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 Review, 2004-2013 October 2015 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Chairperson BILL MONTGOMERY Maricopa County Attorney Vice-Chairperson DAVID K. BYERS, Director Administrative Office of the Courts JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff MARK BRNOVICH Attorney General JOE R. BRUGMAN, Chief Safford Police Department KELLY “KC” CLARK Navajo County Sheriff SEAN DUGGAN, Chief Chandler Police Department CHRIS GIBBS, Mayor City of Safford DREW JOHN Graham County Supervisor ELLEN KIRSCHBAUM, Chairperson Board of Executive Clemency BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney FRANK MILSTEAD, Director Department of Public Safety SHEILA POLK Yavapai County Attorney CHARLES RYAN, Director Department of Corrections DAVID SANDERS Pima County Chief Probation Officer HESTON SILBERT Law Enforcement Leader ROBERTO VILLASEÑOR, Chief Tucson Police Department VACANT Sheriff VACANT Former Judge JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director SHANA MALONE, M.S. Statistical Analysis Center Director MATTHEW BILESKI, M.A. Statistical Analysis Center Senior Research Analyst Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review, 2004-2013 Prepared by Shana Malone, M.S., Statistical Analysis Center Director Matthew Bileski, M.A., Senior Research Analyst Suggested citation: Shana Malone (2015). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review, 2004-2013. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Phoenix, AZ. Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Population Data………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Law Enforcement Data……………………………………………………………………………..... 6 Index Offense Rates…………………………………………………………………………. 8 Index Offense Counts……………………………………………………………………….17 Victimization Data……………………………………………………………………………………...23 Firearm Use and Violent Crime…………………………………………………………………… 30 Murder…………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Robbery…………………………………………………………………………………………. 31 Aggravated Assault…………………………………………………………………………. 32 Courts and Probation Data…………………………………………………………………………. 33 Courts……………………………………………………………………………………………. 33 Probation……………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 Department of Corrections Data…………………………………………………………………. 49 Demographic Characteristics of Inmate Population……………………….……. 50 Juvenile Justice System Data……………………………………………………………………… 55 Juveniles Referred…………………………………………………………………………… 55 Juveniles Detained……………………………………………………………………………61 Juveniles Diverted…………………………………………………………………………… 66 Juvenile Petitions Filed…………………………………………………………………….. 71 Juveniles in Criminal Court………………………………………………………………..76 Juveniles Placed on Standard Probation…………………………………………….. 86 Juveniles Placed on Intensive Probation……………………………………………..91 Department of Juvenile Corrections Data…………………………………………………… ..98 Age…………………………………………………………………………………………………98 Gender………………………………………………………………………………………… ...99 Race/Ethnicity……………………………………………………………………………….…99 Prior Contact with the Juvenile Justice System…………………………………. 100 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………… 102 Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………………...104 List of Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1: Data Sources…………………………………………………………………………………. 5 2: Arizona and U.S. Population, 2004-2013………………………………………….. 6 3: Reported Index Offense Rates in Arizona, 2004-2013……………………….. 8 4: Reported Index Offense Rates in the United States, 2004-2013…………. 8 5: Percentage of Offenses Reported to the Police, 2004-2013………………. 24 6: Forcible Rape, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013……………………………………… 26 7: Robbery, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013……………………………………………… 26 8: Aggravated Assault, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013……………………………… 27 9: Motor Vehicle Theft, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013…………………………….. 28 10: Larceny-Theft, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013……………………………………. 29 11: Burglary, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013……………………………………………. 30 12: Murder with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States, 2004-2013….. 31 13: Robberies with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………… 32 14: Aggravated Assaults with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………… 33 15: Appellate Court Case Filings, FY2004-FY2013……………………………….. 34 16: Superior Court Case Filings, FY2004-FY2013…………………………………. 34 17: Superior Court Case Filings by County, FY2004-FY2013…………………. 36 18: Superior Court Felony Case Filings by County, FY2004-FY2013………. 37 19: Justice Court Filings by Type of Case, FY2004-FY2013………………….. 38 20: Justice Court Case Filings by County, FY2004-FY2013……………………. 40 21: Municipal Court Filings by Type, FY2004-FY2013…………………………… 42 22: Municipal Court Case Filings by County, FY2004-FY2013……………….. 43 23: Dollar Amount Collected from Standard Probationers, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 47 24: Dollar Amount Collected from Intensive Probationers, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 47 25: Number of Prisoners Incarcerated in Arizona and the United States on December 31 of Each Year, 2004-2013………………………………………… 50 26: Age of Arizona Inmates, 2006-2013…………………………………………….. 52 27: Race and Ethnicity of Arizona Inmates, 2006-2013……………………….. 52 28: Inmate Hours of Community Service, 2009-2013………………………….. 54 29: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013…………………………………………………………………. 57 30: Number of Juveniles Referred by County, FY2004-FY2013…………….. 58 31: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by County, FY2004-FY2013………….58 32: Number of Juveniles Referred by Age, FY2004-FY2013………………….. 59 33: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by Age, FY2004-FY2013……………… 59 34: Number of Juveniles Referred by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013….. 60 35: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 61 List of Tables (continued) Table 36: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013…………………………………………………………………. 63 Table 37: Number of Juveniles Detained by County, FY2004-FY2013…………….. 63 Table 38: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by County, FY2004-FY2013………… 64 Table 39: Juveniles Detained by Age, FY2004-FY2013………………………………….. 64 Table 40: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by Age, FY2004-FY2013…………….. 65 Table 41: Number of Juveniles Detained by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013…… 66 Table 42: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 66 Table 43: Juveniles Diverted by County, FY2004-FY2013……………………………… 68 Table 44: Percentage of Juveniles Diverted by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013…………………………………………………………………. 68 Table 45: Juveniles Diverted by Age, FY2004-FY2013…………………………………… 69 Table 46: Percentage of Juveniles Diverted by Age, FY2004-FY2013……………… 69 Table 47: Juveniles Diverted by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013……………………. 70 Table 48: Percentage of Juveniles Diverted by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 71 Table 49: Juvenile Petitions Filed by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 72 Table 50: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013……………………………………………………… 72 Table 51: Juvenile Petitions Filed by County, FY2004-FY2013……………………….. 73 Table 52: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by County, FY2004-FY2013….. 73 Table 53: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by Age, FY2004-FY2013………. 74 Table 54: Juvenile Petitions Filed by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013…………….. 75 Table 55: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 76 Table 56: Number of Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court by County, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 80 Table 57: Percentage of Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court by County, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 80 Table 58: Number of Direct Files to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 82 Table 59: Percentage of Direct Files to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 82 Table 60: Number of Transfers to Criminal Court by Offense Class, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 83 Table 61: Percentage of Transfers to Criminal Court by Offense Class, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 83 Table 62: Number of Transfers to Criminal Court by County, FY2004-FY2013…. 84 Table 63: Percentage of Transfers to Criminal Court by County, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 85 List of Tables (continued) Table 64: Number of Transfers to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 86 Table 65: Percentage of Transfers to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 86 Table 66: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013……………………………………………… 87 Table 67: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013………………………………….. 88 Table 68: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by County, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 88 Table 69: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by County, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 89 Table 70: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Age, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 89 Table 71: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Age, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 90 Table 72: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 91 Table 73: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………… 91 Table 74: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013………………………………….. 93 Table 75: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013………………………………….. 93 Table 76: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by County, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 94 Table 77: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by County, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 94 Table 78: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Age, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 95 Table 79: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Age, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 95 Table 80: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 97 Table 81: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………… 97 Table 82: Number of New Commitments, 2004-2013…………………………………… 98 Table 83: Percentage of New Commitments by Age, 2004-2013……………………. 99 Table 84: Percentage of New Commitments by Gender, 2004-2013………………. 99 Table 85: Number of New Commitments by Gender, 2004-2013…………………… 99 Table 86: Percentage of New Commitments by Race/Ethnicity, 2004-2013…… 100 List of Tables (continued) Table 87: Percentage of New Commitments by Number of Prior Referrals, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………. 100 Table 88: Percentage of New Commitments by Number of Prior Adjudications, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………. 101 List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure 1: 2: 3: 4: United States Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013……………………………... 9 Arizona Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013………………………………………. 9 United States and Arizona Violent Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013…. 10 United States and Arizona Murder/Non-Negligent Homicide Offense Rates, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………….......... 11 Figure 5: United States and Arizona Forcible Rape Offense Rates, 2004-2013… 12 Figure 6: United States and Arizona Robbery Offense Rates, 2004-2013………… 12 Figure 7: United States and Arizona Aggravated Assault Offense Rates, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Figure 8: United States and Arizona Property Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Figure 9: United States and Arizona Burglary Offense Rates, 2004-2013………… 15 Figure 10: United States and Arizona Larceny-Theft Offense Rates, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………….16 Figure 11: United States and Arizona Motor Vehicle Theft Offense Rates, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………… 17 Figure 12: Reported Violent Index Offenses in Arizona, 2004-2013………………… 18 Figure 13: Reported Murders in Arizona, 2004-2013…………………………………….. 18 Figure 14: Reported Forcible Rapes in Arizona, 2004-2013……………………………. 19 Figure 15: Reported Robberies in Arizona, 2004-2013………………………………….. 19 Figure 16: Reported Aggravated Assaults in Arizona, 2004-2013…………………… 20 Figure 17: Reported Property Index Offenses in Arizona, 2004-2013……………… 21 Figure 18: Reported Burglaries in Arizona, 2004-2013………………………………….. 21 Figure 19: Reported Larceny-Thefts in Arizona, 2004-2013…………………………… 22 Figure 20: Reported Motor Vehicle Thefts in Arizona, 2004-2013…………………… 23 Figure 21: Forcible Rape, 2004-2013, NCVS and UCR…………………………………… 25 Figure 22: Robbery, 2004-2013, NCVS and UCR…………………………………………… 26 Figure 23: Aggravated Assault, 2004-2013, NCVS and UCR…………………………… 27 Figure 24: Motor Vehicle Theft, 2004-2013, NCVS and UCR………………………….. 28 Figure 25: Larceny-Theft, 2004-2013, NCVS and UCR………………………………….. 29 Figure 26: Burglary, 2004-2013, NCVS and UCR………………………………………….. 30 Figure 27: Felony Filings, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………….. 35 Figure 28: Justice Court Filings by Type, FY2004-FY2013……………………………… 39 Figure 29: Number of Direct Adult Probationers, FY2004-FY2013………………….. 46 Figure 30: Community Service Hours Completed by Standard and Intensive Probationers, FY2004-FY2013…………………………………………………………… 48 Figure 31: Arizona Department of Corrections Population by Gender, 2004-2013……………………………………………………………………………………… 51 Figure 32: Inmates by Commitment Offense, 2009-2013 …………………………….. 53 Figure 33: Special Inmate Population Groups, 2009-2013…………………………….. 54 Figure 34: Juveniles Referred, FY2004-FY2013……………………………………………. 56 List of Figures (continued) Figure 35: Juveniles Referred by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 57 Figure 36: Juveniles Referred by Gender, FY2004-FY2013……………………………. 60 Figure 37: Juveniles Detained, FY2004-FY2013……………………………………………. 62 Figure 38: Juveniles Detained by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 62 Figure 39: Juveniles Detained by Gender, FY2004-FY2013……………………………. 65 Figure 40: Juveniles Diverted, FY2004-FY2013…………………………………………….. 67 Figure 41: Juveniles Diverted by Gender, FY2004-FY2013…………………………….. 70 Figure 42: Juvenile Petitions Filed, FY2004-FY2013……………………………………… 71 Figure 43: Juvenile Petitions Filed by Gender, FY2004-FY2013………………………. 75 Figure 44: Juveniles in Criminal Court, FY2004-FY2013………………………………… 77 Figure 45: Pathways for Juvenile Cases Filed in Criminal Court, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 78 Figure 46: Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court, FY2004-FY2013………………..79 Figure 47: Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court by Gender, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 81 Figure 48: Juveniles Transferred to Criminal Court, FY2004-FY2013………………. 83 Figure 49: Juveniles Transferred to Criminal Court by Gender, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 85 Figure 50: Dispositions of Standard Probation, FY2004-FY2013…………………….. 87 Figure 51: Dispositions of Standard Probation by Gender, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 90 Figure 52: Dispositions of Intensive Probation, FY2004-FY2013…………………….. 92 Figure 53: Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Gender, FY2004-FY2013………………………………………………………………………………. 96 Executive Summary On a biennial basis, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission is tasked with preparing for the governor a criminal justice system trends report. Available resources, the size and complexity of the criminal justice system and the availability of relevant data influence the scope of the issues addressed in the report. In support of data-driven decision making, this report uses publicly available data to describe the activity of Arizona’s criminal justice system from law enforcement agencies description of the offenses reported to their agencies to the population of the Arizona Department of Corrections. More specifically, 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 a decade overview of crime and criminal and juvenile justice system activity from 2004 to 2013 in Arizona. An analysis of the data included in this report reveals the following: Crime  In 2013, the number of violent index offenses reported to the police in Arizona was 19.5 percent lower than in 2004 and 20.9 percent lower than the decade high in 2005. Arizona remains higher than the national rate.  Although the rate of violent index offenses reported to the police decreased over the decade, the rate of forcible rape in Arizona increased 24.0 percent. Arizona remains higher than the national rate.  The rate of property index offenses reported to the police in Arizona was 36.4 percent lower in 2013 than in 2004 and 4.4 percent lower than the decade high in 2009. Arizona remains higher than the national rate.  Arizona has had a reduction in the percentage of violent crimes committed with a firearm over the decade. Cumulative decreases for murder, robbery and aggravated assault declined 16.1 percent, 23.3 percent and 12.1 percent, respectively. Arizona has consistently had a lower percentage of murders committed with a firearm compared to the national percentage since 2009. Courts  Statewide, the number of felony case filings decreased by 13.7 percent over the decade.  From state fiscal year 2004 to 2013, the number of individuals on standard probation remained similar; however, the number of individuals on intensive probation decreased 24.4 percent. 1  From 2004 to 2013, the courts collected $116 million in restitution from offenders on standard probation. In 2013, the amount of restitution collected from standard probationers was 6.0 percent higher than the amount of restitution collected in 2004.  From 2004 to 2013, the number of community service hours completed by standard probationers decreased by 50.7 percent from 813,823 hours in 2004 to 401,613 hours in 2013. At the 2013 minimum wage in Arizona ($7.80/hour), standard probationers performed community service work worth approximately $3.1 million in 2013.  The number of community service hours performed by intensive probationers declined by 47.9 percent over the decade from 615,182 hours in 2004 to 320,357 hours in 2013. At the 2013 minimum wage in Arizona ($7.80/hour), intensive probationers performed community service work worth approximately $2.5 million in 2013. Corrections  From 2004 to 2013, the number of individuals incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections increased by 26.0 percent. The rate of increase was close to five times higher than the national increase.  At the end of calendar year 2013, 32.1 percent of inmates in the Arizona Department of Corrections were in prison for the violent offenses1, 16.0 percent for property offenses,2 24.8 percent for drug and driving under the influence offenses, and 27.0 percent for other types of offenses.3 Juvenile Justice System  From 2004 to 2007, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court remained relatively stable at approximately 49,000 youth. From 2007 to 2010, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court decreased by 15.7 percent and continued to decline between 2010 and 2013, representing an overall cumulative decline of 40.8 percent across the decade. Violent offenses include murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide, rape/sexual assault, robbery and assault. 2 Property offenses include burglary, motor vehicle theft, theft, and arson. 3 ‘Other’ offenses includes all other offenses, some of which are against property (e.g., criminal damage) or are violent (e.g., domestic violence) but are not part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program crime index. 1 2  From 2004 to 2013, the number of juveniles held in detention in Arizona decreased by 47.9 percent, from 12,688 to 6,610.  The number of juveniles transferred to criminal court decreased 45.4 percent across the decade.  The number of new commitments to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections decreased 42.7 percent between 2004 and 2013.  There was a 36.3 percent increase across the decade in the percentage of new commitments to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections for youth with three to five prior adjudications of delinquency and a 49.4 percent decrease for youth with six or more prior adjudications of delinquency. 3 Introduction The continuous growth in the population of Arizona challenges Arizona’s criminal justice system to keep pace. From 2004 to 2013, Arizona’s population increased by 15.1 percent, from 5.8 million to 6.6 million people. As the population of Arizona increased, Arizona’s criminal justice system experienced the following changes:  The rate of violent index offenses reported to Arizona police decreased 19.5 percent over the decade. Reductions in the rates of violent index offenses in Arizona were comparable to cumulative rate reductions in the United States, with Arizona having slightly higher rates in 2013 than the national rate.  Although rates of property index offense in Arizona were higher than the national average in 2013, Arizona property index rates decreased 36.4 percent over the decade.  Statewide, from 2004 to 2013 the number of felony case filings decreased by 13.7 percent, from 54,420 to 46,981.  From 2004 to 2013, the number of individuals on standard probation remained relatively constant at 35,709 to 35,892.  From 2004 to 2013 the number of individuals incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections increased by 26.0 percent, from 32,570 to 41,031. 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 availability of data on crime and the criminal justice system influence the scope of this report. In the 2013 edition of Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review, up to 10 years of data (i.e., 2004 to 2013) from law enforcement, the courts, and corrections are compiled to give the reader an overview of the recent trends in crime and criminal justice system activity among the three major components of Arizona’s justice system. Importantly, this report is not intended to be the place where all questions about Arizona’s criminal justice system are answered—the complexity of any state’s criminal justice system and the decentralized nature of data sources make that goal unachievable without investing significant resources and time. Instead, this report is intended to provide an overview of Arizona’s criminal justice system from law enforcement to corrections and the trends that are being seen in the data. A goal of this report is for the data to inform a conversation among and between criminal justice policymakers, practitioners, and the public about crime and Arizona’s system response. The hope is for these data provide a foundation upon which criminal and juvenile 4 justice policymakers and practitioners can develop effective responses to the challenges of crime and delinquency in Arizona. Data Sources One of the primary goals 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 criminal and juvenile justice system 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 collect, maintain, and share justice system data. In creating this report, SAC staff obtained data from several sources that also represent the primary data sources that contribute to the SAC’s data warehouse (Table 1).a Table 1: Data Sources Source 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.azcourts.gov/statistics Corrections at a Glance https://corrections.az.gov/reports-documents/reports/corrections-glance Annual Reports http://www.azdjc.gov/FactsNews/ADJCPublications/ADJCPublications.asp Crime in Arizona Annual Reports http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/Crime_In_Arizona/ Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=1 Uniform Crime Reports http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm Juveniles Processed in the Arizona Court System Reports http://www.azcourts.gov/jjsd/Publications-Reports National Crime Victimization Survey http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 Population Data From 2004 to 2013, Arizona’s population grew over two times faster than the rest of the nation, increasing by 15.1 percent, compared to a 7.7 percent population increase for the nation as a whole (Table 2). Within Arizona’s 15 counties, population change varied greatly from 2004 to 2014, with the overall population increasing across the decade in all Arizona counties. The greatest population increase occurred in Pinal County with an 81.6 percent cumulative increase across the decade, and the smallest population increase occurred in Navajo County with a 0.8 percent increase across the decade. 5 Table 2: Arizona and U.S. Population, 2004-2013 Year-toYear % Change United States Population Year-toYear % Change Year Arizona Population 2004 5,759,425 2005 5,974,834 3.7% 296,410,404 0.9% 2006 6,192,100 3.6% 299,398,484 1.0% 2007 6,362,241 2.7% 301,621,157 0.7% 2008 6,499,377 2.2% 304,059,724 0.8% 2009 6,595,778 1.5% 307,006,550 1.0% 2010 6,392,017 -3.1% 308,745,538 0.6% 2011 6,482,505 1.4% 311,591,917 0.9% 2012 6,553,255 1.1% 313,914,040 0.7% 2013 6,626,624 1.1% 316,128,839 0.7% % Change 2004 - 2013 293,656,842 15.1% 7.7% Source: United States Census Bureau * Population data for the years 2000 and 2010 are based on decennial census counts. Population data for the years 2001 – 2009 are estimates provided by the United States Census Bureau and based on the last decennial census and administrative records information. For this reason, the population change from 2009 to 2010 is unknown due to the different methods used to measure the population of Arizona. Law Enforcement Data The primary national and state source for property and violent offense and arrest information is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the Arizona Uniform Crime Reporting program. Initiated more than 70 years ago, the federal UCR program is a nationwide effort by law enforcement agencies to voluntarily report offense and arrest data from their jurisdictions on a set of specific crimes. The purpose of the UCR program is to provide reliable information that describes the nature and extent of crime 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. Because this report compares Arizona index offense data to the nation’s index offense data, the Arizona and national offense data used in this report comes from the same source, Crime in the United States, which is the Uniform Crime Reporting program 6 annual report published by the FBI.4 It is important for users of national and state crime data to know that not all crimes are reported to law enforcement, and subsequently, the UCR program. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 51 percent of violent crime and 60 percent of property crime were not reported to the police in 2009.5 Some of the reasons given by crime victims for why they do not report their victimizations to the police include: the offense was too trivial to involve law enforcement, there was nothing the criminal justice system could do about the victimization, and the belief that some crimes are a personal matter that should not be processed through the justice system.6 To better understand the nature and extent of all crime, reported to law enforcement or not, data that is collected through a nationwide survey of crime victims provide a perspective on crime that is complementary to that which is obtained from the perspective of law enforcement. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey is briefly reviewed later in this report to provide an additional perspective on crime in the United States.7 As described earlier, the rate of crime (the number of crimes controlled for population) and the frequency of crime (i.e., the number of crimes) also provide complementary but, at times, very different perspectives on crime and criminal justice system activity in Arizona. In this section of the report, crime index offense rates that are based on the crimes reported to law enforcement are provided and discussed, followed by a reporting and discussion of the number of crime index offenses for both Arizona and the nation. The value of reporting crime rates and crime counts over time is to assess change 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 much 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 that gives criminal justice system policymakers, practitioners, and the general public a reliable and objective description of crime and crime trends in Arizona. Additionally, because it also can be useful to understand Arizona’s 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 worth noting that the Arizona index offense data published in Crime in Arizona, the Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) annual uniform crime report, is different from the data for the same year published by the FBI in Crime in the United States. In part, this is because in Crime in the United States, the FBI includes estimates of the index offenses that occurred in the jurisdictions that did not report their data while DPS simply notes the non-reporting jurisdictions. Appendix A contains 2004 to 2013 index offense data from DPS and the FBI as reported in their respective annual reports. 5 Truman, J.L., & Rand, M.R. (2010). Criminal Victimization, 2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, D.C: Department of Justice. 6 Gottfredson, M.R. (1986). Substantive Contributions of Victimization Surveys. Crime and Justice, 7, 251287. 7 National victimization data is collected in a manner that does not allow for state level (e.g., Arizona specific) estimates of victimization. 4 7 Index Offense Rates The Uniform Crime Reporting Program Part I index offense rate is a commonly used indicator of 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 Part I index offense rates.8 Offense rates allow the amount of crime to be 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 section of Crime Trends, offense rates are calculated per 100,000 residents in the population. From 2004 to 2013, the overall index offense rate in Arizona decreased 34.9 percent, while the index offense rate for the nation decreased 22.2 percent. During that same time, the violent index offense rate decreased 19.5 percent in Arizona and 21.0 percent in the United States. Similarly, from 2004 to 2013, the property crime rate decreased 36.4 percent in Arizona and 22.4 percent nationally. Tables 3 and 4 contain the violent index offense, property index offense, and overall index offense rates for Arizona and the United States from 2004 to 2013. Table 3: Reported Index Offense Rates in Arizona, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 504.1 513.2 501.4 482.7 447.0 408.3 408.1 405.9 428.9 405.8 Property Index Offense Rate 5,340.5 4,838.0 4,627.9 4,414.0 4,291.0 3,556.5 3,534.0 3,554.5 3,539.2 3,399.1 Overall Index Offense Rate 5,844.6 5,351.2 5,129.3 4,896.7 4,738.0 3,964.8 3,942.1 3,960.4 3,968.1 3,804.9 Violent Index Offense Rate Table 4: Reported Index Offense Rates in the United States, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 465.5 469.2 473.5 466.9 454.5 429.4 403.6 386.3 386.9 367.9 Property Index Offense Rate 3,517.1 3,429.8 3,334.5 3,263.5 3,212.5 3,036.1 2,941.9 2,908.7 2,859.2 2,730.7 Overall Index Offense Rate 3,982.6 3,899.0 3,808.0 3,730.4 3,667.0 3,465.5 3,345.5 3,295.0 3,246.1 3,098.6 Violent Index Offense Rate SOURCE: Crime in United States, 2004-2013. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports. Although Part I index offense rates have declined from 2004 to 2013 in both Arizona and the nation, Arizona’s overall index offense rate continues to be higher than the rate for the nation. Importantly, the difference between Arizona’s and the nation’s overall index offense rate is primarily a function of differences in the property index offense rate. Because of limited participation and varying collection practices for reporting arson across participating law enforcement agencies nationally, arson is not included in the Arizona and United States property crime and offense statistics reported in this section of the report. 8 8 From 2004 to 2013, the difference between Arizona’s and the nation’s violent index offense rate ranged from 5.0 percent lower in Arizona in 2009, to 10.3 percent higher in Arizona in 2012. In contrast to Arizona’s violent index offense rates, Arizona’s property index offense rates remained higher than the nation’s during the entire period examined. The difference between Arizona’s and the nation’s property index offense rate ranged from 15.8 percent higher in Arizona in 2009, to 41.2 percent higher in Arizona in 2004. It is also worth noting that of all the index offenses reported to the police, approximately 90 percent are property index offenses. Figures 1 and 2 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. Figure 1: United States Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013 5,000.0 4,000.0 3,000.0 2,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Violent Crime 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2012 2013 Property Crime Figure 2: Arizona Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013 7,000.0 6,000.0 5,000.0 4,000.0 3,000.0 2,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Violent Crime 2009 2010 2011 Property Crime Although violent, property, and overall index offense rates provide a standardized estimate of crime across all cities, states, and the nation, combining individual index offenses to form an index can mask important differences within and across offense types. The next sections of this report look more closely at the violent and property 9 offense indices, and each offense that is part of the indices, to provide a deeper understanding of Arizona’s crime trends. Violent Index Offense Rates Rate per 100,000 Residents From 2004 to 2013, both Arizona and the nation experienced cumulative decreases in violent offense rates (Figure 3). In 2008, Arizona’s violent offense rate was lower than the nation’s for the first time since 2004. Arizona’s violent index offense rate continued to remain lower than the nation in 2009; however, that trend reversed in 2010, and Arizona has since been slightly higher than the national rate. Rates in 2013 were the lowest of the decade for Arizona and the nation. Figure 3: United States and Arizona Violent Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 465.5 469.2 473.5 466.9 454.5 429.4 403.6 386.3 386.9 367.9 Arizona 513.2 501.4 482.7 447.0 408.3 408.1 405.9 428.9 405.8 504.1 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter Offense Rates As defined by the UCR program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter is “the willful (non-negligent) killing of one human being by another.”9 Overall, the murder rate in both Arizona and the nation is substantially lower in 2013 than in 2004 (25.0 and 18.2 percent lower, respectively). Throughout the time period examined, the murder rates for Arizona were higher than the nation’s. In 2009, the difference between the nation’s murder offense rate and Arizona’s was smaller than at any other time from 2004 to 2013. 9 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html 10 Figure 4: United States and Arizona Murder/Non-Negligent Homicide Offense Rates 2004 - 2013 Rate per 100,000 Residents 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.5 Arizona 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.4 6.3 5.4 6.4 6.2 5.5 5.4 Forcible Rape Offense Rates As defined by the Uniform Crime Reporting program, forcible rape is “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”10 Attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included. However, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded. Sexual assaults on males are not included in this offense category and instead are classified as assaults or other sexual offenses not included in the UCR.11 Nationally, the rate of forcible rape reported to the police was 18.2 percent lower in 2013 than in 2004. From 2004 to 2013, the nation’s rate decreased each year with the exception of a slight increase between 2011 and 2012, with 2013 marking the lowest rate in the decade. In contrast, Arizona rates of forcible rape have seen a cumulative increase of 7.3 percent over the decade, with a low point of 25.7 rapes per 100,000 residents in 2008 and ending with the decade high of 35.4 rapes per 100,000 population in 2013. Figure 5 shows the forcible rape rate for Arizona and the United Stated from 2004 to 2013. 10 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html At the time this report was written, the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Service was scheduled to meet in the fall of 2011 to review the existing UCR definition of rape and consider recommendations for improving the measure of sexual assaults reported to the police. 11 11 Figure 5: United States and Arizona Forcible Rape Offense Rates, 2004-2013 Rate per 100,000 Residents 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 32.2 31.7 30.9 30.0 29.3 28.7 27.5 26.8 26.9 25.2 Arizona 33.0 33.8 31.5 29.3 25.7 32.0 33.9 34.9 34.7 35.4 Robbery Offense Rates 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.”12 In the nation as a whole and in Arizona, the robbery rate decreased from 2004 to 2013 (20.2 and 24.8 percent, respectively). From 2004 to 2008, the nation’s and Arizona’s annual robbery offense rate were very similar. Starting in 2009, Arizona rates dropped below the national rate and remained lower since that time. Decade low rates occurred in 2013 for Arizona and the nation. Figure 6 presents reported robbery rates for Arizona and the United States by year for 2004 through 2013. Rate per 100,000 Residents Figure 6: United States and Arizona Robbery Offense Rates, 2004-2013 12 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 136.7 140.7 149.4 147.6 145.3 133.0 119.1 113.7 112.9 109.1 Arizona 144.4 149.6 151.7 149.2 122.8 108.5 109.9 112.7 101.1 134.4 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html 12 Aggravated Assault Offense Rates 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.”13 Aggravated assaults are often committed with 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 2004 to 2013, both Arizona and the United States experienced substantial decreases in the rate of aggravated assault (19.9 and 21.3 percent, respectively). Arizona rates consistently declined between 2004 and 2011, followed by an uptick in 2012 and a decrease between 2012 and 2013. National rates followed similar trends with consistent yearly decreases between 2005 and 2011, a nominal increase in 2012 and a decrease between 2012 and 2013. Arizona rates were higher than the nation for all years except 2008 and 2009. Figure 7 shows reported aggravated assault offense rates from 2004 to 2013 for Arizona and the United States. Figure 7: United States and Arizona Aggravated Assault Offense Rates, 2004-2013 Rate per 100,000 Residents 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 291.1 291.1 287.5 283.8 274.6 262.8 252.3 241.1 242.3 229.1 Arizona 327.4 312.7 294.3 265.9 248.1 259.3 254.8 276.0 263.9 329.4 Property Crime Index Offense Rates The UCR program’s 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 13 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html 13 the offense can include the harming of individuals. However, as noted earlier in this report, because of variation in UCR program participation and local agency data collection procedures for arson, only limited data are available.14 For this reason, arson is excluded from the calculation of national and state property crime rates in this report. From 2004 to 2013, the property index offense rate decreased significantly nationally and in Arizona. During the time period examined, the property index offense rate decreased 36.4 percent in Arizona and 22.4 percent in the United States. Consistent declines occurred at the national level for all years in the decade, and similar declines occurred every year in Arizona with the exception of a slight increase between 2010 and 2011. Decade low rates were seen in 2013 in Arizona and nationally, with Arizona remaining higher than the nation for all years. Figure 8 shows the reported property index offense rate from 2004 to 2013 for Arizona and the United States. Figure 8: United States and Arizona Property Index Offense Rates, 2004-2013 Rate per 100,000 Residents 6,000.0 5,000.0 4,000.0 3,000.0 2,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 3,517.1 3,429.8 3,334.5 3,263.5 3,212.5 3,036.1 2,941.9 2,908.7 2,859.2 2,730.7 Arizona 5,340.5 4,838.0 4,627.9 4,414.0 4,291.0 3,556.5 3,534.0 3,554.5 3,539.2 3,399.1 Burglary The UCR program defines burglary “as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft.” 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.15 From 2004 to 2013, the burglary rates for the nation and Arizona have decreased 16.4 percent and 26.1 percent, respectively. Arizona rates consistently declined between 2004 and 2010. After an increase in 2011, Arizona burglary rates declined in both 2012 14 15 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/index.html http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/burglary.html 14 and 2013, ending with a decade low of 732.4 burglaries per 100,000 population in 2013. Although national rates had slightly more fluctuation in yearly increases and decreases across the decade, national rates remained consistently lower than Arizona rates for all years. Like Arizona, 2013 marked the lowest rate in the decade for burglaries in the United States. Figure 9 shows the reported burglary rate from 2004 to 2013 for Arizona and the United States. Figure 9: United States and Arizona Burglary Offense Rates, 2004-2013 Rate per 100,000 Residents 1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 729.9 726.7 729.4 722.5 730.8 716.3 699.6 702.2 670.2 610.0 Arizona 948.4 925.3 912.2 868.9 809.8 794.3 847.3 807.8 732.4 990.4 Larceny-Theft Larceny-theft is “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another.”16 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 offense rate decreased significantly in the United States and in Arizona from 2004 to 2013 (19.7 percent and 29.0 percent, respectively). Throughout this time period, the nation’s larceny-theft rate decreased consistently and had a decade low in 2013. In contrast, Arizona had consistent declines in larceny-theft rates from 2004 to 2007, but thereafter, the rate systematically increased then decreased every year. Arizona rates were higher than the national rates every year, with a decade low in 2009. Figure 10 shows the reported larceny-theft rate from 2004 to 2013 for Arizona and the United States. 16 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/larceny-theft.html 15 Figure 10: United States and Arizona Larceny-Theft Offense Rates, 2004-2013 Rate per 100,000 Residents 4,000.0 3,500.0 3,000.0 2,500.0 2,000.0 1,500.0 1,000.0 500.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 2,365.9 2,286.3 2,206.8 2,177.8 2,167.0 2,060.9 2,003.5 1,976.9 1,959.3 1,899.4 Arizona 3,387.2 2,965.2 2,813.1 2,738.4 2,849.5 2,352.8 2,403.2 2,401.3 2,439.1 2,403.5 Motor Vehicle Theft Motor vehicle theft is defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program as “the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle.”17 The types of motor vehicles that are included in this category are 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 bulldozers, airplanes, farm equipment, construction equipment, or water craft such as motorboats, sailboats, houseboats, or jet skis. Arizona and the nation had cumulative decreases in rates of motor vehicle theft across the decade (72.7 percent and 47.5 percent, respectively). Arizona rates were higher than the nation for all years and were notably higher than the nation between 2004 and 2008. The gap began to close in 2009, with a dramatic 59.1 percent reduction between 2004 and 2009 in Arizona rates. Arizona motor vehicle theft rates continued to consistently decline between 2010 and 2013, ending with a decade low in 2013. Figure 11 shows the reported motor vehicle theft rate from 2004 to 2013 for Arizona and the United States. 17 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/motor_vehicle_theft.html 16 Figure 11: United States and Arizona Motor Vehicle Theft Offense Rates, 2004-2013 Rate per 100,000 Residents 1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 United States 421.3 416.7 398.4 363.3 314.7 258.8 238.8 229.6 229.7 221.3 Arizona 924.4 889.5 763.4 572.6 394.0 336.5 305.9 292.3 263.2 962.9 Index Offense Counts Like many states around the country, Arizona has experienced significant declines in index offense rates since 2004. Index offense rates are useful measures of crime and public safety in a jurisdiction because they allow for reasonable comparisons to be made over time while controlling for changes in population. Yet, in states such as Arizona that continue to experience significant population increases, the number of crimes reported to the police better describes the impact of criminal victimization in a community (i.e., the number of individuals directly impacted by crime) and the impact of crime on the criminal justice system and its component agencies, than rates of crime. The section below describes change over time in the number of crimes that occurred in Arizona for the two crime indices and associated crime types. The data described in this section were tabulated from the Crime in Arizona Annual Reports published by the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Patterns in offense counts may differ slightly from the previously mentioned patterns in offense rates described in the federal UCR data. Violent Index Offenses After successive increases in the number of violent index offenses reported to police from 2004 to 2006, the number of violent index offenses consistently declined between 2006 and 2010 (Figure 12). In 2011, the number of violent index offenses reported to the police began to rise in Arizona, increase in 2012 and show a slight decrease in 2013. 17 Figure 12: Reported Violent Index Offenses in Arizona 2004-2013 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2004 Arizona 28,560 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 29,424 30,833 29,612 28,753 26,094 23,823 24,271 25,902 24,621 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter From 2004 to 2007, Arizona experienced a generally increasing trend in the number of murders in Arizona (Figure 13). From 2007 to 2009, the number of murders reported in Arizona declined 24.4 percent before increasing again by 15.5 percent from 2009 to 2010, and having a decade low in 2013. Figure 13: Reported Murders in Arizona 2004-2013 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Arizona 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 412 441 462 464 404 324 354 339 345 312 18 Forcible Rape Between 2004 and 2005, the number of forcible rapes reported to the police in Arizona increased, followed by a consistent decline until 2010. The number of forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in Arizona increased again in 2011 and continued to increase yearly between 2011 and 2013 (Figure 14). Figure 14: Reported Forcible Rapes in Arizona 2004-2013 2,250 2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 Arizona 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1,867 1,955 1,909 1,797 1,654 1,639 1,557 1,653 1,725 1,833 Robbery From 2004 to 2018, Arizona experienced yearly increases in the number of robberies reported to law enforcement (Figure 15). The number of robberies decreased between 2008 and 2011, followed by an uptick in 2012 and a subsequent decline and decade low in 2013. Figure 15: Reported Robberies in Arizona, 2004-2013 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Arizona 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 7,638 8,455 9,106 9,493 9,648 8,021 6,838 7,007 7,253 6,495 19 Aggravated Assault Although the number of aggravated assaults reported to police in Arizona has fluctuated throughout the decade, there has been a cumulative decrease over time, with a high in 2006 and a low in 2010. Numbers consistently fell between 2006 and 2010, with the number in 2013 falling substantially lower than the first half of the decade. Figure 16: Reported Aggravated Assaults in Arizona 2004-2013 22,500 20,000 17,500 15,000 12,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 2,500 0 2004 Arizona 18,643 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 18,573 19,356 17,858 17,047 16,110 15,074 15,272 16,579 15,981 Property Index Offenses With the exception of 2006, the number of property index offenses has fallen every year across the decade (Figure 17). The decade high occurred in 2004 and the decade low occurred in 2013. In this report, the property index offenses include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. 20 Figure 17: Reported Property Index Offenses in Arizona 2004-2013 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Arizona 303,259 279,216 281,686 277,051 262,130 231,633 226,429 227,604 224,996 215,772 Burglary The number of burglaries in Arizona has decreased cumulatively between 2004 and 2013. The majority of the decrease was seen over the second half of the decade, with sharp declines occurring between 2008 and 2010, and a decade low occurring in 2013. Figure 18 contains information on the number of reported burglaries in Arizona from 2004 to 2013. Figure 18: Reported Burglaries in Arizona, 2004-2013 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2004 Arizona 55,742 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 53,711 55,095 55,836 55,950 51,740 48,169 52,155 50,364 45,639 21 Larceny-Theft Like burglaries, the number of larceny-thefts reported to law enforcement in Arizona has cumulatively decreased over the decade. Most of this decrease occurred between 2004 and 2009. The number of larceny-thefts in Arizona increased slightly in 2010, but remained relatively stable between 2010 and 2013, and with a decade low in 2013. Figure 19 contains information on the number of reported larceny-thefts in Arizona from 2004 to 2013. Figure 19: Reported Larceny-Thefts in Arizona, 2004-2013 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Arizona 191,477 170,511 170,925 172,187 167,383 153,073 156,727 155,642 155,717 153,270 Motor Vehicle Theft The number of motor vehicle thefts in Arizona remained relatively constant between 2004 and 2006, but took a dramatic and consistent decline between 2006 and 2010 and saw consistent yearly declines thereafter. With a decade low in 2013, there were approximately 39,000 less motor vehicle thefts at the end of the decade compared to the beginning of the decade. Figure 20 contains information on the number of reported motor vehicle thefts in Arizona from 2004 to 2013. 22 Figure 20: Reported Motor Vehicle Thefts in Arizona, 2004-2013 60,000 Axis Title 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2004 Arizona 54,515 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 53,291 53,787 47,250 36,923 25,059 20,251 18,543 17,533 15,551 Summary In Arizona, rates and frequencies for aggregate index offenses (i.e., overall, violent, and property crime indices) and almost all offense-specific rates (e.g., murder, aggravated assault, motor vehicle theft, etc.) have cumulatively declined from 2004 to 2013. An exception to this trend is found in the data on rape in Arizona that suggests that both the rate and frequency of rape is higher in 2013 than in 2004. Additionally, although rates of aggravated assault did see cumulative decreases across the decade, these rates have increased between 2009 and 2013 and merit attention. Victimization Data National Crime Victimization Survey Although the UCR program data described above provides generally uniform measures of crimes reported to law enforcement within and across jurisdictions, the law enforcement-based program does not collect information on crimes that are not reported to the police. Recognizing that official crime statistics (i.e., crime statistics collected by criminal justice agencies to describe agency activity) provide a 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 NCVS routinely collects information on the frequency and nature 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). 23 With the exception of 2010, results from the 2004 through 2013 NCVS indicate that less than half of the violent crimes reported by survey respondents were reported to the police (Table 5). An even lower percentage of property crimes are reported to the police—approximately 40 percent. There is also significant variation in the percentage of crime reported to the police by type of offense. Motor vehicle theft has the highest percentage of victimizations reported to the police, while larceny-theft has the lowest. Interviews with crime victims have revealed multiple reasons why a crime victim might not report their victimization to the police, including:      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. Table 5: Percentage of Offenses Reported to the Police, 2004 - 2013 Crime Type 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 49.9% 47.4% 48.9% 46.3% 47.1% 48.6% 51.0% 49.0% 44.0% 45.6% Rape/sexual assault 35.8% 38.3% 41.4% 41.6% 41.4% 55.4% 50.0% 27.0% 28.0% 34.8% Robbery 61.1% 52.4% 56.9% 65.6% 60.5% 68.4% 57.9% 66.0% 56.0% 68.0% Aggravated assault 64.2% 62.4% 59.2% 57.2% 62.0% 58.2% 60.1% 67.0% 62.0% 64.3% Simple assault 44.9% 42.3% 44.3% 40.6% 41.3% 41.9% 47.0% 43.0% 40.0% 38.5% Property crimes 39.0% 39.6% 37.7% 37.2% 40.3% 39.4% 39.3% 37.0% 34.0% 36.1% Burglary 53.0% 56.3% 49.6% 50.1% 56.2% 57.3% 58.8% 52.0% 55.0% 57.3% Motor vehicle theft 84.8% 83.2% 81.0% 85.3% 79.6% 84.6% 83.4% 83.0% 79.0% 75.5% Theft 32.3% 32.3% 31.7% 30.6% 33.6% 31.8% 31.9% 30.0% Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey 2004 – 2013. 26.0% 28.6% Violent crimes Although NCVS data allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the nature and frequency of crime in the United States than official statistics alone, the absence of state-specific victimization data requires Arizona criminal justice practitioners and policymakers to rely primarily on data from law enforcement, the courts and correctional agencies to understand trends in crime and criminal justice system activity in Arizona. Even without state-level victimization data, national victimization data can be used to better understand, among other things, how much crime goes unreported, trends in victimization over time, and the details 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 the victims and the victim service agencies. Even when crimes are not reported to law enforcement, the victims of those crimes have needs to which the crime victim service system must respond. Victimization data helps to better understand 24 the needs of crime victims and the program capacity that is necessary to effectively serve them. Another use of NCVS data is to confirm or disconfirm trends over time that appears in official justice system data. For example, if the trends over time revealed by official and victimization data are similar, that provides more confidence that those trends are accurate perceptions of change over time in crime and not a function of differences in reporting. This is particularly important for those crimes that are historically underreported, including sexual assault and domestic violence.18 This section of Crime Trends reviews victimization and official offense data for the United States. Forcible Rape19 Although there are some differences between the NCVS and the UCR program in how forcible rape is defined, differences between the NCVS and UCR data illustrates the effect of factors that lead some crime victims to not report their victimization. Figure 21 and Table 6 compares the number of rape victimizations identified by the NCVS to the number of rapes reported to the police overtime according to the UCR program. During the time period examined, the UCR data reflects much less variation over time in the frequency of rape than the NCVS data. With the exception of 2012, the number of rapes reported to the police nationwide has decreased slightly each year, and reached a decade low in 2013, marking a cumulative 15.7 percent reduction since 2004. In contrast, the number of rape victimizations fluctuated between 2004 and 2008, saw a decade low in 2009 and has increased substantially since that time. With over 300,000 cases in 2013, the cumulative increase across the decade was 43.0 percent. The Figure 21: Forcible Rape, 2004-2013 NCVS and UCR 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UCR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS 18 Felson, R.B., & Paré, P. (2005). The Reporting of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault by Nonstrangers to the Police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 597-610 19 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. 25 greatest disparity between the NCVS and UCR data occurred in 2012 – the NCVS peak of the decade - with over four times more rapes reported by NCVS then by UCR data. Table 6: Forcible Rape, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS 209,880 190,590 272,350 248,300 203,830 125,910 188,380 243,800 346,830 300,170 UCR 94,635 93,934 92,455 90,427 89,000 88,097 84,767 83,425 84,376 79,770 Robbery Similar to forcible rape, the UCR data suggest a 14 percent cumulative decline across the decade for robberies, while the NCVS suggests a substantial increase in robberies – 28.7 percent across the decade. Although NCVS rates were always consistently higher than the UCR data, the greatest disparity in the numbers occurred in 2012 – the decade high for NCVS, but the third lowest year for UCR. Figure 22 and Table 7 contain data on the frequency of robbery by data source. Figure 22: Robbery, 2004-2013 NCVS and UCR 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UCR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS Table 7: Robbery, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS 501,820 630,130 711,570 597,300 551,830 533,790 480,750 556,760 741,760 645,650 UCR 401,326 417,122 447,403 445,125 441,855 408,217 367,832 354,396 354,520 345,031 26 Aggravated Assault Although the NCVS and UCR data began and ended the decade with NCVS having higher numbers for aggravated assault, the longitudinal trend for both sources indicated a cumulative reduction in the number of aggravated assaults across the decade (3.5 percent and 15.3 percent, respectively). While 2013 marked a decade low for the number of aggravated assaults for UCR data, the decade low for NCVS occurred in 2010, with subsequent yearly increases thereafter. Figure 23 and Table 8 contain data on the frequency of aggravated assault by data source. NC Figure 23: Aggravated Assault, 2004 - 2013 NCVS and UCR 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UCR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS Table 8: Aggravated Assault, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS 1,030,080 1,046,460 1,354,750 858,900 839,940 823,340 725,180 1,052,080 996,110 994,220 UCR 854,911 862,947 860,853 855,856 834,885 806,843 778,901 751,131 760,739 724,149 Motor Vehicle Theft20 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 historically has the highest percentage of victimizations reported to police. Both data sources indicate a cumulative decrease in the frequency of motor vehicle theft from 2004 to 2013 (34.8 percent and 43.4 percent, respectively). While UCR data indicates that the decline 20 A portion of the difference between NCVS and UCR data is likely due to definitional issues with motor vehicle theft. For example, official (i.e., UCR) data includes motor vehicle thefts and attempted motor vehicle thefts—it is unclear as to whether victimization (i.e., NCVS) data on motor vehicle theft also includes attempted motor vehicle thefts. 27 occurred consistently each year over the decade with 2013 marking the decade low, the NCVS data had a little more variability, with the first notable decrease occurring in 2008, a decade low in 2010 and subsequently yearly increases thereafter. Figure 24 and Table 9 contain data on the frequency of motor vehicle theft by data source. Figure 24: Motor Vehicle Theft, 2004-2013 NCVS and UCR 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UCR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS Table 9: Motor Vehicle Theft, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS 1,014,770 981,910 993,910 979,600 795,160 735,770 606,990 628,070 633,740 661,250 UCR 1,237,114 1,235,226 1,192,809 1,095,769 956,846 794,616 737,142 715,373 721,053 699,594 Larceny-Theft For all years in the decade except for 2008 to 2010, NCVS data for larceny-theft were approximately two times higher than UCR data. Both sources indicated a cumulative decrease across the decade (9.7 percent and 13.6 percent, respectively), with decade lows occurring in 2010 for NCVS data and in 2013 for UCR data. Like aggravated assaults and motor vehicle thefts, UCR data for larceny consistently decreased every year in the decade. In contrast, NCVS larceny numbers fluctuated throughout the decade with a considerable spike in numbers occurring in 2012. Figure 25 and Table 10 contain data on the frequency of larceny-theft by data source. 28 6 Figure 25: Larceny-Theft, 2004-2013 NCVS and UCR 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UCR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS Table 10: Larceny-Theft, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS 14,211,940 13,613,830 14,275,150 13,313,800 12,335,400 11,709,830 11,239,560 12,825,510 15,224,700 12,826,620 UCR 6,947,685 6,776,807 6,607,013 6,568,572 6,588,873 6,327,230 6,185,867 6,159,795 6,150,598 6,004,453 Burglary Like larceny, robbery and forcible rate, data from the NCVS suggests a clear divergence in the number of burglary victimizations during the decade compared to UCR data. While this gap lessened between 2007 and 2010, it returned in the last three years of the decade and was most notable in 2012. While UCR data suggests a consistent yearly decline between 2008 and 2013, with a decade low in 2013, NCVS data did not follow this pattern, marking a decade high in 2012. Figure 26 and Table 11 contain data on the frequency of burglary by data source. 29 Figure 26: Burglary, 2004-2013 NCVS and UCR 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 UCR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS Table 11: Burglary, NCVS and UCR, 2004-2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NCVS 3,427,690 3,456,220 3,539,760 3,215,100 3,188,620 3,134,920 3,176,180 3,613,190 3,764,540 3,286,210 UCR 2,144,446 2,154,126 2,183,746 2,179,140 2,222,196 2,199,125 2,168,459 2,185,140 2,103,787 1,928,465 Firearm Use and Violent Crime In addition to the number of index offenses reported to the police, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program also collects information on firearm use by offenders involved in homicides, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Murder The majority of homicides in Arizona and nationwide involve a firearm (Table 12). From 2004 to 2011, approximately two-thirds of homicides in the United States were committed with a firearm. Firearm-related homicides in the nation reached a decade high in 2012 at 69.3 percent and remained relatively constant in 2013. Although the percentage of murders committed with a firearm in Arizona began the decade higher than the national average, this trend shifted in 2009, with Arizona percentages becoming lower and remaining lower than the national average throughout the remainder of the decade. While the nation as a whole had a 4.1 percent cumulative increase in firearm-related homicides between 2004 and 2013, Arizona had an 18.1 percent reduction in that time. 30 Table 12: Murder with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States, 2004-2013 Arizona Total Murders Murders with a Firearm 2004 409 2005 United States Percent Total Murders Murders with a Firearm Percent 295 72.1% 14,121 9,326 66.0% 440 334 75.9% 14,860 10,100 68.0% 2006 462 343 74.2% 14,990 10,177 67.9% 2007 464 323 69.6% 14,831 10,086 68.0% 2008 405 290 71.6% 14,180 9,484 66.9% 2009 328 197 60.1% 13,636 9,146 67.1% 2010 352 232 65.9% 12,996 8,775 67.5% 2011 339 222 65.5% 12,664 8,583 67.7% 2012 321 211 65.7% 12,765 8,855 69.3% 2013 304 184 60.5% 12,253 8,454 69.0% Robbery The percentage of robberies involving a firearm in the United States saw slight increases between 2004 and 2009 before subsequent yearly decreases over the next four years and ending with a decade low in 2013. The percentage of Arizona robberies involving a firearm held at approximately 50 percent between 2004 and 2008, , then trended downward ending with a decade low in 2013 that was slightly lower than the national percentage (38.7 percent vs 40.0 percent, respectively). Nationally, the cumulative decrease across the decade was a nominal 1.6 percent, whereas Arizona saw a dramatic 23.3 percent cumulative decrease over the ten years. Table 13 compares the number and percentage of robberies involving the use of a firearm in Arizona and the nation as a whole. 31 Table 13: Robberies with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States, 2004 – 2013 Arizona Robberies Total with a Robberies Firearm Percent United States Robberies Total with a Robberies Firearm Percent 2004 7,632 3,855 50.5% 321,299 130,554 40.6% 2005 6,675 3,655 54.8% 338,110 142,471 42.1% 2006 9,002 4,437 49.3% 372,335 157,275 42.2% 2007 9,437 4,648 49.3% 369,572 158,240 42.8% 2008 9,645 4,986 51.7% 375,484 163,163 43.5% 2009 8,060 3,671 45.5% 350,669 149,335 42.6% 2010 6,864 3,036 44.2% 308,309 127,521 41.4% 2011 7,057 3,156 44.7% 302,019 124,606 41.3% 2012 7,247 3,055 42.2% 298,211 122,174 41.0% 2013 6,544 2,535 38.7% 312,461 124,885 40.0% Aggravated Assault Although national percentages of aggravated assaults involving a firearm began and ended the decade lower than Arizona percentages, the national level did have an 11.9 percent cumulative increase over the decade. Arizona, in comparison, had a 12.1 percent decrease in the percentage of firearm-related aggravated assaults between 2004 and 2013, with a decade low in 2012 and holding relatively constant in 2013. Table 14 compares the number and percentage of aggravated assaults involving a firearm in Arizona to the percentage of aggravated assaults involving a firearm nationally. 32 Table 14: Aggravated Assaults with a Firearm, Arizona and the United States, 2004 – 2013 Total Aggravated Assaults Arizona Aggravated Assaults with a Firearm United States Aggravated Total Assaults Aggravated with a Assaults Firearm Percent 2004 18,483 4,916 26.6% 715,376 137,988 19.3% 2005 15,104 3,892 25.8% 720,762 151,118 21.0% 2006 18,155 5,353 29.5% 731,229 160,319 21.9% 2007 16,952 4,863 28.7% 729,733 155,963 21.4% 2008 16,974 4,842 28.5% 720,575 154,145 21.4% 2009 15,967 4,053 25.4% 701,961 146,773 20.9% 2010 15,337 3,618 23.6% 670,443 137,857 20.6% 2011 15,247 3,603 23.6% 652,169 138,336 21.2% 2012 16,532 4,010 24.3% 657,545 143,119 21.8% 2013 16,855 3,942 23.4% 659,363 142,324 21.6% Percent Courts and Probation Data21 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 considerable year-to-year variability from 2004 to 2013 in the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Court of Appeals, in 2013 the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Court of Appeals was 5.6 percent higher than in 2004 (Table 15).22 The decade high occurred in 2011 with 3,987 filings, but decreased the remaining two years in the decade. In contrast, since 2004 there has been a general declining 21 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 (http://www.azcourts.gov/Default.aspx?alias=www.azcourts.gov/Statistics). 22 In this section, the data reported is based on fiscal year activity. 33 trend in the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Supreme Court, with a decade high in 2004 and a decade low in 2011. Table 15: Appellate Court Case Filings, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Court of Appeals 3,457 3,871 3,716 3,535 3,510 3,535 3,860 3,907 3,751 3,651 Supreme Court 1,170 1,164 1,256 1,161 1,164 1,023 1,086 1,018 1,109 1,054 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, 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. From 2004 to 2009 the number of cases filed in Superior Courts statewide increased each year, followed by consistent yearly declines each year thereafter. The decade peak occurred in 2009 and the decade low occurred in 2013, representing a cumulative 2.3 percent decrease over the ten years and a dramatic 18.0 percent reduction in the five years spanning 2009 to 2013. Table 16 contains data on the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Superior Courts from 2004 to 2013. Table 16: Superior Court Case Filings, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 204,681 205,516 208,847 211,380 223,676 243,867 243,179 235,386 211,350 200,038 Figure 27 depicts the number of felony cases filed in Superior Courts from 2004 to 2013. Throughout this time period, the number of felony case filings in Arizona’s Superior Courts cumulatively increased between 2004 and 2008, followed by a cumulative decrease over the second half of the decade. Over the entire time period examined, the number of felony case filings increased by 13.7 percent, from 54,420 felony filings in 2004 to 46,981 felony filings in 2013. 34 Figure 27: Felony Filings, FY2004 - FY2013 Number of Felony Filings 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Felony Filings 54,420 54,426 57,885 57,551 59,385 55,299 50,446 49,166 50,456 46,981 County Superior Court Filings When looking at Superior Court case filings by county (Table 17), most Arizona counties had cumulative decreases in the number of cases filed in Superior Court from 2004 to 2013. Greenlee, Mohave and Pinal Counties were the exception to this trend, representing cumulative increases over the decade of 2.2 percent, 25.4 percent and 14.8 percent, respectively. Of Arizona’s 15 counties, nine experienced decade highs in the number of cases filed in Superior Court during the first half of the decade (i.e., 2004-2008) and six experienced decade highs during the last five years of the decade (i.e., 2009 – 2013). Decade lows occurred for ten counties in 2013, and Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave and Pinal Counties all had decade lows in the first three years of the decade. Apache County was the only exception, with a decade low in the year 2010. La Paz County had the greatest cumulative reduction in the number of Superior Court filings, and Mohave County had the greatest cumulative increase over the decade. TOTA 35 Table 17: Superior Court Case Filings by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 % Change 04-13 % Change 09-13 Apache 1,065 1,044 1,081 1,117 1,130 867 807 894 980 913 -14.3% 5.3% Cochise 4,448 4,259 4,441 4,417 4,079 4,147 3,898 4,007 3,663 3,261 -26.7% -21.4% Coconino 3,851 3,591 3,895 3,750 3,453 3,836 3,720 3,506 3,581 3,290 -14.6% -14.2% Gila 2,358 2,338 1,976 2,210 2,185 2,034 1,989 2,090 1,816 1,749 -25.8% -14.0% Graham 1,352 1,327 1,429 1,410 1,545 1,541 1,451 1,351 1,271 1,219 -9.8% -20.9% Greenlee 321 341 296 366 329 331 392 339 334 328 2.2% -0.9% La Paz 951 994 935 866 846 718 812 691 596 593 -37.6% -17.4% 128,876 127,890 130,100 132,081 141,548 160,093 160,149 155,148 134,829 128,843 0.0% -19.5% Mohave 5,113 5,901 6,319 6,497 5,732 6,287 7,880 7,040 6,576 6,412 25.4% 2.0% Navajo 3,204 2,855 3,047 3,061 2,863 2,957 3,239 3,110 3,109 2,757 -14.0% -6.8% Pima 30,165 31,069 30,161 29,531 32,071 32,945 30,366 29,322 29,154 28,208 -6.5% -14.4% Pinal 7,801 8,291 8,646 8,830 10,345 11,575 12,386 12,439 10,749 8,956 14.8% -22.6% Santa Cruz 1,728 1,973 2,329 2,335 2,108 2,080 2,112 1,779 1,576 1,587 -8.2% -23.7% Yavapai* 7,235 7,486 7,970 8,184 8,345 8,237 N/A 7,483 7,350 6,804 -6.0% -17.4% Yuma 6,213 6,157 6,222 6,725 7,097 6,219 6,186 6,187 5,766 5,118 -17.6% -17.7% 204,681 205,516 208,847 211,380 223,676 243,867 243,179 235,386 211,350 200,038 -2.3% -18.0% Maricopa Total * At the time this report was written, Yavapai County Superior Court case filing data was unavailable in FY2010. 36 Table 18: Superior Court Felony Case Filings by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 % Change 04-13 % Change 09-13 Apache 360 344 340 291 302 232 197 210 313 257 -28.6% 10.8% Cochise 791 827 804 737 701 719 720 860 792 618 -21.9% -14.0% 1,277 1,229 1,226 1,048 943 1,007 882 876 935 905 -29.1% -10.1% Gila 650 766 638 717 733 627 633 592 581 543 -16.5% -13.4% Graham 332 409 371 458 490 512 476 418 401 370 11.4% -27.7% Greenlee 88 66 80 93 78 100 68 63 74 82 -6.8% -18.0% 480 498 426 344 275 319 350 268 195 215 -55.2% -32.6% 36,748 35,953 38,975 38,599 40,933 37,162 34,362 32,381 33,072 30,288 -17.6% -18.5% Mohave 1,490 1,557 1,764 1,833 1,527 1,399 1,246 1,437 1,508 1,599 7.3% 14.3% Navajo 1,187 795 1,149 1,358 1,030 1,056 997 906 1,048 933 -21.4% -11.6% Pima 4,962 5,717 5,540 5,318 5,634 5,922 4,860 4,840 5,262 5,702 14.9% -3.7% Pinal 1,688 1,937 1,984 1,798 2,010 1,907 2,330 2,785 2,892 2,129 26.1% 11.6% 236 324 330 324 265 239 270 191 207 266 12.7% 11.3% Yavapai* 2,465 2,504 2,756 3,060 2,828 2,421 N/A 1,811 1,903 1,782 -27.7% -26.4% Yuma 1,666 1,500 1,502 1,573 1,636 1,677 1,510 1,528 1,273 1,292 -22.4% -23.0% Total 54,420 54,426 57,885 57,551 59,385 55,299 50,446 49,166 50,456 46,981 -13.7% -15.0% Coconino La Paz Maricopa Santa Cruz * At the time this report was written, Yavapai County Superior Court case filing data was unavailable in FY2010. 37 Like the cumulative decreases seen in the number of cases filed in Arizona Superior Court, felony case filings between 2004 and 2013 in most Arizona counties also saw cumulative decreases (Table 18). Counties that did experience increases across the decade included Graham, Mohave, Pima, Pinal and Santa Cruz with respective increases of 11.4 percent, 7.3 percent, 14.9 percent, 26.1 percent and 12.7 percent. Nine Arizona counties had decade high numbers of felony filings in the first half of the decade (i.e., 2004-2008) and twelve of Arizona’s fifteen counties had decade low numbers of felony filings in the last half of the decade (i.e., 2009-2013). La Paz County had the greatest cumulative reduction in the number of felony filings over the decade, while Pinal Count had the greatest cumulative increase over the decade. Justice Courts From 2004 to 2013, the total number of cases filed in Arizona’s Justice Courts decreased by 10.4 percent (Table 19). During this time, criminal traffic case filings decreased by 11.2 percent. Additionally, there was a 28.4 percent decline in non-traffic misdemeanor case filings from 2004 to 2013. Finally, there was a 4.1 percent decrease in the number of felony filings in Arizona’s Justice Courts over the decade. Criminal Traffic filings in Arizona Justice Courts have seen yearly decreases since 2007, and NonTraffic Misdemeanor filings have followed the same pattern since 2006. Felony filings in Arizona Justice Courts saw a decade high in 2006 and a decade low in 2011. Table 19: Justice Court Filings by Type of Case, FY 2004-2013 Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misdemeanors* Felonies Total 2004 105,277 116,582 27,008 848,721 2005 109,946 115,695 27,117 856,153 2006 122,095 127,437 27,869 885,441 2007 145,849 119,400 27,250 916,666 2008 139,367 116,382 24,149 923,915 2009 134,327 106,549 22,597 935,155 2010 117,978 97,752 20,646 912,510 2011 101,489 95,531 19,422 828,446 2012 96,692 89,803 20,998 789,300 2013 93,532 83,514 25,895 760,243 *Non-Traffic Misdemeanors include Traffic Failure to Appear filings Figure 28 illustrates the types of cases filed in Arizona Justice Courts and the percentage of all filings that are made up of each case type. The decade started and ended with roughly the same percentage of all case filings in Arizona’s Justice Courts that were felony filings (3.2 percent vs 3.4 percent, respectively). Throughout this time period, approximately 70 percent of all cases filed in Arizona’s Justice Courts were civil 38 filings (e.g., civil traffic, small claims, forcible detainer, etc.) and non-criminal violations of local ordinances. Figure 28: Justice Court Filings by Type FY2004 - FY2013 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 27,008 27,117 27,869 27,250 24,149 22,597 20,646 19,422 20,998 25,859 Non-Traffic Misd. 116,582 115,695 127,437 119,400 116,382 106,549 97,752 95,531 89,803 83,514 Criminal Traffic 105,277 109,946 122,095 145,849 139,367 134,327 117,978 101,489 96,692 93,532 Other 599,854 603,395 608,040 624,167 644,017 671,682 676,134 612,004 581,807 557,338 Felony County Justice Court Filings Although there was an overall decrease in the number of cases filed in Arizona’s Justice Courts from 2004 to 2013, three counties (Greenlee, Navajo and Pinal) experienced small percentage increases in the number of cases filed in their Justice Courts during this time. Gila County had the largest percent decrease in the number of cases filed in Justice Courts over the decade (34.9 percent), while Navajo County had the largest percent decrease over the decade (19.1 percent). Maricopa County has virtually eliminated felony case filings in Justice Courts, which helps explain the reduction in felony case filings in Justice Courts statewide. Table 20 contains data on the number of Justice Court case filings by county and type of case. 39 Table 20: Justice Court Case Filings by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Criminal Traffic Apache 2011 2012 2013 1,826 2,111 1,858 1,530 1,173 Non-Traffic Misd. 944 711 857 836 1,024 951 755 640 791 597 Felony 716 698 590 607 667 553 533 454 601 550 9,559 8,215 10,771 9,883 9,302 9,125 8,758 9,316 10,338 8,072 10,069 8,680 8,744 7,937 7,459 7,316 6,758 5,922 5,726 5,623 Non-Traffic Misd. 8,279 8,381 9,026 7,998 8,355 8,805 8,017 7,223 7,007 7,106 Felony 1,896 2,141 1,849 1,378 784 865 1,143 1,114 982 856 46,150 43,008 46,623 44,386 44,573 42,286 43,485 39,827 38,403 41,600 Criminal Traffic 4,873 4,929 5,641 4,981 4,169 3,689 3,375 3,269 3,534 3,014 Non-Traffic Misd. 3,971 3,162 3,128 2,713 2,513 2,646 2,897 2,966 2,851 2,252 Felony 2,399 1,376 1,666 1,633 1,272 992 917 800 1,005 966 28,771 24,514 28,489 27,462 25,601 26,992 26,246 25,740 26,368 22,139 Criminal Traffic 1,407 1,328 1,550 1,422 1,254 1,496 1,376 1,045 828 898 Non-Traffic Misd. 1,957 2,255 2,657 2,360 2,372 2,062 2,345 1,906 2,032 1,744 156 209 109 105 86 98 79 119 85 121 15,186 15,480 15,402 14,337 12,777 16,390 16,721 13,360 10,953 9,883 Criminal Traffic 575 705 519 680 556 516 414 351 409 451 Non-Traffic Misd. 550 610 439 703 744 723 632 484 574 547 Felony 423 497 402 610 662 583 563 464 480 511 Felony Total La Paz 2010 1,955 Total Greenlee 2009 2,187 Total Graham 2008 2,490 Total Gila 2007 1,919 Criminal Traffic Coconino 2006 2,049 Total Cochise 2005 5,819 5,610 5,688 7,878 6,880 6,341 4,821 4,364 4,443 4,597 Criminal Traffic 162 136 165 265 326 197 175 119 87 107 Non-Traffic Misd. 335 221 234 275 413 345 264 253 256 265 Felony 127 71 100 111 86 136 149 133 106 131 Total 1,584 1,279 1,810 3,058 3,067 2,171 2,215 1,757 1,493 1,805 Criminal Traffic 4,004 3,416 4,889 5,792 6,857 6,010 4,866 3,470 3,780 2,979 Non-Traffic Misd. 2,354 2,043 1,570 1,633 2,001 2,760 2,065 1,614 1,591 1,335 821 870 684 614 402 447 399 316 251 169 16,945 15,864 19,066 23,236 24,981 22,464 18,359 14,294 15,654 14,028 Felony Total 40 Table 20 (cont.): Justice Court Case Filings by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Maricopa Pima 2011 2012 2013 73,266 61,657 53,611 49,236 49,309 Non-Traffic Misd. 30,367 30,969 30,401 34,468 32,021 32,024 22,909 21,332 21,833 19,211 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Felony 348,040 375,970 374,560 406,251 425,865 439,080 390,691 374,064 346,570 329,387 Criminal Traffic 7,889 7,263 5,733 5,500 4,969 5,273 4,766 3,722 3,700 3,265 Non-Traffic Misd. 9,543 9,464 9,205 8,677 8,464 7,873 8,237 7,762 6,157 5,772 Felony 3,000 3,583 4,009 3,708 3,239 2,981 2,503 2,442 2,352 2,412 49,008 46,483 44,723 46,774 46,946 46,113 44,600 40,495 37,705 36,952 Criminal Traffic 3,783 4,389 5,212 5,427 5,009 4,384 4,298 3,723 3,826 3,893 Non-Traffic Misd. 5,943 6,930 6,911 6,913 7,655 6,835 9,063 8,045 7,927 8,290 Felony 1,734 1,129 1,824 1,773 1,545 1,352 1,436 1,553 1,493 1,206 Total 24,526 21,221 31,937 33,035 29,108 29,821 31,137 28,901 29,037 29,287 Criminal Traffic 18,709 21,744 16,737 18,009 15,342 13,679 14,032 10,938 10,431 10,176 Non-Traffic Misd. 34,413 34,636 45,306 34,810 30,577 20,522 19,127 23,140 21,983 20,158 9,225 9,761 9,757 9,708 9,142 8,896 7,995 7,510 9,285 14,534 Felony 189,106 186,581 185,682 178,636 160,386 154,456 194,179 157,496 152,967 154,824 Criminal Traffic 6,369 6,016 5,561 5,630 5,716 6,028 5,091 5,569 6,107 5,830 Non-Traffic Misd. 7,539 7,324 6,971 7,075 7,375 7,004 7,006 7,096 7,864 8,338 Felony 1,803 2,009 1,475 1,264 1,048 1,110 932 816 715 730 44,475 46,415 43,779 44,607 54,195 54,772 49,582 48,297 49,493 48,978 Criminal Traffic 1,405 1,518 1,195 1,082 1,102 1,145 1,283 1,280 1,068 941 Non-Traffic Misd. 1,071 1,229 1,349 1,325 1,285 1,047 1,661 1,539 953 654 Felony 402 471 450 516 461 431 374 308 365 354 10,496 9,906 9,430 9,831 10,536 11,511 11,396 9,791 9,286 8,505 Criminal Traffic 6,527 5,491 6,502 7,168 7,097 6,347 5,299 4,222 4,042 4,139 Non-Traffic Misd. 5,314 4,593 4,905 4,920 5,095 5,381 5,491 4,230 3,606 3,736 Felony 2,339 2,594 2,971 3,205 3,000 2,413 1,951 1,878 1,981 1,942 36,914 34,369 41,340 41,280 40,387 44,277 44,259 35,560 35,510 33,401 Criminal Traffic 2,831 3,114 3,708 3,537 3,761 3,155 2,477 2,390 2,388 1,734 Non-Traffic Misd. 4,002 3,167 4,478 4,694 6,488 7,571 7,283 7,301 4,378 3,509 Felony 1,966 1,705 1,983 2,018 1,755 1,740 1,672 1,515 1,297 1,377 22,142 21,238 26,141 26,012 29,311 29,356 26,061 25,184 21,080 16,785 Total Yuma 2010 73,795 Total Yavapai 2009 76,232 Total Santa Cruz 2008 53,449 Total Pinal 2007 39,298 Total Navajo 2006 34,625 Total Mohave 2005 Criminal Traffic Total 41 Municipal Courts There were 1,152,168 cases filed in Arizona’s Municipal Courts in 2013, representing a 20.0 percent cumulative decrease in the number of cases filed since 2004 (Table 21). From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of all cases filed in Municipal Courts that were criminal traffic decreased by 33.9 percent. Though a smaller decrease, Non-Traffic Misdemeanor filings in Arizona Municipal Courts also decreased 9.8 percent over the decade. The majority of cases (71.7 percent in 2014) filed in Municipal Courts are for civil traffic offenses. Table 21: Municipal Court Filings by Type, FY 2004-FY 2013 Fiscal Year 2004 Criminal Traffic Non-Traffic Misdemeanors Total* 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 2008 178,786 243,032 1,658,230 2009 168,933 244,990 1,557,948 2010 160,073 240,481 1,436,526 2011 136,062 215,392 1,306,239 2012 121,061 208,879 1,253,047 2013 114,576 211,174 1,152,168 *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. County Municipal Court Filings Despite overall decreases in the number of cases filed in Arizona Municipal Courts statewide between 2004 and 2013, there were four counties that had increases over the decade. Gila, Greenlee, Navajo and Yuma Counties had 131.0 percent, 22.9 percent, 86.0 percent and 15.5 percent cumulative increases, respectively. The range of cumulative decrease across the remaining twelve counties spanned 8.4 percent (i.e., Pinal County) to 56.5 percent (i.e., Santa Cruz). Table 22 contains data on Municipal Court case filings by county and type of filing. 42 Table 22: Municipal Court Case Filings by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Apache Coconino Gila La Paz 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 319 329 222 267 215 184 170 165 Non-Traffic Misd. 593 575 524 599 494 700 599 521 482 459 1,638 1,464 1,598 1,783 1,566 1,969 1,751 1,481 1,225 1,249 Criminal Traffic 572 538 313 377 458 145 150 147 147 70 Non-Traffic Misd. 730 835 790 690 752 290 284 326 253 217 Total 8,589 9,527 8,910 8,281 7,814 6,066 5,833 5,651 5,578 4,722 Criminal Traffic 3,125 3,118 3,027 2,940 2,164 1,876 2,236 2,518 2,321 2,168 Non-Traffic Misd. 10,484 9,355 9,704 9,920 9,449 9,811 9,514 8,429 8,821 9,177 Total 27,017 26,066 25,370 24,632 22,928 24,456 26,716 24,313 21,865 21,344 Criminal Traffic 850 835 872 740 714 600 553 421 248 189 Non-Traffic Misd. 950 922 1,020 1,135 1,098 1,120 1,239 918 843 733 8,680 7,257 7,589 7,411 17,592 24,931 25,458 23,139 36,128 20,051 Criminal Traffic 460 331 347 399 545 358 281 221 198 155 Non-Traffic Misd. 760 925 922 1,085 1,236 1,011 879 1,046 945 1,157 3,218 3,071 3,330 3,328 3,419 3,106 2,701 2,333 2,295 2,418 Criminal Traffic 76 58 110 65 51 77 59 61 68 77 Non-Traffic Misd. 58 68 144 155 101 120 114 109 142 132 Total 550 408 526 442 369 406 418 415 461 676 Criminal Traffic 582 493 547 480 475 435 341 408 278 298 Non-Traffic Misd. 507 437 739 555 578 605 581 562 529 493 3,293 3,657 4,277 4,682 4,255 3,601 2,858 3,078 2,456 2,519 Criminal Traffic 122,438 124,037 124,080 133,022 133,523 127,159 120,623 102,699 91,873 88,321 Non-Traffic Misd. 109,525 113,818 110,544 117,185 122,690 125,486 119,252 104,400 106,103 112,841 Total 956,475 1,003,469 986,865 1,052,739 1,147,042 1,035,175 944,714 847,913 825,751 766,415 Total Maricopa 2008 196 Total Greenlee 2007 228 Total Graham 2006 Criminal Traffic Total Cochise 2005 43 Table 22 (Cont.): Municipal Court Case Filings by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Criminal Traffic Mohave Navajo 2010 2011 2012 2013 3,354 3,040 2,760 2,639 2,576 2,320 Non-Traffic Misd. 10,198 10,743 11,924 11,641 9,710 8,687 9,494 8,238 8,620 7,599 Total 29,586 29,959 31,164 29,905 25,615 23,570 22,613 21,635 21,087 18,756 Criminal Traffic 473 236 190 207 245 192 126 115 56 94 Non-Traffic Misd. 683 215 181 179 195 164 233 245 366 499 6,071 4,747 5,274 5,311 5,398 6,306 13,274 16,012 12,247 11,292 Criminal Traffic 27,088 24,811 22,479 22,729 22,595 21,796 21,713 17,590 14,676 12,963 Non-Traffic Misd. 76,410 78,672 76,603 75,590 73,380 74,349 76,897 70,543 62,112 57,344 281,845 272,299 262,843 277,015 290,285 299,212 277,482 248,566 215,116 194,575 Criminal Traffic 4,018 3,708 4,118 4,423 4,860 4,815 3,574 2,695 2,420 2,697 Non-Traffic Misd. 7,507 7,280 8,588 7,263 7,804 8,410 7,311 6,555 7,163 8,148 29,538 24,010 27,306 27,796 33,215 34,493 29,166 27,197 26,382 27,065 Criminal Traffic 1,198 1,069 971 933 751 1,016 643 530 373 297 Non-Traffic Misd. 1,713 1,664 1,512 1,230 1,186 1,278 1,275 1,256 1,059 961 17,890 20,142 16,898 12,184 12,254 15,555 12,067 11,311 7,713 7,774 Criminal Traffic 4,696 5,139 5,762 5,503 4,970 3,702 3,446 2,894 2,917 2,681 Non-Traffic Misd. 7,940 6,596 7,602 7,449 7,127 6,845 5,995 6,014 5,854 5,776 41,862 40,426 45,001 49,156 58,941 54,807 42,016 50,071 49,319 46,517 Criminal Traffic 3,092 3,131 3,535 3,885 3,859 3,455 3,201 2,940 2,740 2,081 Non-Traffic Misd. 6,081 6,051 6,621 7,404 7,232 6,114 6,362 6,230 5,587 5,638 23,200 22,741 24,774 28,127 27,537 24,295 25,763 23,124 25,424 26,795 Total Yuma 2009 3,593 Total Yavapai 2008 4,588 Total Santa Cruz 2007 5,125 Total Pinal 2006 4,350 Total Pima 2005 Total 44 Probation23 The Adult Probation Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) oversees the statewide administration of adult probation programs and services. This division of AOC works with the courts, probation departments, and a variety of noncourt agencies and organizations throughout Arizona. The information provided in this section of the report focuses on adult 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 also include those currently under probation supervision at the end of each fiscal year irrespective of when they were sentenced to probation. Standard and Intensive Probation The purpose of standard probation in Arizona is to protect the public through effective community-based supervision and enforcement of court orders and to provide 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. § 12- 253(2) and vary according to supervision level (i.e., maximum, medium, and minimum). Each probation department also has the authority to implement more stringent supervision requirements than are established by statute. The number of active standard probationers was roughly similar at the beginning and end of the decade, representing little cumulative change over the ten years (Figure 29); however, the total number of active standard probationers in Arizona did fluctuate quite a bit throughout the decade, with a decade high of 41,146 active standard probationers in 2007 and a decade low of 36,095 active standard probationers in 2005. In comparison, the number of active intensive probationers did see a cumulative decrease of 24.4 percent between 2004 and 2013, with a decade high of 3,0001 active intensive probationers in 2005 and a decade low of 2,077 active intensive probationers in 2010. This section of Crime Trends focuses on adults on probation. Data on juveniles sentenced to probation is included in the juvenile justice section that appears later in this report. 23 45 Figure 29: Number of Direct Adult Probationers* FY2004-FY2013 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2,923 3,001 2,879 2,677 2,676 2,283 2,077 2,152 2,143 2,209 Standard 35,709 36,095 39,040 41,146 40,130 36,456 37,802 36,319 36,036 35,892 Intensive * Population totals as of June 30th of each fiscal year. 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 caused their victims (i.e., restitution) and engage in service to the communities in which they live (i.e., community service). From 2004 to 2013, the amount of restitution collected from offenders on standard probation ranged from a low of $11.6 million in 2004 to a high of $15.1 million in 2006. The total amount of restitution collected over the decade was approximately $116 million (Table 23). During the same time, more than $410 million in restitution, reimbursement of criminal justice system costs, fines/surcharges, and probation fees were collected from offenders on standard probation. 46 Table 23: Dollar Amount Collected from Standard Probationers, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Restitution Total Collections* % of Total Collections $11,573,429 $34,483,007 33.6% $12,356,613 $36,459,312 33.9% $15,120,671 $41,821,183 36.2% $13,642,118 $43,232,283 31.6% N/A $41,905,595 N/A $12,595,395 $45,535,884 27.7% $12,040,921 $40,962,524 29.4% $13,924,495 $41,697,225 33.4% $12,896,046 $41,567,631 31.0% $12,269,957 $42,625,295 28.8% *Total collections include restitution to victims, reimbursement of criminal justice system costs, fines/surcharges, and probation fees paid. From 2004 to 2013, the number of community service hours completed by standard probationers decreased 50.7 percent from 813,823 in 2004 to 401,613 in 2014. At the minimum wage in Arizona in 2013 ($7.80/hour), standard probationers performed community service work worth approximately $3,132,581 to the communities in which they are being supervised. Table 24: Dollar Amount Collected from Intensive Probationers, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Restitution Total Collections* % of Total Collections $761,283 $3,972,280 19.2% $880,938 $2,766,264 31.8% $676,758 $2,461,572 27.5% $774,504 $2,574,973 30.1% N/A N/A N/A $437,688 $3,165,046 13.8% $363,470 $2,059,415 17.6% $231,130 $1,747,611 13.2% $245,186 $1,808,125 13.6% $286,156 $1,773,550 16.1% *Total collections include restitution to victims, reimbursement of criminal justice system costs, fines/surcharges, probation fees, and taxes paid. 47 * The FY 2008 total is only available for combined intensive and standard probationers. 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 convicted 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 requirements of standard probationers, each county’s probation department has the authority to establish more stringent supervision requirements than are established by statute. Restitution and Community Service for Adult Intensive Probation From 2004 to 2013, the amount of restitution collected from offenders on intensive probation decreased by 62.4 percent from $761,283 to $286,156. During the same time, total collections from offenders on intensive probation decreased by 55.4 percent. Table 24 reports the amount of restitution and total collections by year. During this same time, the number of community service hours completed by offenders on intensive probation decreased 47.9 percent, from 615,182 hours in 2004 to 320,357 hours in 2015 (Figure 30). It is worth noting that even though there are approximately 20 offenders on standard probation for every offender on intensive probation statewide, 48 intensive probationers performed close to 75 percent of the total number of community service hours performed by standard probationers. In part, this can be explained by minimum community service requirements for offenders on intensive probation of not less than 40 hours monthly for those who are not full-time students.24 At the minimum wage in Arizona for 2013 ($7.80/hour), offenders on intensive probation in FY2010 performed community service work worth approximately $2,498,785 to the communities in which they were being supervised.25Co Department of Corrections Data The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) houses criminal offenders convicted of felonies in Arizona and sentenced to state confinement. The ADC also maintains separate sections for juveniles sentenced to prison by Arizona’s criminal courts.26 Currently, ADC is responsible for 10 prison complexes. Additionally, the department utilizes and monitors six private prisons in Arizona. According to data from the Arizona Department of Corrections Planning, Budget, and Research Bureau, from 2004 to 2013 the number of inmates incarcerated in Arizona at the end of each calendar year increased by 26.0 percent, from 34,570 inmates in 2004 to 41,031 in 2013. In contrast, from 2004 to 2013, the number of prisoners incarcerated nationally on the last day of each year increased by 5.2 percent. Comparatively, the percentage increase in the number of Arizona prisoners over the decade was roughly five times the percentage increase in prisoners nationally. Table 25 contains information on the number of prisoners in Arizona and the United States. A.R.S. § 13-914(6) 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. Community service hour data for 2008 was also unavailable at the time this report was published. 26 According to A.R.S. § 31-124, “A person under the age of eighteen years shall not be confined in the same section of any jail or prison in which criminal prisoners are confined.” 24 25 49 Table 25: Number of Prisoners Incarcerated in Arizona and the United States on December 31 of Each Year, 2004-2013 Arizona United States 2004 32,570 1,496,629 2005 33,471 1,525,924 2006 35,795 1,570,861 2007 37,746 1,598,316 2008 39,502 1,610,446 2009 40,544 1,613,740 2010 40,130 1,612,395 2011 39,949 1,598,780 2012 40,013 1,571,013 2013 41,031 1,574,741 Demographic Characteristics of Inmate Population The inmate data reported in this section of the report was retrieved from the ADC web site.27 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 From January 2004 to December 2013, there was very little variation in the gender distribution of the population (Figure 31). Throughout the decade, the percentage of all inmates in Arizona who are female remained near 10 percent.28 Month Arizona Inm2006 – December 2007 27 28 https://corrections.az.gov/node/452 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=132 50 Figure 31: Arizona Department of Corrections Population by Gender, 2004 - 2013 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2004 2005* 2006 2007 2008 Female 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Male Age On the last day of calendar year 2013, nearly half of all Arizona inmates were between the ages of 25 – 39 and close to one-third were between the ages of 40 – 54 (Table 26). The percentages by age group are very similar to the percentages in earlier versions of Crime Trends. There is some evidence that the incarcerated population in Arizona is getting older, as is illustrated by the percentage of all inmates that are 55 years of age or older. Since 2004, the percentage of all inmates that are 55 years of age or older increased by 62.0 percent from 5.0 percent in 2004 to 8.1 percent in 2013. 51 Table 26: Age of Arizona Inmates 2006 – 2013* <18 18 – 24 25 – 39 40 – 54 55+ 2006 0.3% 16.9% 49.7% 28.1% 5.0% 2007 0.3% 16.5% 49.4% 28.5% 5.2% 2008 0.4% 16.2% 49.6% 28.4% 5.4% 2009 0.4% 16.1% 49.3% 28.2% 6.0% 2010 0.3% 15.5% 49.1% 28.5% 6.6% 2011 0.2% 14.5% 48.8% 29.4% 7.1% 2012 0.2% 13.9% 48.6% 29.6% 7.7% 0.1% 13.4% 49.1% 29.3% 2013 * Data captured in December of each calendar year. 8.1% Race/Ethnicity On the last day of December 2013, approximately 40.6 percent of ADC inmates were Hispanic, 39.4 percent were Caucasian, 13.2 percent African-American, 5.0 percent Native American, and 1.8 percent Asian/Other (Table 27). Compared to the general population of Arizona, minority criminals are over-represented in Arizona’s prisons. According to the 2010 census, the general population of Arizona is comprised of 29.6 Hispanic, 57.8 percent Caucasian, 3.7 percent African-American, 4.0 percent Native American, and 2.9 percent Asian/Pacific Islander.29 Table 27: Race and Ethnicity of Arizona Inmates 2006 – 2013* Hispanic Caucasian African American Native American Asian/ Other 2006 37.7% 42.8% 13.0% 5.1% 1.4% 2007 38.4% 41.7% 13.3% 5.1% 1.5% 2008** 38.4% 41.7% 13.3% 5.1% 1.5% 2009 41.3% 38.6% 13.4% 5.2% 1.5% 2010 41.4% 38.6% 13.2% 5.2% 1.6% 2011 40.9% 39.2% 13.4% 4.9% 1.6% 2012 40.4% 39.7% 13.2% 5.0% 1.7% 2013 40.6% 39.4% 13.2% 5.0% 1.8% * Data captured in December of each calendar year, unless noted. ** Data provided in June 2008. 29 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF 52 Offense Type Publicly available data on ADC prisoners includes the types of offenses for which inmates were sentenced to prison. Figure 32 contains data on the number of inmates by commitment offense at the end of calendar years 2009 through 2013. 30 At the end of each calendar year, approximately one-third of inmates were committed to ADC for violent offenses that are similar to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program violent index offenses. Similarly, approximately one-fifth of inmates were sentenced to prison for offenses that make up the Uniform Crime Reporting Program property offense index. More than one-fourth of inmates were sentenced to prison for a drug offense or for driving under the influence. Figure 32: Inmates by Commitment Offense, 2009-2013 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Violent Property 2009 2010 Drug/DUI 2011 2012 Other 2013 Inmate Special Populations Figure 33 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 minors that were tried in criminal court, military veterans, and the number prisoners 30 Violent offenses include murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide, rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault. Property offenses include burglary, motor vehicle theft, theft, and arson. The ‘Other’ category includes offenses that are violent (e.g., domestic violence) or property offenses (e.g., criminal damage) but are not part of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program crime index. 53 who have been identified as criminal aliens. At year’s end 2013, 0.3 percent of inmates were on death row, 0.1 percent were minors, 6.4 percent were military veterans, and 12.1 percent were criminal aliens. The latter three groups all saw cumulative decreases across the five year period. Figure 33: Special Inmate Population Groups, 2009-2013 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Death Row Minors 2009 2010 Veterans* 2011 2012 Criminal Aliens 2013 * Data collection began in June 2010. Inmate Community Service Even though offenders incarcerated in Arizona’s correctional facilities are removed from their communities, many are provided opportunities to perform community service outside of the prison facility. In 2013, inmates provided more than 2.1 million hours of community service in the form of public sector work crews, Arizona Department of Transportation crews, and fire crews (Table 28). At the minimum wage in Arizona in 2013 ($7.80/hour), ADC prisoners performed community service work worth approximately $19,810,245 in 2013. Table 28: Inmate Hours of Community Service, 2009-2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1,230,377 1,755,028 1,896,647 1,912,206 2,137,852 ADOT Crews 114,353 244,681 197,371 155,254 166,713 Fire Crew Hours 308,371 270,863 313,517 265,968 235,210 1,653,101 2,270,572 2,407,535 2,333,428 2,539,775 Public Sector Work Crews Total 54 Juvenile Justice System Data 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 administration of juvenile justice programs for delinquent and incorrigible youth. Juvenile justice system activity is guided by 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.31 As is 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 simply used to provide a general, but comprehensive overview of several measures of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice system activity. Juveniles Referred Police, parents, school officials, and probation officers, among others, can make a referral requesting that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over a 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. The data in this section reflect an unduplicated count of juveniles referred within each year, although a juvenile can be referred to the juvenile justice system more than once in any given year. From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2007, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court remained relatively stable at approximately 49,000 youth (Figure 34). Beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2010, the number of youth referred to juvenile court decreased by 15.7 percent. This decrease in the number of youth referred to the juvenile justice system occurred at the same time Arizona was experiencing significant increases in the youth population 8 - 17 years of age. Population projections estimate that Arizona’s youth population 8 - 17 increased from 752,924 in 2000 to 1,029,751 in 2010. When taking into account the increase in the juvenile population, the juvenile referral rate declined 38.2 percent from 6,446 per 100,000 juveniles 8 - 17 in 2000 to 3,985 in 2010. The number of youth referred to the juvenile court continued to steadily decline between 2010 and 2013, representing an overall cumulative decline in number of referrals across the decade of 40.8 percent. 31 http://www.azcourts.gov/jjsd/Publications-Reports 55 Figure 34: Juveniles Referred FY2004 - FY2013 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Juveniles 49,878 48,436 48,395 48,677 46,749 45,955 41,040 36,639 33,617 29,510 When looking at the offense class for juvenile referrals across the decade, the largest percentage of juveniles were referred for misdemeanors followed by felonies (Figure 35 and Table 29). During the time period analyzed, the percentage of all referrals that were for misdemeanor offenses increased from 48.3 percent in 2004 to 60.2 percent in 2010. In contrast, the percentage of all referrals that were for felony offenses remained relatively stable between 2004 and 2012, followed by a decade low of 21.0 percent in 2013. The third largest offense class for referrals to juvenile court was for status offenses.32 From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of all referrals that were for status offenses decreased 18.9 percent cumulatively. The decade high occurred in 2006 at 17.8 percent and the decade low occurred in 2011 at 11.5 percent. 32 Status offenses are behaviors that are illegal for children, but would not be considered criminal if committed by a criminal (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, running away from home, truancy, etc.). 56 Figure 35: Juveniles Referred by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004 - FY2013 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Other 664 607 570 497 425 321 332 297 303 303 Status 8,089 7,655 8,593 8,437 7,308 6,718 5,584 4,580 3,878 3,878 2,163 2,032 1,807 1,663 1,454 1,364 1,364 Administrative 2,453 2,491 2,203 Misdemeanor 24,071 23,544 22,815 23,022 22,887 23,407 21,713 19,040 17,762 17,762 Felony 14,601 14,139 14,214 14,558 14,097 13,702 11,748 11,268 10,310 6,203 Violations of Probation & Ordinances 2013 Table 29: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 29.3% 29.2% 29.4% 29.9% 30.2% 29.8% 28.6% 30.8% 30.7% 21.0% Misdemeanor 48.3% 48.6% 47.1% 47.3% 49.0% 50.9% 52.9% 52.0% 52.8% 60.2% Administrative 4.9% 5.1% 4.6% 4.4% 4.4% 3.9% 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 4.6% Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 16.2% 15.8% 17.8% 17.3% 15.6% 14.6% 13.6% 12.5% 11.5% 13.1% Other 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% * Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Not surprisingly, Maricopa County referred more youth to the juvenile justice system than any other county in Arizona (Table 30) and accounted for approximately half of all referrals statewide (Table 31). Pima County referred the second highest number of youth to juvenile court, accounting for approximately one out of every five referrals statewide. Although there are significant year-to-year changes from 2004 to 2013 in the number of juveniles referred within each county, the number of youth referred to the juvenile justice system over the entire time period cumulatively decreased for all counties, and 2013 marked decade lows for all counties. 57 Table 30: Number of Juveniles Referred by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 272 235 230 258 245 196 163 158 149 166 Cochise 1,510 1,325 1,315 1,215 1,276 1,218 1,141 977 918 763 Coconino 1,633 1,568 1,499 1,318 1,240 1,274 1,000 953 961 819 Gila 1,027 983 924 841 876 691 532 535 445 392 392 389 410 462 427 385 313 338 231 253 Graham Greenlee 82 72 72 98 72 65 82 88 79 51 193 135 132 151 131 127 154 97 102 90 24,743 23,852 24,492 25,437 24,390 24,114 21,546 19,080 17,635 15,589 Mohave 2,161 2,030 1,889 1,927 1,781 1,920 1,638 1,656 1,479 1,302 Navajo 1,137 1,009 894 917 925 815 789 724 708 582 Pima 9,461 9,627 9,446 8,921 8,806 8,460 7,686 6,591 5,878 5,376 Pinal 2,265 2,308 2,003 2,171 1,982 2,127 1,851 1,741 1,683 1,244 La Paz Maricopa Santa Cruz 741 762 715 601 591 623 607 441 425 354 Yavapai 1,645 1,669 1,794 1,713 1,606 1,630 1,595 1,341 1,296 1,132 Yuma 2,616 2,472 2,580 2,647 2,401 2,310 1,943 1,919 1,628 1,397 Total 49,878 48,436 48,395 48,677 46,749 45,955 41,040 36,639 33,617 29,510 FY1997 – Table 31: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% Cochise 3.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% Coconino 3.4% 3.2% 3.1% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.4% 2.6% 2.9% 2.8% Gila 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.9% 1.5% 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% Graham 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% Greenlee 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% La Paz 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 49.6% 49.2% 50.6% 52.3% 52.2% 52.5% 52.5% 52.1% 52.5% 52.8% Mohave 4.3% 4.2% 3.9% 4.0% 3.8% 4.2% 4.0% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% Navajo 2.3% 2.1% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% Pima 19.0% 19.9% 19.5% 18.3% 18.8% 18.4% 18.7% 18.0% 17.5% 18.2% Pinal 4.5% 4.8% 4.1% 4.5% 4.2% 4.6% 4.5% 4.8% 5.0% 4.2% Santa Cruz 1.5% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% Yavapai 3.3% 3.5% 3.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.6% 3.9% 3.7% 3.9% 3.8% Yuma 5.2% 5.1% 5.3% 5.4% 5.1% 5.0% 4.7% 5.2% 4.8% 4.7% Maricopa FY2007 Table 33: Percent of Juveniles Referred by County FY1997 – FY2007 58 Age From 2004 to 2013, there was a shift in the age of youth that were referred to the juvenile justice system. During this time, the percentage of all referrals that were of youth ages 8 – 14 declined from 34.1 percent in 2004 to 29.1 percent in 2013, representing a 14.7 percent cumulative decrease (Tables 32 and 33). In contrast, the percentage of youth ages 15 – 17 that were referred to the juvenile justice system increased by 8.6 percent over the decade. In 2004, 64.8 percent of all referrals were youth ages 15 – 17. In 2013, that percentage had increased to 70.4 percent. Table 32: Number of Juveniles Referred by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 197 198 167 194 146 151 111 131 139 98 9 385 328 338 311 280 260 222 211 207 163 10 578 513 544 481 500 486 373 335 329 270 11 1,175 1,059 1,013 960 960 856 758 732 684 574 12 2,603 2,304 2,127 2,010 1,867 1,888 1,590 1,511 1,425 1,185 13 4,709 4,530 4,279 4,043 3,749 3,671 3,199 2,939 2,756 2,426 14 7,313 7,180 7,016 6,576 6,306 6,234 5,414 4,949 4,365 3,850 15 9,301 9,235 9,531 9,566 8,903 8,878 7,890 7,031 6,436 5,579 16 10,382 10,270 10,448 11,006 10,788 10,700 9,427 8,324 7,569 6,919 17 12,596 12,258 12,394 12,976 12,786 12,492 11,743 10,221 9,480 8,266 Unknown Total 639 561 538 554 464 339 313 255 227 180 49,878 48,436 48,395 48,677 46,749 45,955 41,040 36,639 33,617 29,510 FY1997 – FY2007 Table 33: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 9 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 10 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 11 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.1% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 12 5.2% 4.8% 4.4% 4.1% 4.0% 4.1% 3.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.0% 13 9.4% 9.4% 8.8% 8.3% 8.0% 8.0% 7.8% 8.0% 8.2% 8.2% 14 14.7% 14.8% 14.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.6% 13.2% 13.5% 13.0% 13.1% 15 18.7% 19.1% 19.7% 19.7% 19.0% 19.3% 19.2% 19.2% 19.2% 18.9% 16 20.8% 21.2% 21.6% 22.6% 23.1% 23.3% 23.0% 22.7% 22.5% 23.5% 17 25.3% 25.3% 25.6% 26.7% 27.4% 27.2% 28.6% 27.9% 28.2% 28.0% Unknown 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 59 Gender Among youth that were referred to the juvenile justice system, males made up approximately two-thirds of referrals and females made up one-third. There was little variation in the gender distribution of youth referred to the juvenile justice system across the decade (Figure 36). Figure 36: Juveniles Referred by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Female 16,742 2004 16,854 16,320 16,251 15,843 15,616 14,036 12,369 11,428 9,701 Male 31,582 32,075 32,426 30,906 30,339 27,004 24,270 22,189 19,809 33,136 Race/Ethnicity From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of all youth referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system with a known race or ethnicity cumulatively decreased. In 2013, Caucasian and Hispanic youth made up the majority of referred youth, representing 44.7 percent and 37.1 percent of the referrals, respectively. Youth referred that were of unknown racial/ethnic categories were the only cumulative increase across the decade – a 62.7 percent increase across the ten years (Tables 34 and 35). Table 34: Number of Juveniles Referred by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 18,979 18,910 19,305 19,491 18,883 18,511 16,373 14,158 12,674 10,960 3,502 3,505 3,669 3,787 3,869 3,870 3,622 3,297 3,170 2,834 23,925 22,439 22,009 21,915 20,399 20,110 17,816 16,101 14,985 13,176 2,727 2,796 2,449 2,474 2,381 2,330 2,139 2,023 1,931 1,635 Asian/Pacific Islander 247 232 283 300 343 331 316 284 259 232 Other 136 166 143 103 166 136 121 123 104 84 Unknown 362 388 537 607 708 667 653 653 494 589 49,878 48,436 48,395 48,677 46,749 45,955 41,040 36,639 33,617 29,510 African American Caucasian Native American Total 60 Table 35: Percentage of Juveniles Referred by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 38.1% 39.0% 39.9% 40.0% 40.4% 40.3% 39.9% 38.6% 37.7% 37.1% 7.0% 7.2% 7.6% 7.8% 8.3% 8.4% 8.8% 9.0% 9.4% 9.6% 48.0% 46.3% 45.5% 45.0% 43.6% 43.8% 43.4% 43.9% 44.6% 44.7% Native American 5.5% 5.8% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.7% 5.5% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% Other 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Unknown 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% 1.5% 2.0% African American Caucasian FY2007 Juveniles Detained Juvenile detention in Arizona is used for secure, 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 probable 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.33 Statewide, from 2004 to 2013 the number of juveniles held in detention in Arizona cumulatively decreased by 47.9 percent (Figure 37), from 12,688 to 6,610 youth. In particular, a marked decline occurred between 2008 and 2013. 33 http://www.azcourts.gov/jjsd/Publications-Reports 61 Figure 37: Juveniles Detained FY2004 - FY2013 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Juveniles 12,688 12,079 12,068 12,107 11,674 10,589 2010 2011 2012 2013 9,519 8,340 7,641 6,610 Of the juveniles placed in detention, the majority were referred to the juvenile justice system for a felony offense (Figure 38 and Table 36). Across the decade, the percentage of all detentions that were for youth charged with a felony ranged from a high of 59.2 percent in 2008 to a low of 46.2 percent in 2013. Approximately one-third of juveniles detained were referred to the juvenile justice system for a misdemeanor, and approximately one in six youth were detained for a violation of probation or ordinances. Figure 38: Juveniles Detained by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY2004 - FY2013 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Other 55 42 48 58 73 55 38 40 30 37 Status 213 135 144 152 100 67 50 47 42 33 1,065 1,013 907 857 753 738 622 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Administrative 1,116 1,169 1,010 Misdemeanor 2,821 2,545 2,493 2,226 1,970 2,028 1,981 1,689 1,590 1,174 Felony 4,436 4,139 4,079 4,226 4,577 3,874 3,317 2,812 2,738 1,605 Table 38: 62 Table 36: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY2004– FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 51.3% 51.5% 52.5% 54.7% 59.2% 55.9% 53.1% 52.7% 53.3% 46.2% Misdemeanor 32.7% 31.7% 32.1% 28.8% 25.5% 29.3% 31.7% 31.6% 31.0% 33.8% Administrative 12.9% 14.6% 13.0% 13.8% 13.1% 13.1% 13.7% 14.1% 14.4% 17.9% Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status Other 2.5% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% 1.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% Percent of Juveniles Detained by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, Not surprisingly, given the number of referrals, Maricopa County has historically detained the highest number of youth of all Arizona counties (Table 37), accounting for approximately half of all youth detained statewide (Table 38). Pima County has historically detained the second highest number of youth; however, Yuma County surpassed Pima County in 2013 and accounted for 8.5 percent of Arizona youth in detention. Given the reduction in the number of juveniles detained from 2004 to 2013, it is not surprising that most counties have also reduced the number of juveniles detained. Of Arizona’s 15 counties, only Mohave County detained more youth in 2013 than in 2004; however that increase was marginal. Table 37: Number of Juveniles Detained by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 157 124 123 131 137 112 86 82 75 63 Cochise 379 304 276 259 283 263 209 232 170 141 Coconino 304 303 291 294 295 237 210 184 186 176 Gila 444 325 450 477 457 230 138 141 122 90 Graham 148 155 142 185 182 128 113 124 103 114 Greenlee 29 29 30 21 27 22 16 28 23 20 La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo 51 35 35 33 33 8 12 6 11 14 5,973 5,568 5,633 5,823 5,632 5329 4,809 4,028 3,816 3,399 345 389 392 410 404 416 402 349 368 349 199 192 169 170 200 237 204 171 228 182 Pima 2,303 2,197 2,090 1,827 1,483 1212 1,080 951 692 543 Pinal 756 790 783 752 811 766 800 743 666 492 Santa Cruz 296 312 259 275 281 206 173 127 138 115 Yavapai 492 578 578 569 563 574 534 449 405 349 Yuma Total 812 778 817 881 886 849 733 725 638 563 12,688 12,079 12,068 12,107 11,674 10,589 9,519 8,340 7,641 6,610 63 Table 38: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Cochise 3.0% 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1% Coconino 2.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.4% 2.7% Gila 3.5% 2.7% 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% 2.2% 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% Graham 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.5% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% Greenlee 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 47.1% 46.1% 46.7% 48.1% 48.2% 50.3% 50.5% 48.3% 49.9% 51.4% 2.7% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.9% 4.2% 4.2% 4.8% 5.3% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 3.0% 2.8% Pima 18.2% 18.2% 17.3% 15.1% 12.7% 11.5% 11.4% 11.4% 9.1% 8.2% Pinal 6.0% 6.5% 6.5% 6.2% 7.0% 7.2% 8.4% 8.9% 8.7% 7.4% Santa Cruz 2.3% 2.6% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.0% 1.8% 1.5% 1.8% 1.7% Yavapai 3.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.8% 5.4% 5.6% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% Yuma 6.4% 6.4% 6.8% 7.3% 7.6% 8.0% 7.7% 8.7% 8.4% 8.5% Age From 2004 to 2013, there was little change in the age of youth that are housed in Arizona’s detention centers. During this time period, there was a small cumulative increase (7.0 percent) 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 39 and 40). In 2004, 57.2 percent of all detained youth were 16 or 17 years old and in 2013, 61.2 percent 16 or 17. In contrast, 42.4 percent of all detained youth were 8 – 15 years of age in 2004, but by 2013 that percentage decreased to 38.3 percent. Table 39: Juveniles Detained by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 7 6 3 2 3 4 1 5 3 3 9 21 16 16 13 7 14 9 5 12 7 10 40 43 44 39 39 28 28 20 17 21 11 113 97 125 80 100 84 73 70 63 48 12 356 266 268 233 233 219 194 144 146 145 13 835 747 688 650 614 527 484 407 436 372 14 1,548 1,516 1,459 1,339 1,281 1,183 1,006 948 838 722 15 2,448 2,330 2,373 2,347 2,224 1,975 1,796 1,565 1,447 1,212 16 3,158 3,047 3,005 3,193 3,041 2,724 2,483 2,178 2,005 1,766 17 4,100 3,939 4,036 4,151 4,088 3,764 3,395 2,965 2,633 2,276 62 72 51 60 44 67 50 33 41 38 12,688 12,079 12,068 12,107 11,674 10,589 9,519 8,340 7,641 6,610 Unknown Total 64 Table Table 40: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 9 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 10 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 11 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 12 2.8% 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% 1.7% 1.9% 2.2% 13 6.6% 6.2% 5.7% 5.4% 5.3% 5.0% 5.1% 4.9% 5.7% 5.6% 14 12.2% 12.6% 12.1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.2% 10.6% 11.4% 11.0% 10.9% 15 19.3% 19.3% 19.7% 19.4% 19.1% 18.7% 18.9% 18.8% 18.9% 18.3% 16 24.9% 25.2% 24.9% 26.4% 26.1% 25.7% 26.1% 26.1% 26.2% 26.7% 17 32.3% 32.6% 33.4% 34.3% 35.0% 35.6% 35.7% 35.6% 34.5% 34.4% Unknown 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 42: Percent of Juveniles Detained by Age Gender Although approximately one-third of juvenile referrals from 2004 to 2013 were female, a smaller percentage, approximately one-fourth, were detained. During this time period, the percentage of youth detained that were female ranged from a high of 26.0 percent in 2006 to a low of 22.0 percent in 2013 (Figure 39). Figure 39: Juveniles Detained by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Female 3,238 3,136 3,000 2,767 2,569 2,309 2,147 1,908 1,761 1,453 Male 9,450 8,943 9,068 9,340 9,105 8,280 7,372 6,432 5,880 5,157 Race/Ethnicity While the majority of youth referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system were Caucasian, the percentage of detained Caucasian youth was consistently less than the percentage referred. As was noted above, the percentage of all referrals for Caucasian 65 youth ranged from 48.0 percent in 2004 to 44.7 percent in 2013. During this same time period, the percentage of detentions of Caucasian youth ranged from 40.8 percent in 2004 to 36.3 percent in 2013. In contrast, the percentage of all youth that were detained who are African-American increased during this time period, and Hispanic youth that were detained remained relatively stable. Tables 41 and 42 contain data on the number and percentage of youth detained by race/ethnicity. Table 41: Number of Juveniles Detained by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Hispanic 5,381 5,153 5,293 5,581 5,320 4,793 4,224 3,711 3,258 2,777 African American 1,106 1,089 1,201 1,179 1,211 1,144 1,091 933 907 887 Caucasian 5,172 4,834 4,554 4,444 4,153 3,812 3,434 3,058 2,850 2,402 810 851 860 782 780 677 644 554 555 469 52 54 44 56 56 67 49 49 35 37 132 67 87 41 38 28 28 17 16 18 35 31 29 24 116 68 49 18 20 20 12,688 12,079 12,068 12,107 11,674 10,589 9,519 8,340 7,641 6,610 Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown Total Table 42: Percentage of Juveniles Detained by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 42.4% 42.7% 43.9% 46.1% 45.6% 45.3% 45.6% 44.5% 42.6% 42.0% 8.7% 9.0% 10.0% 9.7% 10.4% 10.8% 10.4% 11.2% 11.9% 13.4% 40.8% 40.0% 37.7% 36.7% 35.6% 36.0% 35.6% 36.7% 37.3% 36.3% Native American 6.4% 7.0% 7.1% 6.5% 6.7% 6.4% 6.7% 6.6% 7.3% 7.1% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% Other 1.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Unknown 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% African American Caucasian Juveniles Diverted Many youth that are referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system are given opportunities for their cases to be diverted from formal juvenile court processing. Those who are statutorily excluded from diversion opportunities 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 adults), 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, the county attorney has sole discretion whether to divert youth. In 66 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.34 Figure 40: Juveniles Diverted FY2004 - FY2013 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Juveniles 20,877 20,309 20,081 19,222 20,664 21,359 18,779 17,109 15,737 13,418 From 2004 to 2013, the number of juveniles who were successfully diverted from further juvenile court processing cumulatively decreased by 35.7 percent (Figure 40). The first half of the decade saw a general increase in youth diversions, and 2009 marked a decade high in the number of youth diversions; however, systematic declines happened each year in the second half of the decade, with a decade low in 2013. The overall pattern of cumulative decreases across the ten years held for all 15 Arizona counties (Table 43). This is not necessarily surprising given that fewer youth were referred to the juvenile justice system in Arizona during this time period. 34 A.R.S. §8-321 67 Table 43: Juveniles Diverted by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 78 54 63 65 70 63 37 36 22 32 Cochise 908 850 859 794 748 775 745 581 393 445 Coconino 828 808 740 609 571 571 412 479 434 357 Gila 353 348 306 322 310 291 260 183 176 168 Graham 126 137 151 144 132 127 110 109 65 73 Greenlee 28 13 14 18 16 11 25 22 22 10 La Paz 95 71 54 64 46 46 45 34 35 32 10,114 9,722 9,795 10,184 10,482 11,192 9,383 8,933 8,379 7,153 Mohave 653 604 598 580 727 885 745 737 617 432 Navajo 272 265 209 150 152 120 116 79 140 99 Pima 4,765 4,916 4,628 3,882 4,827 4,554 4,333 3,722 3,475 2,889 Pinal 657 727 634 433 544 663 588 506 503 396 Santa Cruz 157 111 76 121 176 195 213 138 157 141 Yavapai 832 869 935 925 959 933 989 821 764 653 Yuma 1,011 814 1,019 931 904 933 778 729 555 538 Total 20,877 20,309 20,081 19,222 20,664 21,359 18,779 17,109 15,737 13,418 Maricopa When looking at the presenting offense class for which youth were diverted from further involvement in Arizona’s juvenile justice system, the majority of diversions were for youth whose most serious offense was a misdemeanor. From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of all diversions that were for offenders whose most serious charge was a misdemeanor ranged from a low of 59.9 percent in 2006 to a high of 66.2 percent in 2012 (Table 45). Juveniles charged with a status or a felony offense also represent a significant portion of diverted youth, representing 12.9 percent and 22.9 percent of youth diversions in 2013, respectively. While youth diversions for status offenses decreased 46.4 percent across the decade, felony-related youth diversions increased 72.1 percent in the ten years. nt7 Table 44: Percentage of Juveniles Diverted by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 13.3% 15.5% 14.3% 13.6% 16.7% 16.1% 16.7% 17.6% 17.6% 22.9% Misdemeanor 61.0% 60.7% 59.9% 61.4% 62.6% 64.5% 63.8% 65.4% 66.2% 63.5% Administrative 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 24.0% 22.2% 24.7% 24.0% 19.6% 18.6% 18.5% 16.4% 16.4% 12.9% Other 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Invalid Complaint 68 Age An increasing percentage of older youth were diverted from juvenile justice system processing from 2004 to 2013 (Tables 45 and 46). For example, in 2004, 55.4 percent of youth diverted were 15 – 17 years old. By 2013, 62.9 percent of diverted youth were ages 15 – 17, representing a cumulative increase in this age demographic of 13.6 percent across the decade. Table Table 45: Juveniles Diverted by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 88 92 92 97 82 81 62 74 81 56 9 227 182 178 167 160 144 121 125 107 96 10 329 283 303 247 290 268 220 199 210 168 11 670 599 594 518 563 496 430 434 432 363 12 1,513 1,343 1,237 1,131 1,119 1,091 945 900 898 721 13 2,616 2,579 2,427 2,115 2,153 2,151 1,840 1,696 1,632 1,456 14 3,760 3,689 3,624 3,206 3,473 3.462 3,031 2,826 2,428 2,110 15 4,301 4,196 4,291 4,199 4,370 4,548 4,072 3,596 3,310 2,804 16 3,852 3,883 3,858 3,955 4,471 4,768 4,097 3,851 3,468 3,026 17 3,396 3,385 3,412 3,515 3,944 4,325 3,959 3,406 3,169 2,613 125 78 65 72 39 25 2 2 2 5 20,877 20,309 20,081 19,222 20,664 21,359 18,779 17,109 15,737 13,418 Unknown Total 48: Percent of Juveniles Diverted by Age, Table 46: Percentage of Juveniles Diverted by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 9 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 10 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 11 3.2% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% 2.8% 2.7% 12 7.3% 6.6% 6.2% 5.9% 5.4% 5.1% 5.0% 5.3% 5.7% 5.4% 13 12.5% 12.7% 12.1% 11.0% 10.4% 10.1% 9.8% 9.9% 10.4% 10.9% 14 18.0% 18.2% 18.1% 16.7% 16.8% 16.2% 16.1% 16.5% 15.4% 15.7% 15 20.6% 20.7% 21.4% 21.8% 21.2% 21.3% 21.7% 21.0% 21.0% 20.9% 16 18.5% 19.1% 19.2% 20.6% 21.6% 22.3% 21.8% 22.5% 22.0% 22.6% 17 16.3% 16.7% 17.0% 18.3% 19.1% 20.3% 21.1% 19.9% 20.1% 19.5% Unknown 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 69 Gender Although nearly one-third of juvenile referrals from 2004 to 2013 were female youth, a slightly larger percentage of females, approximately four out of every ten, were diverted. During this time period, the percentage of all youth diverted who were female ranged from a high of 40.7 percent in 2005 to a low of 37.4 in 2013 (Figure 41). Figure 41: Juveniles Diverted by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Female 8,276 8,256 7,991 7,687 8,222 8,591 Male 12,601 12,053 12090 11535 12,442 12,768 2010 2011 2012 2013 7,370 6,789 6,208 5,015 11,409 10,320 9,529 8,403 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 2004 to 2013, while the percentage of Caucasian and Native American youth decreased (Tables 47 and 48). Table 47: Juveniles Diverted by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004– FY2013 2004 Hispanic African American Caucasian Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Other Unknown Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 7,761 7,737 7,896 7,460 8,362 8,628 7,581 6,634 5,992 5,144 1,363 1,348 1,297 1,241 1,565 1,619 1,414 1,324 1,308 1,203 10,329 9,704 9,466 9,164 9,394 9,670 8,450 7,822 7,274 6,084 1,044 1,095 909 852 812 883 788 776 738 575 115 125 151 141 176 198 172 173 161 133 67 82 57 35 91 57 55 52 60 233 198 218 305 329 264 304 319 328 204 46 20,877 20,309 20,081 19,222 20,664 21,359 18,779 17,109 15,737 13,418 70 Table 48: Percentage of Juveniles Diverted by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 37.2% 38.1% 39.3% 38.8% 40.5% 40.4% 40.4% 38.8% 38.1% 38.3% 6.5% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.7% 8.3% 9.0% 49.5% 47.8% 47.1% 47.7% 45.5% 45.3% 45.0% 45.7% 46.2% 45.3% Native American 5.0% 5.4% 4.5% 4.4% 3.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.5% 4.7% 4.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Other 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 1.7% Unknown 1.0% 1.1% 1.5% 1.7% 1.3% 1.4% 1.7% 1.9% 1.3% 0.3% African American Caucasian 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 youth and initiates formal juvenile court processing. From 2004 to 2013, the number of juvenile petitions filed in Arizona has generally declined (Figure 42). More specifically, a marked decrease occurred in the second half of the decade. Overall, from 2004 to 2013, the number of juvenile petitions decreased 47.6 percent. Figure 42: Juvenile Petitions Filed FY2004 - FY2013 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Juveniles 18,799 18,329 18,055 17,958 17,974 16,945 14,307 12,805 11,249 2013 9,850 During the time period examined, there was relative stability in the presenting offense class for petitions filed (Tables 49 and 50). Throughout this time period, approximately 40 percent of petitions filed were for youth charged with a misdemeanor offense. Similarly, about 45 percent of petitions filed were for youth charged with a felony offense. The one exception in the stable percentages across the decade occurred with 71 the notable 59.0 percent cumulative decrease in the percentage of petitions filed for a status offense. Table 49: Juvenile Petitions Filed by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 8,278 8,058 8,254 8,137 8,064 7,530 6,390 5,784 5,249 4,471 Misdemeanor 7,543 7,296 7,118 6,962 7,176 7,075 5,831 5,214 4,307 3,837 Administrative 2,173 2,287 2,010 2,080 2,006 1,913 1,807 1,627 1,483 1,338 734 686 399 245 148 172 162 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 755 Other Total 637 616 50 51 57 45 42 28 34 31 38 42 18,799 18,329 18,055 17,958 17,974 16,945 14,307 12,805 11,249 9,850 Table 50: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense FY2004– FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 44.0% 44.0% 45.7% 45.3% 44.9% 44.4% 44.7% 45.2% 46.7% 45.4% Misdemeanor 40.1% 39.8% 39.4% 38.8% 39.9% 41.8% 40.8% 40.7% 38.3% 39.0% Administrative 11.6% 12.5% 11.1% 11.6% 11.2% 11.3% 12.6% 12.7% 13.2% 13.6% Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 4.0% 3.5% 3.4% 4.1% 3.8% 2.4% 1.7% 1.2% 1.5% 1.6% Other 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% Changes over time in the number of petitions filed in 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 change over time in the number of referrals (Table 51 and Table 52). 72 Table 51: Juvenile Petitions Filed by County, FY2004– FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 154 144 128 126 138 101 78 86 87 98 Cochise 511 373 436 420 389 329 325 339 322 214 Coconino 597 539 554 545 528 516 392 379 387 315 Gila 354 295 281 356 261 231 183 261 228 218 Graham 233 216 234 245 289 239 198 193 153 155 Greenlee 45 46 46 53 44 38 53 59 45 31 La Paz 71 43 49 55 52 31 37 26 32 32 9,223 9,086 9,169 9,497 9,270 8,673 7,000 6,008 4,863 4,459 Mohave 662 637 651 573 521 630 552 501 491 483 Navajo 405 453 344 300 402 492 408 372 421 324 Pima 3,285 3,172 2,918 2,638 2,758 2,435 2,125 1,905 1,677 1,463 Pinal 1,004 1,077 923 857 1,023 1,070 957 802 771 585 474 517 496 376 337 331 344 259 249 193 Maricopa Santa Cruz Yavapai 616 686 670 731 719 734 672 580 635 534 Yuma 1,165 1,045 1,156 1,186 1,243 1,095 983 1,035 888 746 Total 18,799 18,329 18,055 17,958 17,974 16,945 14,307 12,805 11,249 9,850 Table 52: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% Cochise 2.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 1.9% 2.3% 2.7% 2.9% 2.2% Coconino 3.2% 2.9% 3.1% 3.0% 2.9% 3.1% 2.7% 3.0% 3.4% 3.2% Gila 1.9% 1.6% 1.6% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% Graham 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.6% Greenlee 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% La Paz 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% Maricopa 49.0% 49.6% 50.8% 52.9% 51.6% 51.2% 48.9% 46.9% 43.2% 45.3% Mohave 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.2% 2.9% 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% 4.4% 4.9% Navajo 2.2% 2.5% 1.9% 1.7% 2.2% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.7% 3.3% Pima 17.5% 17.3% 16.2% 14.7% 15.3% 14.4% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% Pinal 5.3% 5.9% 5.1% 4.8% 5.7% 6.3% 6.7% 6.3% 6.9% 5.9% Santa Cruz 2.5% 2.8% 2.8% 2.1% 1.9% 2.0% 2.4% 2.0% 2.2% 2.0% Yavapai 3.3% 3.7% 3.7% 4.1% 4.0% 4.3% 4.7% 4.5% 5.6% 5.4% Yuma 6.2% 5.7% 6.4% 6.6% 6.9% 6.5% 6.9% 8.0% 7.9% 7.6% 73 Age As was seen with youth referrals to the juvenile justice system, from 2004 to 2013, there was an increase in the percentage of all petitions filed that were for older juveniles (Table 53). During the time period examined, the percentage of all petitions filed for youth ages 8 – 15 was lower in 2004 than in 2013, while the percentage of youth ages 16 and 17 for petitions filed increased. For example, in 2004 51.2 percent of all petitions filed were for youth ages 16 and 17. In 2013, that percentage had increased to 55.2 percent, representing a 7.8 percent cumulative increase across the decade. 997 – F Table 53: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 9 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 10 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 11 1.6% 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 12 4.1% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 3.1% 2.8% 3.2% 3.2% 13 7.8% 7.8% 7.2% 6.8% 7.3% 6.6% 6.7% 6.8% 7.2% 7.1% 14 14.0% 14.6% 13.9% 13.0% 12.6% 12.5% 12.6% 13.5% 12.6% 12.4% 15 19.8% 20.2% 20.7% 20.3% 19.8% 19.5% 19.8% 20.1% 20.6% 19.9% 16 23.8% 24.5% 24.9% 26.0% 26.1% 25.6% 27.0% 26.5% 25.7% 26.5% 17 27.4% 26.8% 27.6% 28.4% 28.7% 30.0% 28.6% 28.0% 28.4% 28.7% Unknown 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Gender Generally speaking, from 2004 to 2013. approximately one-fourth of all juvenile petitions filed were of females, ranging from a low of 23.9 percent in 2007 to a high of 26.9 percent in 2005 (Figure 43). These percentages are considerably lower than the approximately one-third of all referrals that are female, suggesting that a larger percentage of female youth referred to Arizona’s juvenile justice system are being successfully diverted from further involvement in the juvenile justice system than male youth. 74 Figure 43: Juvenile Petitions filed by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Female 4,860 4,938 4,533 4,285 4,362 4,088 3,591 3,244 2,787 2,364 Male 13,939 13,391 13522 13673 13,612 12,857 10,716 9,561 8,462 7,486 Race/Ethnicity Similar to patterns found in the percentage of all referrals to the juvenile justice system by race and ethnicity, juvenile petitions for Caucasian youth in Arizona have cumulatively decreased across the decade, while petitions for African-American youth have increased over the ten years. Similarly, petitions for Hispanic youth in Arizona remained relatively stable over time, with a marginal cumulative decrease across the decade. In addition, while referrals of Native American youth to the juvenile justice system in Arizona did not increase over the decade, youth petitions for this demographic did increase over the ten years (Table 55). Table 54: Juvenile Petitions Filed by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004– FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Hispanic 7,778 7,611 7,738 7,821 7,902 7,235 6,060 5,423 4,630 3,943 African American 1,555 1,613 1,653 1,673 1,779 1,713 1,530 1,362 1,170 1,113 Caucasian 8,168 7,707 7,410 7,225 6,932 6,689 5,562 4,944 4,437 3,922 Native American 1,112 1,210 1,077 1,049 1,107 1,041 971 909 882 739 Asian/Pacific Islander 82 66 76 86 102 101 82 69 57 19 Other 42 58 47 38 54 52 35 31 28 51 Unknown 62 64 54 66 98 114 67 67 45 63 18,799 18,329 18,055 17,958 17,974 16,945 14,307 12,805 11,249 9,850 Total 75 Table 55: Percentage of Juvenile Petitions Filed by Race/Ethnicity, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic African American Caucasian 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 41.4% 41.5% 42.9% 43.6% 44.0% 42.7% 42.4% 42.4% 41.2% 40.0% 8.3% 8.8% 9.2% 9.3% 9.9% 10.1% 10.7% 10.6% 10.4% 11.3% 43.5% 42.1% 41.0% 40.2% 38.6% 39.5% 38.9% 38.6% 39.4% 39.8% Native American 6.0% 6.6% 6.0% 5.8% 6.2% 6.1% 6.8% 7.1% 7.8% 7.5% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% Other 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% Unknown 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% Juveniles in Criminal Court Like most states around the country, there are several methods in Arizona for transferring a case from juvenile court to criminal court. For example, the “mandatory” transfer of a juvenile’s case to criminal 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;35 6. Any felony offense committed by a chronic felony offender;36 or 7. Any felony offense that is properly joined to an offense listed above.37 The “mandatory prior” transfer of a juvenile’s case to criminal court occurs when the juvenile has been accused of a delinquent offense and has previously been convicted of a felony offense in criminal court.38 “Discretionary” transfers give county attorneys the option of moving a juvenile’s case to criminal 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 ‘Other violent felony offense’ is defined by A.R.S. §13-501(H)(4) as aggravated assault, aggravated assault involving the use of a weapon, drive-by shooting, or discharging a firearm at a structure. 36 Chronic felony offender is defined by A.R.S. §13-501(H)(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 a criminal. 37 A.R.S. §13-501(A)1-7 38 A.R.S. §13-501(C) 35 76 6. Any offense properly joined to any of the offenses listed above.39 Finally, the county attorney may request that a juvenile be transferred to criminal 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 criminal court, the judge will order the case transferred.40 The number of Arizona juveniles in criminal court increased over the first half of decade, with a decade high of 611 juveniles in 2009 (Figure 44). During the second half of the decade, the number of juveniles in criminal court steadily declined in Arizona, representing a cumulative decrease of 45.4 percent across the ten years. The decade low occurred in 2013, with 272 juveniles. Figure 44: Juveniles in Criminal Court FY2004 - FY2013 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Juveniles 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 498 497 491 588 550 611 427 364 277 272 When looking at the different methods used to transfer jurisdiction of juveniles’ cases to criminal court, two types result in the largest percentage of youth being tried in criminal court, mandatory and discretionary transfers (Figure 45). In most years, approximately one-third of all juvenile cases moved to criminal court are a result of a juvenile of sufficient age committing an offense that requires the case to be tried in criminal court (i.e., mandatory transfer) and another approximately one-third are moved to criminal court because of county attorneys exercising their discretion to mandate the move within the parameters set out in statute (i.e., discretionary transfer). The most significant departure from these trends was found in 2008, when 43.5 percent of all juvenile cases moved to criminal court were mandatory transfers, and in 2006 when 27.8 percent of juvenile cases moved to criminal court were discretionary transfers. 39 40 A.R.S. §13-501(B)1-6 A.R.S. §8-327(A-E) 77 In 2013, the number of juveniles whose cases were moved to criminal court was 45.0 percent lower than in 2004. The reduction in the number of juveniles whose cases were moved to criminal court can be primarily explained by an 86.0 percent reduction in county attorney requests for youth to be transferred to criminal court, a 45.0 percent reduction in discretionary transfers, and a 49.0 percent reduction in chronic transfers. Figure 45: Pathways for Juvenile Cases Filed in Criminal Court FY2004 - FY2013 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Transfer 105 95 71 64 55 45 34 24 18 15 Discretionary 140 164 157 181 188 224 152 153 105 77 Chronic 61 57 77 78 61 72 72 72 32 31 Mandatory Prior Conviction 26 14 38 27 38 25 31 26 18 20 Mandatory 166 167 219 238 263 245 153 99 104 129 Direct Files to Criminal Court In Arizona, direct files of juveniles to criminal court include mandatory, mandatory prior conviction, chronic, and discretionary transfers. What these types of transfers have in common is that the juvenile 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 criminal court. Like other juvenile data, the number of Arizona juveniles direct filed to criminal court increased over the first half of the decade, with a peak occurring in 2009. Again, like previously mentioned juvenile data, systematic declines occurred every year in the second half of the decade, with a low of 257 Arizona juveniles direct filed to criminal court in 2013. At the beginning of the decade, direct files accounted for 78.9 percent of all juvenile transfers. By the end of the decade, this number increased to 94.9 percent, representing a 19.7 percent cumulative increase between 2004 and 2013. 78 Figure 46: Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court FY2004 - FY2013 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Juveniles 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 393 402 491 524 550 566 393 340 259 257 Given the concentration of the population of Arizona in two major metropolitan areas (Phoenix and Tucson), it not surprising that the counties where these metropolitan areas are found account for the vast majority of direct file transfers to criminal court (Table 56). From 2004 to 2013, more than eight of every ten juveniles transferred to criminal court in Arizona were direct filed out of Maricopa and Pima counties (Table 57). It is worth noting that, although their numbers are relatively low, both Cochise and Yuma counties have experienced general increases in the number and percentages of juveniles with direct files to criminal court. 79 Table 56: Number of Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court by County FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cochise 2 2 4 0 4 0 3 12 3 6 Coconino 9 5 10 6 8 5 1 0 2 5 Gila 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Graham 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 1 0 Greenlee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Paz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maricopa 258 280 334 368 378 393 260 219 185 198 Mohave 3 9 6 4 1 4 2 0 0 0 Navajo 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Pima 99 82 100 96 104 112 75 47 41 25 Pinal 10 9 15 18 23 18 20 12 12 8 Santa Cruz 2 6 2 8 6 4 9 6 2 3 Yavapai 2 1 3 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 Yuma Total 6 6 15 17 23 29 18 41 13 11 393 402 491 524 550 566 393 340 259 257 Table 57: Percentage of Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court by County FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cochise 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.8% 3.5% 1.2% 2.3% Coconino 2.3% 1.2% 2.0% 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 2.0% Gila 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Graham 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% Greenlee 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% La Paz 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 65.7% 69.7% 68.0% 70.2% 68.7% 69.4% 66.2% 64.4% 71.4% 77.0% Mohave 0.8% 2.2% 1.2% 0.8% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Navajo 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pima 25.2% 20.4% 20.4% 18.3% 18.9% 19.8% 19.1% 13.8% 15.8% 9.7% Pinal 2.5% 2.2% 3.1% 3.4% 4.2% 3.2% 5.1% 3.5% 4.6% 3.1% Santa Cruz 0.5% 1.5% 0.4% 1.5% 1.1% 0.7% 2.3% 1.8% 0.8% 1.2% Yavapai 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Yuma 1.5% 1.5% 3.1% 3.2% 4.2% 5.1% 4.6% 12.1% 5.0% 4.3% Maricopa 80 Gender The vast majority of juveniles direct filed to criminal court are males. From 2004 to 2013, males accounted for approximately 92 to 96 percent of all direct files to criminal court (Figure 47). Figure 47: Juveniles Direct Filed to Criminal Court by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Female 21 24 25 32 24 41 33 14 17 12 Male 372 378 466 492 526 525 360 326 242 245 Race/Ethnicity Hispanic youth made up the largest percentage of juveniles direct filed to criminal court (Tables 58 and 59). Although Hispanic juveniles constituted a range of 37.1 to 40.3 percent of youth referred to the juvenile justice system from 2004 to 2013, during that same time they comprised 50.7 to 62.1 percent of all youth direct filed to criminal court. In contrast, while Caucasian juveniles constituted a range of 43.4 percent to 48.0 percent of youth referred to the juvenile justice system from 2004 to 2013, they comprised 17.4 percent to 26.5 percent of juveniles direct filed to criminal court. African-American juveniles saw the greatest cumulative increase in direct files to criminal court in Arizona, with a 56.0 percent increase across the decade. 81 Table 58: Number of Direct Files to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 221 216 249 320 319 334 234 211 158 145 52 60 78 74 101 100 50 48 44 53 104 101 136 107 102 102 82 68 45 51 15 13 21 18 18 17 19 8 9 7 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 6 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 0 Other 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 0 Unknown 0 5 2 1 6 9 5 1 0 1 393 402 491 524 550 566 393 340 259 257 African American Caucasian Native American Total Table 59: Percentage of Direct Files to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Hispanic 56.2% 53.7% 50.7% 61.1% 58.0% 59.0% 59.5% 62.1% 61.0% 56.4% African American 13.2% 14.9% 15.9% 14.1% 18.4% 17.7% 12.7% 14.1% 17.0% 20.6% Caucasian 26.5% 25.1% 27.7% 20.4% 18.6% 18.0% 20.9% 20.0% 17.4% 19.8% Native American 3.8% 3.2% 4.3% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 4.8% 2.4% 3.5% 2.7% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.3% 1.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% Other 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0% Unknown 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 0.2% 1.1% 1.6% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% Transfers to Criminal Court Since 2004, the number of youth transferred to criminal court at the request of county attorneys has dropped dramatically (Figure 48). In 2004, 105 juveniles had their cases transferred to criminal court in this manner, and by 2013, that number had dropped to 13. This precipitous decline in the number of juveniles transferred to criminal court can be explained, in part, by the introduction of direct file transfer options that took effect in July 1997. 82 Figure 48: Juveniles Transferred to Criminal Court FY2004-FY2013 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Juveniles 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 105 95 71 64 55 45 34 24 18 15 Not surprisingly, the vast majority of juveniles transferred to criminal court from 2004 to 2013 at the request of county attorneys were charged with a felony offense (Tables 60 and 61). During the time period examined, 93 percent or more of juveniles transferred to criminal court were charged with a felony offense. Court by Offense Class of Most Serious Table 60: Number of Transfers to Criminal Court by Offense Class FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Felony 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 100 90 67 59 52 43 32 23 17 14 Misdemeanor 5 5 4 5 2 2 2 1 1 0 Status 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 105 95 71 64 55 45 34 24 18 15 Total Table 61: Percentage of Transfers to Criminal Court by Offense Class FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Felony 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 95.2% 94.7% 93.2% 92.2% 94.6% 95.6% 94.1% 95.8% 94.4% 93.3% Misdemeanor 4.8% 5.3% 6.9% 7.8% 3.6% 4.4% 5.9% 4.2% 5.6% 0.0% Status 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Administrative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 83 From 2004 to 2013, Maricopa County accounted for the majority of transfers of juveniles to criminal court (Tables 62 and 63). During this time, Maricopa County accounted for 32.4 percent (2010) to 71.2 percent (2006) of all youth transferred to criminal court at the request of the county attorney. Although Pima County is the second most populous county in Arizona, from 2005 to 2010, Yavapai County referred more youth to criminal court than any county except for Maricopa County. With a dramatic reduction between 2011 and 2013 in Yavapai County, Pima County once again became the second highest county for youth referrals to criminal court in the last three years of the decade. Table 62: Number of Transfers to Criminal Court by County, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cochise 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 Coconino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gila 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Graham 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Greenlee 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 La Paz 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 56 64 52 40 27 22 11 12 7 6 4 4 1 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 Maricopa Mohave Navajo 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Pima 16 9 5 2 8 2 6 3 10 4 Pinal 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 5 9 11 12 7 2 0 1 5 3 6 7 5 4 7 3 1 2 105 95 71 64 55 45 34 24 18 15 Yavapai Yuma Total 84 Table 63: Percentage of Transfers to Criminal Court by County, FY2004– FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cochise 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 2.9% 12.5% 0.0% 6.7% Coconino 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gila 2.9% 1.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Graham 1.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Greenlee 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% La Paz 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 2.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 53.3% 67.4% 71.2% 62.5% 49.1% 48.9% 32.4% 50.0% 38.9% 40.0% Mohave 3.8% 4.2% 1.4% 6.3% 5.5% 4.4% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Navajo 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% Pima 15.2% 9.5% 6.9% 3.1% 14.6% 4.4% 17.7% 12.5% 55.6% 26.7% Pinal 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Santa Cruz 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Yavapai 9.5% 11.6% 6.9% 14.1% 20.0% 26.7% 20.6% 8.3% 0.0% 6.7% Yuma 4.8% 3.2% 8.2% 10.9% 9.1% 8.9% 20.6% 12.5% 5.6% 13.3% Maricopa Gender As with most stages of the juvenile justice process, males accounted for the majority of transfers to criminal court from 2004 to 2013 (Figure 49). The percentage of all youth transferred to criminal court that were male ranged from a low of 87.3 percent in 2006 to a high of 100 percent in 2011 to 2013. Figure 49: Juveniles Transferred to Criminal Court by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Female 9 2 9 2 4 3 1 0 0 0 Male 96 93 62 62 51 42 33 24 18 15 85 Race/Ethnicity From 2004 to 2013, Hispanic youth accounted for the largest percentage of youth transferred to criminal court each year (Tables 64 and 65). During the entire time period examined, the percentage Hispanic youth transferred to criminal court ranged from a low of 40.0 percent in 2013 to a high of 71.2 percent in 2006. During this same time, Caucasian youth accounted for the second largest percentage of youth transferred to criminal court, ranging from a low of 16.7 percent in 2012 to a high of 38.2 in 2010. Table 64: Number of Transfers to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 63 47 50 36 28 21 17 12 11 6 3 5 4 5 6 6 2 4 4 3 36 39 16 21 16 16 13 6 3 4 Native American 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 0 2 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 105 95 71 64 55 45 34 24 18 15 African American Caucasian Total Table 65: Percentage of Transfers to Criminal Court by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 60.0% 49.5% 71.2% 56.3% 50.9% 46.7% 50.0% 50.0% 61.1% 40.0% 2.9% 5.3% 5.5% 7.8% 10.9% 13.3% 5.9% 16.7% 22.2% 20.0% 34.3% 41.1% 21.9% 32.8% 29.1% 35.6% 38.2% 25.0% 16.7% 26.7% Native American 1.0% 3.2% 1.4% 3.1% 5.5% 4.4% 2.9% 8.3% 0.0% 13.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Unknown 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% African American Caucasian 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 the conditions of probation 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 additional conditions of probation based on the needs of the youth and the circumstances of the case. 86 Generally speaking, from 2004 to 2013, the number of youth placed on standard probation declined (Figure 50). In 2013, the number of youth placed on standard probation was 44.5 percent lower than in 2004. Figure 50: Dispositions of Standard Probation FY2004 - FY2013 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Juveniles 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 10,211 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 9,821 9,351 7,793 6,695 5,837 The most serious offenses that youth placed on standard probation were charged has remained relatively constant throughout the time period examined (Tables 66 and 67). From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation for a felony offense hovered around 50 percent, with a low of 47.8 percent in 2004 to a high of 52.5 percent in 2013. Similarly, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation who were charged with a misdemeanor offense remained relatively constant, ranging from a low of 33.4 percent in 2012 to a high of 38.1 percent in 2010. Table 66: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 5,025 4,936 5,082 5,280 5,345 4,863 4,596 3,875 3,552 3,065 Misdemeanor 3,754 3,507 3,599 3,404 3,563 3,633 3,561 2,977 2,239 1,990 Administrative 1,200 1,142 994 1,037 928 988 986 770 752 642 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 373 298 249 293 288 196 88 48 40 25 Other 172 160 142 143 87 141 120 123 112 115 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 10,211 9,821 9,351 7,793 6,695 5,837 Total 87 Table 67: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 47.8% 49.2% 50.5% 52.0% 52.4% 49.5% 49.2% 49.7% 53.1% 52.5% Misdemeanor 35.7% 34.9% 35.8% 33.5% 34.9% 37.0% 38.1% 38.2% 33.4% 34.1% Administrative 11.4% 11.4% 9.9% 10.2% 9.1% 10.1% 10.5% 9.9% 11.2% 11.0% Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.9% 2.8% 2.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% Other 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of youth placed on standard probation by county has remained relatively stable (Tables 68 and 69). As expected, Maricopa and Pima counties accounted for the majority of youth placed on standard probation; approximately two-thirds of youth placed on standard probation were from Maricopa and Pima Counties. Although nine of Arizona’s 15 counties increased over the decade, the increases were marginal in five of the counties, with more substantial cumulative increases seen in Mohave, Navajo, Pinal and Yavapai Counties. Table 68: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by County FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 76 86 80 93 87 62 49 50 63 68 Cochise 205 127 178 191 204 133 165 200 158 120 Coconino 369 318 348 310 307 315 219 207 246 189 Gila 194 165 150 182 150 125 125 172 143 118 Graham 157 161 143 175 198 168 131 133 105 108 Greenlee 31 31 37 34 34 30 32 42 36 28 La Paz 44 30 29 32 31 20 9 11 19 15 5,690 5,452 5,553 5,605 5,796 5,647 5,370 4,189 3,313 3,022 Mohave 324 332 327 367 302 252 317 283 271 311 Navajo 202 217 174 222 236 277 239 166 305 205 Pima 1,847 1,727 1,663 1,458 1,432 1,350 1,151 967 822 700 Pinal 315 373 328 363 367 429 575 474 393 334 Santa Cruz 212 208 224 186 129 146 159 125 131 76 Yavapai 300 313 335 349 344 356 330 274 282 233 Yuma 558 503 497 590 594 511 480 500 408 310 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 10,211 9,821 9,351 7,793 6,695 5,837 Maricopa Total 88 Table 69: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by County FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.9% 1.2% Cochise 2.0% 1.3% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 1.4% 1.8% 2.6% 2.4% 2.1% Coconino 3.5% 3.2% 3.5% 3.1% 3.0% 3.2% 2.3% 2.7% 3.7% 3.2% Gila 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% Graham 1.5% 1.6% 1.4% 1.7% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 1.7% 1.6% 1.9% Greenlee 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% La Paz 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 54.0% 54.3% 55.2% 55.2% 56.8% 57.5% 57.4% 53.8% 49.5% 51.8% 3.1% 3.3% 3.3% 3.6% 3.0% 2.6% 3.4% 3.6% 4.1% 5.3% Maricopa Mohave Navajo 1.9% 2.2% 1.7% 2.2% 2.3% 2.8% 2.6% 2.1% 4.6% 3.5% Pima 17.6% 17.2% 16.5% 14.4% 14.0% 13.8% 12.3% 12.4% 12.3% 12.0% Pinal 3.0% 3.7% 3.3% 3.6% 3.6% 4.4% 6.2% 6.1% 5.9% 5.7% Santa Cruz 2.0% 2.1% 2.2% 1.8% 1.3% 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 2.0% 1.3% Yavapai 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 4.2% 4.0% Yuma 5.3% 5.0% 4.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.2% 5.1% 6.4% 6.1% 5.3% 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 also comprised a larger percentage of youth placed on standard probation (Tables 70 and 71). In 2004, 53.2 percent of all youth placed on standard probation were 16 or 17 years old. By 2014, the percentage of all youth placed on standard probation who were 16 or 17 years old increased to 59.5 percent. D Table 70: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 9 7 8 6 6 4 3 4 1 1 2 10 28 23 19 22 17 13 9 8 6 3 11 76 63 76 92 88 51 58 35 39 28 12 325 256 240 197 203 205 172 161 138 106 13 787 704 684 635 650 580 535 444 438 362 14 1,464 1,400 1,396 1,317 1,320 1,172 1,088 900 813 686 15 2,228 2,121 2,146 2,114 2,057 1,963 1,804 1,591 1,316 1,172 16 2,520 2,554 2,500 2,607 2,702 2,593 2,515 2,075 1,744 1,594 17 3,073 2,891 2,984 3,144 3,165 3,228 3,157 2,567 2,193 1,876 15 23 14 20 5 12 9 11 5 8 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 10,211 9,821 9,351 7,793 6,695 5,837 Unknown Total 89 Table 71: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 11 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 12 3.1% 2.6% 2.4% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 1.8% 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% 13 7.5% 7.0% 6.8% 6.3% 6.4% 5.9% 5.7% 5.7% 6.5% 6.2% 14 13.9% 13.9% 13.9% 13.0% 12.9% 11.9% 11.6% 11.6% 12.1% 11.8% 15 21.2% 21.1% 21.3% 20.8% 20.1% 20.0% 19.3% 20.4% 19.7% 20.1% 16 24.0% 25.4% 24.8% 25.7% 26.5% 26.4% 26.9% 26.6% 26.1% 27.3% 17 29.2% 28.8% 29.6% 31.0% 31.0% 32.9% 33.8% 32.9% 32.8% 32.1% Unknown 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Gender Approximately one-fourth of all youth placed on standard probation are female, ranging from a low of 22.8 percent in 2013 to a high of 26.9 percent in 2005 (Figure 51). Figure 51: Dispositions of Standard Probation by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Female 2,698 2,694 2,517 2,397 2,432 2,315 2,171 1,905 1,539 1,332 Male 7,826 7,349 7,549 7,760 7,779 7,506 7,180 5,888 5,156 4,505 90 Race/Ethnicity From 2004 to 2007, Caucasian youth made up the largest percentage of youth placed on standard probation (Tables 72 and 73). Beginning in 2008 and continuing to 2011, Hispanic youth made up the largest percentage of youth placed on standard probation. Hispanic and Caucasian youth were comparable in 2012, and Caucasian youth ended the decade with the largest percentage of youth on standard probation. FY1997 – Table 72: Number of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 4,221 3,953 4,185 4,220 4,369 4,108 3,954 3,247 2,725 2,282 775 828 842 895 896 954 982 732 630 590 4,838 4,515 4,325 4,342 4,181 3,992 3,705 3,169 2,724 2,415 595 657 612 604 648 605 579 547 537 484 Asian/Pacific Islander 49 39 49 57 56 58 51 52 35 36 Other 23 29 29 17 21 31 32 20 16 21 Unknown 23 22 24 22 40 73 48 26 28 9 10,524 10,043 10,066 10,157 10,211 9,821 9,351 7,793 6,695 5,837 African American Caucasian Native American Total Table 73: Percentage of Dispositions of Standard Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 40.1% 39.4% 41.6% 41.6% 42.8% 41.8% 42.3% 41.7% 40.7% 39.1% 7.7% 8.2% 8.4% 8.8% 8.8% 9.7% 10.5% 9.4% 9.4% 10.1% 46.0% 45.0% 43.0% 42.8% 41.0% 40.7% 39.6% 40.7% 40.7% 41.4% Native American 5.7% 6.5% 6.1% 6.0% 6.4% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0% 8.0% 8.3% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% Other 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Unknown 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% African American Caucasian Juveniles Placed on Intensive Probation Many youth who are adjudicated delinquent in Arizona and remain in the community are subject to higher levels of supervision and conditions of probation than youth placed on standard probation (i.e., intensive probation). Juveniles placed on intensive probation are those who the court believes require a higher level of supervision and structure than is provided through standard probation. Youth on intensive probation typically are subject to a higher 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, than 91 youth on standard probation. Accordingly, probation officers who supervise youth on intensive probation have smaller caseloads than those supervising standard probationers. From 2004 to 2013, the number of juveniles placed on intensive probation has consistently declined, representing a 47.4 percent cumulative decrease across the decade (Figure 52). Figure 52: Dispositions of Intensive Probation FY2004 - FY2013 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Juveniles 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2,265 2,193 2,069 2,023 1,967 1,869 1,568 1,449 1,282 1,192 The most serious offenses that youth were charged and placed on intensive probation have remained relatively constant throughout the time period examined (Tables 74 and 75). From 2004 to 2013, the percentage of youth placed on intensive probation for a felony offense ranged from a low of 48.1 percent in 2013 to a high of 55.9 percent in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of youth placed on intensive probation for a misdemeanor offense also remained relatively constant, ranging from a low of 14.4 percent in 2008 to a high of 18.1 percent in 2010 and 2011. 92 Table 74: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Felony 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1,197 1,107 1,145 1,103 1,100 956 797 736 642 578 Misdemeanor 354 367 299 310 283 319 283 262 229 198 Administrative 704 710 614 600 574 573 471 439 404 405 Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 0 0 4 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 Other 10 9 7 7 9 17 16 11 5 10 2,265 2,193 2,069 2,023 1,967 1,869 1,568 1,449 1,282 1,192 Total Table 75: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Offense Class of Most Serious Offense, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Felony 52.9% 50.5% 55.3% 54.5% 55.9% 51.2% 50.8% 50.8% 50.1% 48.5% Misdemeanor 15.6% 16.7% 14.5% 15.3% 14.4% 17.1% 18.1% 18.1% 17.9% 16.6% Administrative 31.1% 32.4% 29.7% 29.7% 29.2% 30.7% 30.0% 30.3% 31.5% 34.0% Violations of Probation & Ordinances Status 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Other 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% Even though the number of youth placed on intensive probation statewide has declined significantly across the decade, the majority of the decline is due to decreases in the most populated areas of Maricopa and Pima Counties (Tables 76 and 77). While Greenlee County was the only Arizona County to see a marginal increase in numbers, all other counties had a decrease when comparing the beginning of the decade to the end of the decade; however, 10 of Arizona’s 15 counties did have relatively small cumulative increases in the percentage of youth place in intensive probation over the decade. 93 Table 76: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by County FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 27 18 15 15 10 6 9 6 6 4 Cochise 103 97 79 77 105 90 53 71 69 64 Coconino 70 58 51 60 55 67 58 53 48 51 Gila 36 34 37 35 48 31 25 38 25 22 Graham 37 25 35 30 29 14 21 22 17 22 Greenlee 7 9 7 11 8 13 6 8 6 8 La Paz 8 10 6 9 3 4 4 3 1 4 Maricopa 885 939 851 853 806 737 585 518 451 425 Mohave 105 114 119 142 105 96 90 69 67 70 Navajo 56 59 56 47 36 51 42 46 34 35 Pima 362 289 243 212 193 198 176 144 122 106 Pinal 135 118 125 112 124 137 115 99 84 91 48 42 29 42 39 33 26 26 24 26 Yavapai 119 117 153 133 126 119 123 94 99 86 Yuma 267 264 263 245 280 273 235 252 229 178 2,265 2,193 2,069 2,023 1,967 1,869 1,568 1,449 1,282 1,192 Santa Cruz Total Table 77: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by County FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Apache 1.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% Cochise 4.6% 4.4% 3.8% 3.8% 5.3% 4.8% 3.4% 4.9% 5.4% 5.4% Coconino 3.1% 2.6% 2.5% 3.0% 2.8% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 4.3% Gila 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 2.4% 1.7% 1.6% 2.6% 2.0% 1.9% Graham 1.6% 1.1% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 0.8% 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.9% Greenlee 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% La Paz 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 39.1% 42.8% 41.1% 42.2% 42.0% 39.4% 37.3% 35.8% 35.2% 35.7% 4.6% 5.2% 5.8% 7.0% 5.3% 5.1% 5.7% 4.8% 5.2% 5.9% Maricopa Mohave Navajo 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 1.8% 2.7% 2.7% 3.2% 2.7% 2.9% Pima 16.0% 13.2% 11.7% 10.5% 9.8% 10.6% 11.2% 9.9% 9.5% 8.9% Pinal 6.0% 5.4% 6.0% 5.5% 6.3% 7.3% 7.3% 6.8% 6.6% 7.6% Santa Cruz 2.1% 1.9% 1.4% 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.2% Yavapai Yuma 5.3% 5.3% 7.4% 6.6% 6.4% 6.4% 7.8% 6.5% 7.7% 7.2% 11.8% 12.0% 12.7% 12.1% 14.2% 14.6% 15.0% 17.4% 17.9% 14.9% 94 Age As with other stages of the juvenile justice process, a higher percentage of older youth are being placed on intensive probation in 2013 than in 2004 (Tables 78 and 79). In 2004, 57.5 percent of all youth placed on intensive probation were 16 or 17 years old. In 2013, the percentage of all youth placed on intensive probation who were 16 or 17 years old had increased to 64.7 percent. Table 78: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 11 6 4 6 0 3 6 4 1 1 0 12 38 19 14 26 22 19 9 10 6 6 13 120 97 84 82 92 73 57 40 39 33 14 292 320 284 236 209 182 174 164 139 124 15 502 485 456 455 392 349 329 285 271 255 16 662 627 593 602 619 576 438 445 387 369 17 640 635 630 619 628 660 552 503 438 402 3 6 2 2 1 4 4 1 1 3 2,265 2,193 2,069 2,023 1,967 1,869 1,568 1,449 1,282 1,192 Unknown Total Table 79: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Age, FY2004 – FY2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 12 1.7% 0.9% 0.7% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 13 5.3% 4.4% 4.1% 4.1% 4.7% 3.9% 3.6% 2.8% 3.0% 2.8% 14 12.9% 14.6% 13.7% 11.7% 10.6% 9.7% 11.1% 11.3% 10.8% 10.4% 15 22.2% 22.1% 22.0% 22.5% 19.9% 18.7% 21.0% 19.7% 21.1% 21.4% 16 29.2% 28.6% 28.7% 29.8% 31.5% 30.8% 27.9% 30.7% 30.2% 31.0% 17 28.3% 29.0% 30.5% 30.6% 31.9% 35.3% 35.2% 34.7% 34.2% 33.7% Unknown 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 95 Gender In contrast to standard probation, where approximately one-fourth of youth placed on standard probation were female, less than 20 percent of youth placed on intensive probation were female (Figure 53). Female youth comprised 16.6 percent of all intensive probationers in 2004 and 11.7 percent in 2013, representing a 29.1 percent cumulative decrease in placements to intensive probation of female youth. Figure 53: Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Gender FY2004 - FY2013 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Female Male 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 375 359 346 262 247 247 200 198 162 140 1,890 1,834 1,723 1,761 1,720 1,622 1,368 1,251 1,120 1,052 Race/Ethnicity While the majority of youth on standard probation were Caucasian for the majority of years between 2004 and 2013, Hispanic youth have comprised the largest percentage of all youth placed on intensive probation for all ten years (Tables 80 and 81). The percentage of Hispanic youth on intensive probation has remained relatively stable throughout the decade, and Hispanic youth represent close to half of all youth on intensive probation. In addition, while the percentage of Caucasian youth on intensive probation has decreased 15.3 percent across the decade, African-American youth on intensive probation increased 29.6 percent in the same timeframe. 96 Table 80: Number of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1,058 1,044 982 985 1,048 936 790 744 656 574 African American 174 177 181 167 172 187 169 152 120 119 Caucasian 941 856 806 763 661 642 524 462 426 420 82 101 89 96 72 87 77 77 72 70 Asian/Pacific Islander 5 6 6 7 9 15 3 6 5 2 Other 3 7 4 5 4 1 1 6 1 5 Native American Unknown Total 2 2 1 0 1 1 4 2 2 2 2,265 2,193 2,069 2,023 1,967 1,869 1,568 1,449 1,282 1,192 Table 81: Percentage of Dispositions of Intensive Probation by Race/Ethnicity FY2004 – FY2013 2004 Hispanic 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 46.7% 47.6% 47.5% 48.7% 53.3% 50.1% 50.4% 51.4% 51.2% 48.2% 7.7% 8.1% 8.8% 8.3% 8.7% 10.0% 10.8% 10.5% 9.4% 10.0% 41.6% 39.0% 39.0% 37.7% 33.6% 34.4% 33.4% 31.9% 33.2% 35.2% Native American 3.6% 4.6% 4.3% 4.8% 3.7% 4.7% 4.9% 5.3% 5.6% 5.9% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% Other 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% Unknown 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% African American Caucasian 97 Department of Juvenile Corrections Data 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 two secure care facilities for the custody, treatment, and education of committed juveniles: Adobe Mountain School and Black Canyon School. The ADJC attempts to provide each juvenile with rehabilitative services consistent with the juveniles’ ages, risks, needs, abilities, and committing offenses. The range of rehabilitative services includes education, individual and group counseling, psychological services, health care, and recreation. In addition, ADJC supports treatment groups and housing units that focus on juveniles with histories of violence, substance abuse, or sexual offenses. The data that appears in this section are for fiscal years 2004 through 2013 and are publicly available from the ADJC web site.41 These data are used to provide a general overview of the number and characteristics of youth committed to ADJC over time. In addition to the data included in this report, additional information about the department and its operations is available on its web site. From 2004 to 2013, the number of juveniles sentenced to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections varied year-to-year, with a general increase over the first half of the decade and a general decrease over the second half of the decade (Table 82). The decade high occurred in 2008 with 746 commitments, and the decade low occurred in 2013 with 394 commitments. New commitments cumulatively decreased 42.7 percent over the decade. Table 82: Number of New Commitments, FY 2004 – 2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 688 696 674 734 746 662 535 559 446 394 Age From 2004 to 2013, the distribution of new commitments to ADJC by age has changed little (Table 83). Approximately nine out of 10 youth committed to ADJC from 2004 to 2013 were 15 - 17 years of age. 41 http://www.azdjc.gov/OfficesPrograms/Research/ResearchHome.asp 98 Table 83: Percentage of New Commitments by Age, FY 2004 – 2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 < 13 1.6% 2.6% 2.4% 2.0% 2.4% 1.8% 2.3% 1.1% 0.9% 1.5% 14 10.2% 9.3% 9.1% 8.3% 9.1% 10.3% 8.4% 9.3% 7.4% 8.4% 15 21.7% 22.0% 20.3% 22.8% 24.1% 19.3% 21.7% 20.6% 17.3% 19.3% 16 31.8% 33.8% 31.9% 31.6% 31.2% 34.1% 32.7% 32.0% 34.5% 33.2% 17 34.7% 32.3% 36.4% 35.3% 33.0% 34.4% 35.0% 37.0% 39.9% 37.6% Gender From 2004 to 2006, there was an increase in the percentage of new commitments to ADJC who were female (Table 84). The increase in the percentage of new commitments that were female was driven by both an increase in the number of females committed to ADJC during this time and a decrease in the number of new commitments who were male (Table 85). In 2007, the composition of new female commitments to ADJC had decreased substantially and remained relatively stable throughout the remainder of the decade, with the exception of 2012. Table 84: Percentage of New Commitments by Gender, FY 2004 – 2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Male 85.2% 84.2% 83.7% 88.1% 87.9% 89.9% 86.5% 87.5% 83.9% 88.8% Female 14.8% 15.8% 16.3% 11.9% 12.1% 10.1% 13.5% 12.5% 16.1% 11.2% Table 85: Number of New Commitments by Gender, FY 2004 – 2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Male 586 586 564 647 656 595 463 489 374 350 Female 102 110 110 87 90 67 72 70 72 44 Total 688 696 674 734 746 662 535 559 446 394 Race/Ethnicity From 2004 to 2013, Hispanic youth (excluding Mexican nationals) accounted for nearly half of the new commitments to ADJC, ranging from a low of 43.0 percent in 2006 to a high of 51.5 percent in 2009 (Table 86). The percentage of new commitments of Caucasian youth declined 17.3 percent across the decade, while, at the same time, the percentage of new commitments of African-American youth increased 80.2 percent. 99 Table 86: Percentage of New Commitments by Race/Ethnicity, FY 2004 – 2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Hispanic 46.1% 44.7% 43.0% 47.0% 50.8% 51.1% 49.7% 47.4% 45.5% 47.2% Caucasian 34.7% 30.5% 35.6% 30.1% 29.8% 28.1% 26.9% 28.8% 31.4% 28.7% African American 8.6% 10.5% 10.7% 12.8% 10.5% 10.7% 14.4% 14.8% 13.9% 15.5% Native American 4.4% 6.0% 5.2% 4.8% 5.1% 5.3% 5.2% 4.8% 4.7% 4.8% Mexican National 4.5% 8.3% 4.6% 4.1% 3.5% 3.9% 2.4% 3.0% 3.6% 2.0% Asian 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% Other 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 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 87). From 2004 to 2013, approximately eight 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 ranged from a high of 84.7 percent in 2004 to 76.1 percent in 2008. Table 87: Percentage of New Commitments by Number of Prior Referrals FY 2004 – 2013 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 referral 0.8% 2.4% 3.0% 1.1% 1.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.3% 1.3% 2.0% 2 referrals 1.3% 3.2% 2.1% 1.6% 3.2% 3.5% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 4.3% 3-5 referrals 13.2% 13.9% 14.7% 18.5% 19.2% 17.4% 12.2% 12.5% 15.0% 13.5% 6-10 referrals 40.9% 42.6% 39.7% 43.0% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 40.4% 45.1% 40.4% 11-15 referrals 28.2% 24.7% 24.7% 22.1% 19.6% 18.7% 22.9% 25.2% 20.6% 25.1% 16 or more referrals 15.6% 13.1% 15.9% 13.7% 14.5% 13.6% 14.6% 16.5% 15.3% 14.7% Similarly, although a very low percentage of youth with only one prior adjudication of delinquency are committed to ADJC (6.6 percent of all commitments in 2013), since 2004, there has been a 49.4 percent decrease in the percentage of new commitments to ADJC of youth with six or more prior adjudications and a corresponding 36.3 percent increase in the percentage of new commitments of youth with two to five prior adjudications (Table 88). 100 Table 88: Percentage of New Commitments by Number of Prior Adjudications FY 2004 –2013 2004 1 adjudication 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2.2% 5.6% 5.0% 6.3% 7.4% 8.2% 6.4% 7.2% 3.8% 6.6% 2-3 adjudications 19.9% 20.4% 19.8% 38.8% 41.6% 41.5% 38.5% 29.2% 32.3% 37.6% 4-5 adjudications 31.3% 33.0% 33.1% 34.4% 29.9% 33.9% 36.1% 38.6% 37.3% 32.2% 6-7 adjudications 27.0% 23.7% 20.1% 13.8% 13.1% 11.1% 15.3% 16.5% 17.5% 16.2% 8 or more adjudications 19.6% 17.2% 21.9% 6.7% 8.0% 5.3% 3.7% 8.6% 9.0% 7.4% 101 Conclusion An analysis of the trends in crime and criminal justice system activity reveals a number of apparent paradoxes. For example, although both the number and rate of violent index offenses reported to the police from 2004 to 2013 have decreased, the number and rate of forcible rape in Arizona has increased. The trend mentioned above illustrates the value of disaggregating violent crime data. Although Arizona has made significant strides at reducing the frequency and rate of violent crime, an exception is seen in the data on forcible rape. Rates of murder, aggravated assault, and robbery have significantly decreased, but these trends beg the question of why similar decreases have not been seen in the data on forcible rape. Even though Arizonans are generally safer in 2014 than in 2004, as measured by changes in the number and rate of violent and property index offenses, Arizona’s population continues to grow at rates proportionally higher than the national average. In a state that is growing as Arizona is, even though crime rates are generally declining, public safety agencies may not be experiencing similar reductions in their workload. Thousands of offenders will still need to be arrested and processed through the criminal justice system and a corresponding number of residents will be victimized and in need of assistance. This illustrates the primary challenge of public safety agencies in today’s fiscal climate; in a time of dwindling federal, state, and local governmental resources, the inherent challenge becomes finding an effective way for Arizona’s criminal and juvenile justice systems to continue to enhance residents’ safety and security in their communities and in their home. Two responses to this challenge that can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system is to improve the information sharing practices of our public safety agencies and implement evidence-based practices that have proven to be effective at addressing public safety issues. Justice information sharing enhances collaboration among criminal justice system agencies and improves public safety professionals’ access to the information needed to make critical decisions in the field. Evidence-based practice utilizes decades of research on crime and the criminal justice system to inform current prevention, enforcement, intervention, and rehabilitative strategies. Over the years, a great deal has been learned about how to prevent crime and change the behavior of offenders. Utilizing what criminal justice researchers and practitioners have learned that works can make our public safety agencies more efficient and effective. This report and the data that is included is intended to give readers an overview of the changes in Arizona’s criminal and juvenile justice systems over time. These and other data should be part of the context for critical policy and practice decisions. More detailed data from the respective criminal and juvenile justice agencies should also be utilized to better understand the complexity of the criminal and juvenile justice systems and the factors that surround crime in Arizona. Identifying and using the best data 102 possible to inform the 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. 103 Appendix A The tables below compare index offense data for Arizona from two sources, Crime in Arizona, the annual crime statistics report published by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) and, Crime in the United States, the annual crime statistics report published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As described earlier in this report, one explanation for the differences between the DPS and FBI data is that the FBI estimates the number of index offenses for agencies that did not report their index offense data to DPS, while DPS simply notes in their report those agencies that did not submit index offense data. Arizona Index Offense Data, 2004-2013 Crime in Arizona vs. Crime in the United States Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery 2004 7,638 Agg. Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Crime in Arizona 28,560 412 1,867 18,643 303,259 55,742 191,477 54,515 Crime in the U.S. 1,367,009 16,137 94,635 401,326 2005 854,911 10,328,255 2,143,456 6,947,685 1,237,114 Crime in Arizona 29,424 441 1,955 8,455 18,573 279,216 53,711 170,511 53,291 Crime in the U.S. 1,390,695 16,692 93,934 417,122 2006 9,106 862,947 10,166,159 2,154,126 6,776,807 1,235,226 19,356 281,686 55,095 170,925 53,787 447,403 2007 860,853 9,983,568 2,183,746 6,607,013 1,192,809 Crime in Arizona 30,833 462 1,909 Crime in the U.S. 1,417,745 17,034 92,455 Crime in Arizona 29,612 464 1,797 9,493 17,858 277,051 55,836 172,187 47,250 Crime in the U.S. 1,408,337 16,929 90,427 445,125 2008 855,856 9,843,481 2,179,140 6,568,572 1,095,769 Crime in Arizona 28,753 404 1,654 9,648 17,047 262,130 55,950 167,383 36,923 Crime in the U.S. 1,382,012 16,272 89,000 441,855 2009 834,885 9,767,915 2,222,196 6,588,873 956,846 Crime in Arizona 26,094 324 1,639 8,021 16,110 231,633 51,740 153,073 25,059 Crime in the U.S. 1,318,398 15,241 88,097 408,217 2010 806,843 9,320,971 2,199,125 6,327,230 794,616 Crime in Arizona 23,823 354 1,557 6,838 15,074 226,429 48,169 156,727 20,251 Crime in the U.S. 1,246,248 14,748 84,767 367,832 2011 778,901 9,082,887 2,159,878 6,185,867 737,142 Crime in Arizona 24,271 339 1,653 7,007 15,272 227,604 52,155 155,642 18,543 Crime in the U.S. 1,203,564 14,612 83,425 354,396 2012 751,131 9,063,173 2,188,005 6,159,795 715,373 Crime in Arizona 25,902 345 1,725 7,253 16,579 224,996 50,364 155,717 17,533 Crime in the U.S. 1,214,462 14,827 84,376 354,520 2013 760,739 8,975,438 2,103,787 6,150,598 721,053 Crime in Arizona 24,621 312 1,833 6,495 15,981 215,772 45,639 153,270 15,551 Crime in the U.S. 1,163,146 14,196 79,770 345,031 724,149 8,632,512 1,928,465 6,004,453 699,594 104 Arizona Index Offense Rates per 100,000 Population, 2004-2013 Crime in Arizona vs. Crime in the United States Violent Crime Murder Rape Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 504.1 465.5 7.2 5.5 33.0 32.2 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 513.2 469.2 7.5 5.6 33.8 31.7 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 501.4 473.5 7.5 5.7 31.5 30.9 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 482.7 466.9 7.4 5.6 29.3 30.0 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 447.0 454.5 6.3 5.4 25.7 29.3 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 408.3 429.4 5.4 5.0 32.0 28.7 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 408.1 403.6 6.4 4.8 33.9 27.5 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 405.9 386.3 6.2 4.7 34.9 26.8 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 428.9 386.9 5.5 4.7 34.7 26.9 Crime in Arizona Crime in the U.S. 405.8 367.9 5.4 4.5 35.4 25.2 Robbery 2004 134.4 136.7 2005 144.4 140.7 2006 149.6 149.4 2007 151.7 147.6 2008 149.2 145.3 2009 122.8 133.0 2010 108.5 119.1 2011 109.9 113.7 2012 112.7 112.9 2013 101.1 109.1 105 Burglary Larceny - Theft Motor Vehicle Theft 5,340.5 3,517.1 990.4 729.9 3,387.2 2,365.9 962.9 421.3 327.4 291.1 4,838.0 3,429.8 948.4 726.7 2,965.2 2,286.3 924.4 416.7 312.7 287.5 4,627.9 3,334.5 925.3 729.4 2,813.1 2,206.8 889.5 398.4 294.3 283.8 4,414.0 3,263.5 912.2 722.5 2,738.4 2,177.8 763.4 363.3 265.9 274.6 4,291.0 3,212.5 868.9 730.8 2,849.5 2,167.0 572.6 314.7 248.1 262.8 3,556.5 3,036.1 809.8 716.3 2,352.8 2,060.9 394.0 258.8 259.3 252.3 3,534.0 2,941.9 794.3 699.6 2,403.2 2,003.5 336.5 238.8 254.8 241.1 3,554.5 2,908.7 847.3 702.2 2,401.3 1,976.9 305.9 229.6 276.0 242.3 3,539.2 2,859.2 807.8 670.2 2,439.1 1,959.3 292.3 229.7 263.9 229.1 3,399.1 2,730.7 732.4 610.0 2,403.5 1,899.4 263.2 221.3 Agg. Assault Property Crime 329.4 291.1