2007 Male Female FY03 87.6% 12.4% FY04 85.2% 14.8% FY05 84.2% 15.8% FY06 83.7% 16.3% Table 87: Number of New Commitments by Gender FY2003 – FY2007 Male Female Total FY03 659 93 752 FY04 586 102 688 FY05 586 110 696 FY06 564 110 674 FY07 88.1% 11.9% FY07 647 87 734 Race/Ethnicity From FY03 to FY07, Hispanic youth (excluding Mexican nationals) accounted for nearly half of new commitments to ADJC, ranging from a low of 43.0 percent in FY06 to a high of 47.0 percent in FY07. Approximately one-third of new commitments to ADJC during this time period were of Caucasian youth. During this same time, the percentage of new commitments of African-American youth increased to a high of 12.8 percent in FY07. Table 88: Percent of New Commitments by Race/Ethnicity FY2003 – FY2007 Hispanic Caucasian African American Native American Mexican National Asian Other FY03 46.8% 32.3% 9.3% 4.5% 6.4% 0.1% 0.5% FY04 46.1% 34.7% 8.6% 4.4% 4.5% 0.6% 1.2% FY05 44.7% 30.5% 10.5% 6.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% FY06 43.0% 35.6% 10.7% 5.2% 4.6% 0.7% 0.1% FY07 47.0% 30.1% 12.8% 4.8% 4.1% 0.7% 0.5% Prior Contact with the Juvenile Justice System Most youth who are committed to ADJC have had significant prior contact with the juvenile justice system (Table 89). From FY03 to FY07 at least eight out of every 10 youth committed to ADJC had at least six prior referrals to the juvenile justice system. During this time, the percentage of new commitments of youth with six or more referrals declined from 86.2 percent in FY03 to 78.8 percent in FY07. As the percentage of new commitments of youth with six or more prior referrals has decreased, the 107 percentage of new commitments of youth with three to five referrals has increased from 10.9 percent in FY03 to 18.5 percent in FY07. Table 89: Percent of New Commitments by Number of Prior Referrals FY2003 – FY2007 1 referral 2 referrals 3-5 referrals 6-10 referrals 11-15 referrals 16 or more referrals FY03 1.1% 1.7% 10.9% 42.9% 26.7% 16.6% FY04 0.8% 1.3% 13.2% 40.9% 28.2% 15.6% FY05 2.4% 3.2% 13.9% 42.6% 24.7% 13.1% FY06 3.0% 2.1% 14.7% 39.7% 24.7% 15.9% FY07 1.1% 1.6% 18.5% 43.0% 22.1% 13.7% Similarly, although a very low percentage of youth with only one prior adjudication are committed to ADJC (6.3 percent in FY07), from FY06 to FY07 there was a significant decrease in the percentage of new commitments to ADJC of youth with four or more prior adjudications and a corresponding increase in the percentage of new commitments of youth with two or three prior adjudications. From FY03 to FY06 approximately three-fourths of youth committed to ADJC had at least four prior delinquency adjudications in juvenile court. From FY06 to FY07 the percentage of youth newly committed to ADJC with four or more adjudications decreased from 75.1 to 54.9 percent. Table 90: Percent of New Commitments by Number of Prior Adjudications FY2003 –FY2007 1 adjudication 2-3 adjudications 4-5 adjudications 6-7 adjudications 8 or more adjudications FY03 4.0% 23.0% 35.0% 23.1% 14.9% FY04 2.2% 19.9% 31.3% 27.0% 19.6% FY05 5.6% 20.4% 33.0% 23.7% 17.2% FY06 5.0% 19.8% 33.1% 20.1% 21.9% FY07 6.3% 38.8% 34.4% 13.8% 6.7% 108 Conclusion The dramatic growth in Arizona’s population has a significant impact on the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Arizona’s population growth is part of the explanation for an increase in the number of violent crimes in Arizona since 1997. At the same time that the frequency of violent crime is increasing, it is important to recognize that when adjusting for population growth both the violent crime and property crime rates in Arizona have dropped significantly since 1997. But, the paradox of lower crime rates and increases in crimes reported, particularly violent crimes, means that even though Arizonans might be safer now than they were 10 years ago, the demand on the criminal justice system has, at best, remained the same, and in most cases increased. An increase in the number of violent crime incidents means that we have more violent offenders arrested and processed and more violent crime victims impacted and requiring service. Increases in the workload of criminal justice system agencies require resources to keep pace with demand. This is the primary challenge in today’s fiscal climate; in a time of dwindling state and federal criminal and juvenile justice system resources and difficult choices needing to be made, how can Arizona’s system continue to provide its citizens with the fundamental right for safety and security in the communities and in their homes? This report and the data included is intended to give readers an overview of the status of Arizona’s criminal and juvenile justice system over time. These data should be part of the context in which critical policy and practical decisions are being discussed. More detailed data from the respective criminal and juvenile justice agencies should also be utilized to complement and deepen the understanding of the complexity of the system and the factors that surround crime in Arizona. Identifying and using the best data possible to inform the very difficult decisions that lie ahead can lead to well-informed discussions about the challenge of crime in Arizona. It is hoped that this report provides important information that will allow policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make the critical decisions that will impact Arizona citizens for years to come. 109