State Strategy Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 2016-2019 State Strategy Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control 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 Police Chief VACANT Sheriff VACANT Former Judge VACANT The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) is a statutorily authorized entity mandated to carry out various coordinating, monitoring and reporting functions regarding the administration and management of criminal justice programs in Arizona. In accordance with statutory guidelines, the Commission is comprised of 19 members who represent various elements of the criminal justice system in Arizona. Fourteen of the 19 Commissioners are appointed by the governor and are municipal, county or elected officials. The remaining five are state criminal justice agency heads. Appointed Commissioners serve for two years and terminate when the first regular session of the legislature is convened; they may be re-appointed. The ACJC was created in 1982 to serve as a resource and service organization for Arizona's 480 criminal justice agencies on a myriad of issues ranging from drugs, gangs, victim compensation and assistance to criminal record improvement initiatives. The ACJC works on behalf of the criminal justice agencies in Arizona to facilitate information and data exchange among state-wide agencies by establishing and maintaining criminal justice information archives, monitoring new and continuing legislation relating to criminal justice issues and gathering information and researching existing criminal justice programs. ACJC Mission: To sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity, and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Arizona. JOHN A. BLACKBURN JR. Executive Director TONY VIDALE Program Manager MICHELLE NEITCH Program Coordinator SHANA MALONE Director, Statistical Analysis Center KELLY CHUNG Intern DUSTIN LEWIS Intern ANNA HANEY Program Coordinator ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4 Nature and Extent of the Problem - Data and Analysis ................................................ 7 Data Sources ................................................................................................ 7 Demographic Characteristics of the Arizona Population ..................................... 9 Nature and Extent of Drug, Gang and Violent Crime in Arizona ......................... 10 Violent Index Offense Rates ..........................................................................16 Index Offense Count ....................................................................................18 Violent Index Offenses .................................................................................19 Drug Use ...................................................................................................21 Drug Use Consequences ...............................................................................23 Cost of Illicit Drug Use on Society ..................................................................28 Current and Coordinated Efforts ...............................................................................30 Law Enforcement .........................................................................................31 Prosecution .................................................................................................34 Forensics ....................................................................................................37 Adjudication ................................................................................................37 Other Projects and Resources .......................................................................39 Coordination and Leveraging of Resources ..................................................... 39 Program Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges ................... 41 Goals and Purpose Areas .........................................................................................43 Strategic Principles ................................................................................................47 Program Performance Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................... 49 Apprehension ..............................................................................................49 Prosecution .................................................................................................50 Forensic Support Services .............................................................................51 Adjudication and Sentencing .........................................................................52 Corrections and Community Corrections ......................................................... 52 Substance Abuse Treatment for Corrections-Involved Individuals ..................... 53 Prevention and Education .............................................................................54 References.............................................................................................................55 1 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: Percent Change in Violent Index Offense Rates and Incidents in Arizona, 2003-2013 .............. 8 Number of Arrests for Drug Sales or Manufacturing, 2003-2013 ........................................... 11 Arrest Rates for Drug Sales or Manufacturing, 2003-2013 .................................................... 11 Number of Arrests for Drug Possession, 2003-2013 ............................................................. 12 Arrest Rates for Drug Possession, 2003-2013 ...................................................................... 12 Percent of Jurisdictions Reporting Active Gangs, 2010-2013................................................. 13 Estimated Number of Active Gang Members in Arizona, 2009-2013 ...................................... 13 High Gang Involvement in Crime, 2009-2013 ...................................................................... 14 High Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs, 2009-2013 .......................................... 15 United States and Arizona Violent Index Offense Rates, 2003-2013 ...................................... 16 Percent Change in Index Offense Rates and Incidents in Arizona, 2003-2013 ........................ 19 Reported Violent Index Offenses in Arizona, 2003-2013 ....................................................... 19 U.S. Past Month Use of Selected Illicit Drugs Among Persons Aged 12 or Older, 2003-2013 ... 21 Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Uses by Gender ........................................................................ 23 Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, Rates per 100,000 Population .......................... 25 Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits by Category, Rates per 100,000 Population ........ 25 Drug-Related Emergency Department and Inpatient Hospitalizations by Drug Type, Rates per 100,000 Population ............................................................................................................ 26 18: Substance Abuse Treatment Admissions, Rates per 100,000 Population ................................ 27 19: Drug-Induced Deaths, Rates per 100,000 Population ........................................................... 28 20: Cost of Illicit Drug Use ....................................................................................................... 29 21: Drug Arrests, FY 2011-2014 ............................................................................................... 31 22: Arrests by Charge Type, FY 2011-2014 ............................................................................... 32 23: Number of Dismantled DTO’s, FY 2010-2015....................................................................... 33 24: Number of Disrupted DTO’s, FY 2010-2015 ......................................................................... 33 25: Drug Convictions, FY 2011-2014......................................................................................... 35 26: Drug Sentencing Comparison, FY 2011-2014 ....................................................................... 35 27: Value of Civil Forfeitures, FY 2011-2014.............................................................................. 36 28: Forensic Drug Analysis, FY 2011-2014 ................................................................................ 37 29: Number of Drug-Related Cases Filed, FY 2011-2014 ............................................................ 38 Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: Arizona and U.S. Population, 2003-2013 ................................................................................ 9 Arizona County Population, 2003-2013 ................................................................................ 10 Race and Ethnicity of Arizona Residents, 2013 ..................................................................... 10 U.S. and Arizona Violent Offense Rates by Type of Offense, 2003-2013 ................................. 17 Arizona Reported Violent Offenses by Type of Offense, 2003-2013 ........................................ 20 Arizona Adults Reporting Past 30-day Illicit Drug Use in 2010 by Drug Type........................... 21 Percentage of Arizona Students Who Have Used Drugs in their Lifetime ................................ 22 Percentage of Arizona Students Who Have Used Drugs in the Past 30 Days ........................... 22 New Juvenile Commitments and Parole Revocations, FY 2007-2010 ...................................... 24 The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society................................................ 29 Cases Disposed Within 90 Days, FY 2011-2014 .................................................................... 38 Drug Tests Performed, FY 2011-2014 .................................................................................. 38 Pre-sentence Reports Prepared, FY 2011-2014 ..................................................................... 38 2 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Executive Summary Review and analysis of drug, gang and violent crime data pertinent to Arizona indicate that the frequency of most crime has remained relatively steady over the past decade. However, factoring in the significant increases in population the state has experienced, data reveals that rates for most crimes have trended downward. Both, arrest rates for the sale and manufacturing of drugs and drug possession have decreased from 2003-2013. In recent years, there has been an increase in the percentage of jurisdictions in Arizona with active gangs, but decreased estimates of active gang members. Data indicates that gangs in Arizona are highly active in the distribution of both marijuana and methamphetamine. Along with the rest of the nation, Arizona has experienced significant declines in violent crime rates, 2003-2013. Over the years, the Commission has supported a variety of projects across the criminal justice system designed to address the drug, gang and violent crime problem in Arizona. A structural hallmark of the DGVCC program has been the support of multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces and their tandem prosecution projects. Additionally, the Commission has supported forensic support services, statewide forfeiture efforts, adjudication projects, and other criminal justice-related projects as a means of achieving the goals of the DGVCC program. The DGVCC program seeks to curtail the flow of illicit drugs, drug proceeds and instruments used to perpetuate violence across Arizona and reduce violent crime and illicit drug use and deter repeat offenders in Arizona. In response to drug, gang and violent crime in Arizona, the following seven purpose areas have been identified as potential funding areas for the 2016-2019 time period:        Apprehension Prosecution Forensic Support Services Adjudication and Sentencing Corrections and Community Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment for Corrections-Involved Individuals Prevention and Education. In addition to the seven purpose areas, a listing of strategic principles has been developed based on a thorough analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program. The seven purpose areas and strategic principles serve as the Commission’s instruments for establishing funding priorities. Each grant year, the Commission will establish priorities based on statewide needs and the funding environment. This strategy document supplies readers with a presentation of the scope of the problem, background on current programming, the strategic direction for allocation of resources for the 20162019 time period, and the program evaluation plan. It is through application of this comprehensive, data-driven strategy that the Commission will continue to maximize resources and promote valuable results for the state of Arizona. 3 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Introduction Drug, gang and violent crime continue to be a persistent threat to the public safety and health of Arizonans. Through granting millions of dollars in federal and state funds to address drug, gang and violent crime, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) serves an integral role in responding to the problem. The Arizona 2016-2019 Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control (Strategy) is the Commission’s primary decision-making tool for the allocation of funds and to guide project activity for the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control (DGVCC) program. An Arizona drug control strategy was initially developed in 1987 with extensive input from local, state, and federal officials and agencies. Through the years, the drug control strategy was updated, refined, and expanded to include gang and violent crime. The first multi-year strategy was released in 2000 and continued for three years, followed by a four-year strategy developed in 2004 and subsequent strategies in 2008 and 2012. The 2012-2015 Strategy has provided guidance for allocating resources through 2015. As with former strategies, the ACJC has requested public input in the development of the Strategy. A public hearing was held in October of 2015 in Phoenix. The purpose of the public hearing was to solicit public input on the content of the Strategy. In addition, a video of the public hearing was posted on our website to allow public input for those that could not attend the meeting. The Strategy serves as the Commission’s blueprint for directing funds to achieve the following two goals:  Curtail the flow of illicit drugs, drug proceeds and instruments used to perpetuate violence across Arizona  Reduce violent crime, reduce illicit drug use, and deter repeat offenders in Arizona. The DGVCC program is supported by multiple funding sources. The parameters of the various funding streams have been accounted for in the design of the Strategy. The following represents the funding sources associated with the program: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG): The Byrne JAG program is the primary source of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Byrne JAG program supports a wide range of program areas including law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education programs, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. Drug and Gang Enforcement Account (DEA): The DEA generates revenue through mandatory fines and surcharges from drug offenders that are collected pursuant to A.R.S. 41-2402. DEA funds are to be used for the purpose of enhancing efforts to deter, investigate, prosecute, adjudicate and punish drug offenders as well as members of criminal street gangs. 4 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Grant: The RSAT Grant is a federal grant issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance for purposes of developing and implementing substance abuse treatment programs in state, local, and tribal correctional and detention facilities and to create and maintain community-based aftercare services for offenders. Matching funds: The Commission has elected to require recipients to provide matching funds to leverage the federal and state dollars committed to the program. Matching funds build buy-in and ownership for local criminal justice initiatives and increase the overall size and effectiveness of the program. Other Sources: When additional resources become available, the Commission has the ability to allocate those funds to appropriate projects. For example, in 2015 the Commission had the opportunity to collaborate with the Arizona Department of Health Services to fund substance abuse prevention programs throughout the state. In crafting this multi-year strategy, special consideration has been given to the economic and political realities of shifts in available resources to support the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program. The strategy has been developed in a manner that is flexible to fluctuations in resources to support the program in order to remain a useful instrument for assuring funds are best directed to improve public safety and meet the needs of Arizona. 5 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Nature and Extent of the Problem Data and Analysis The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s (ACJC’s) DGVCC program is responsible for the administration of the Byrne JAG, DEA revenue and the RSAT grant. To make best use of the federal and state funds administered by ACJC’s DGVCC program, a comprehensive review and analysis of Arizona’s drug, gang, and violent crime data is conducted to inform the program’s funding strategy. In this section of the DGVCC program’s strategic document, publicly available data on drug, gang, and violent crime in Arizona is reviewed to provide state and local policymakers and practitioners with a data-driven approach to improving the criminal justice system and allocate scarce public safety resources where they are most needed. Data Sources Violent Offense and Drug Arrest Data The primary state and local source for violent offense and arrest information is the Arizona Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 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 on a set of specific crimes that occur within their jurisdictions. The purpose of the UCR program is to provide reliable information that describes the nature and extent of criminal activities for administrative, operational, and management activities. The data that are collected through the UCR program, particularly data on those crimes that form the violent crime index (i.e., murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault), have become some of the most common and widely recognized social indicators of crime. It is important for users of official crime data to recognize that not all crimes are reported to law enforcement, and subsequently, the state UCR program. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 54 percent of violent crime and 64 percent of property crime were not reported to the police in 2013. 1 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. 2 To better understand the nature and extent of all crime, including that which is not reported to law enforcement, data that is collected through a survey of crime victims provides a perspective on crime that is complementary to that which is obtained from law enforcement. The Bureau of Justice Statistics administers the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is the premier source of victimization data in the United States. Unfortunately, the cost of conducting a nationwide victimization survey makes it cost-prohibitive, in its current form, to generate state or local area estimates. Although informative, national victimization estimates have limited utility for local planning and policy development, thus, victimization data is not included in this report. Even though not all crimes are reported to the police, official offense and arrest data generated by law enforcement agencies statewide provide a uniform measure of crime and law enforcement activity that provide important insights into a jurisdiction’s crime problem. Offense data include all crimes reported to the police while arrest data include only those offenses for which an alleged 1 2 Truman, Jennifer L. and Lynn Langton. “Criminal Victimization, 2013” September 2014. Web. August 31, 2015. Gottfredson, Michael R. 1986. “Substantive Contributions of Victimization Surveys.” Crime and Justice. 7: pp #251-287. 7 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 offender was arrested. In the crime data that follow, offense data are reviewed to assess Arizona’s violent crime problems. The UCR program also allows for the collection and reporting of other crimes (i.e., UCR program Part II offenses), including drug sales or manufacturing and drug possession. Although the violent crime data reviewed below rely on offenses reported to the police, the nature of drug crime requires the use of arrest data rather than offense data. Drug sale or manufacturing and drug possession are typically offenses that are not reported to the police; instead arrests for these offenses are typically a result of proactive investigations of law enforcement rather than events reported to the police by a party to the offense or a third party. For the violent crime data reported below, both the rate of crime and the frequency of crime as reported to the police are reviewed and assessed. A jurisdiction with a growing population can experience a dramatic reduction in its crime rate at the same time that the frequency of crime in that jurisdiction changes little. This is particularly evident in Arizona where rapid increases in the population of the state, counties, and municipalities have occurred for years. Though Arizona has experienced significant declines in violent crime rates from 2003 to 2013, there has been relatively less significant changes to the frequency of some crimes as illustrated in Figure 1. For example, the murder rate in Arizona has declined by more than 40 percent from 2003 to 2013 while the actual number of murders has declined by approximately 29 percent. This paradox is one of many challenges facing Arizona’s criminal justice system. Gang Data Since 1990, ACJC has administered a gang survey to state, county, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies in Arizona. In the summer of 2007, the Arizona Gang Survey was replaced with the Arizona Gang Threat Assessment because of feedback from the law enforcement community in Arizona who requested a more in-depth analysis of current threats posed by Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety, Crime in Arizona, 2003 and gangs. The Arizona Gang 2013 Threat Assessment was modeled after the National Gang Threat Assessment. The national assessment is a project of the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Drug Intelligence Center and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 8 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Drug Use Data United States specific illicit drug use prevalence data provided is based on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The NSDUH is funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and is designed to track changes in substance use patterns for U.S. residents 12 years of age and older. Arizona specific adult illicit drug use prevalence data is based on the 2010 Arizona Health Survey; a St. Luke’s Health Initiative designed to compliment other data sources in capturing the status of the health and well-being of Arizonans. The data from 2010 Arizona Health Survey were gathered through telephone interviews of 8,215 adult heads of household living in Arizona. Unfortunately, the 2010 data is the most recent data available as the survey has not been administered since the 2010 administration. Youth substance use prevalence data is based on the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) that was administered to 243 schools with participation of 44,244 students. The AYS measures the prevalence of drug use and other risky behaviors among Arizona 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and the circumstances under which they live. The statewide survey is conducted by ACJC with technical assistance provided by Bach Harrison, LLC. Drug-related consequence data is based on reports prepared by the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. In addition, this section includes information from the Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics Report prepared by the Arizona Department of Health Services. Demographic Characteristics of the Arizona Population Population From 2003 to 2013, Arizona’s population grew more than two times faster than the nation as a whole, increasing by 18.7 percent, compared to an 8.7 percent population increase for the nation (Table 1). For most of Arizona’s 15 counties, population change over time varied greatly from 2003 to 2013 (Table 2), although the population increased in all Arizona counties. Table 1: Arizona and U.S. Population, 2003-2013 Arizona Year-to-Year United States Year-to-Year Year Population % Change Population % Change 2003 5,580,811 290,809,777 2004 5,743,834 +2.9% 293,655,404 +1.0% 2005 5,939,292 +3.4% 296,410,404 +0.9% 2006 6,166,318 +3.8% 299,398,484 +1.0% 2007 6,338,755 +2.8% 301,621,157 +0.7% 2008 6,500,180 +2.5% 304,059,724 +0.8% 2009 6,595,778 +1.5% 307,006,550 +1.0% 2010 6,392,017 * 308,745,538 * 2011 6,482,505 * 311,591,917 * 2012 6,553,255 +1.1% 313,914,040 +0.7% 2013 6,626,624 +1.1% 316,128,839 +0.7% % Change +18.7% +8.7% 2003 – 2013 *Population data for the 2010 year are based on decennial census counts. Population data for the years 2003-2013 are estimates provided by the United States Census Bureau are based on the last decennial census and administrative records information. For this reason, the population change from 2009 to 2010 and 2010 to 2011 are unknown due to the different methods used to measure the population of Arizona. Source: United States Census Bureau, Population Estimates 9 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Table 2: Arizona County Population, 2003-2013 2003 2013 % Change County Population Population 2003 - 2013 Apache 68,129 71,934 +5.6% Cochise 122,161 129,473 +6.0% Coconino 121,301 136,539 +12.6% Gila 51,448 53,053 +3.1% Graham 33,051 37,482 +13.4% Greenlee 7,517 9,049 +20.4% La Paz 19,517 20,324 +4.1% Maricopa 3,389,260 4,009,412 +18.3% Mohave 171,367 203,030 +18.5% Navajo 104,280 107,322 +2.9% Pima 892,798 996,554 +11.6% Pinal 204,148 389,350 +90.7% Santa Cruz 40,267 46,768 +16.1% Yavapai 184,433 215,133 +16.6% Yuma 171,134 201,201 +17.6% Arizona counties experienced population growth ranging from a three percent increase in Navajo County to a 91 percent increase in the population of Pinal County. Race and Ethnicity Table 3 shows race and ethnicity of Arizona residents. In 2013, the majority (84.0 percent) of residents in Arizona were White, followed by American Indian/Alaskan Natives (5.3 percent), and Blacks (4.6 percent). When looking at the ethnicity breakdown of residents 69.7 percent were reported to be Non-Hispanic and 30.3 percent were reported to be Hispanic. Source: United States Census Bureau, Population Estimates Nature and Extent of Drug, Gang and Violent Crime in Arizona Statewide Drug Crime Trends Arrests for Drug Sales or Manufacturing According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, from 2003 to 2013 the number of arrests for the sale or Table 3: Race and Ethnicity of Arizona Residents, 2013 2013 Race White 84.0% Black 4.6% American Indian/Alaskan Native 5.3% Asian 3.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.3% Two or more races 2.6% Ethnicity Hispanic 30.3% Non-Hispanic 69.7% Race and Ethnicity White Non-Hispanic 56.7% Source: United States Census Bureau, Population Estimates manufacture of drugs have fluctuated over the past decade, but has seen an overall decline from 2003 to 2013 (Figure 2). 3 The number of arrests for the sale or manufacture of drugs was 24.7 percent lower in 2013 than in 2003. When looking at arrests by drug category, the number of arrests for the sale or manufacture of marijuana increased 28.8 percent from 2003 to 2013 and the number of arrests for the sale or manufacture of synthetics increased 11.8 percent from 2003 to 2013. In contrast, arrests for the sale or manufacture of all opium and other dangerous drugs were lower in 2013 than in 2003, with The drug categories used by Arizona UCR program include: opium or cocaine and their derivatives (e.g., morphine, heroin, codeine), marijuana, synthetic narcotics―manufactured narcotics that can cause true addiction (e.g., Demerol, methadone); and dangerous non-narcotic drugs (e.g., amphetamines, barbiturates, Benzedrine, etc.). 3 10 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 highest decrease being in the other dangerous drugs category, which decreased by 63.8% from 2003 to 2013. Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety: Crime in Arizona, 2003-2013 When controlling for population change, from 2003 – 2013 the arrest rate for the sale or manufacturing of drugs decreased 36.6 percent (Figure 3). Similarly, arrest rates also decreased for opium and its derivatives (39.8 percent), synthetics (5.8 percent), and “other” dangerous drugs (69.5 percent). In contrast, the arrest rate for the sale or manufacture of marijuana increased 8.4 percent. Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2003-2013 11 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Arrests for Drug Possession Similar to the declining number of arrests for drug sales or manufacturing, the number of arrests for drug possession have decreased from 2003 to 2013, though not as drastic (Figure 4). Overall, arrests for drug possessions decreased 2.9 percent. The highest decrease can be seen for “other” dangerous drugs which decreased 20.5 percent between 2003 and 2013, Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2003-2013 followed by opium (9.6 percent decrease), and synthetic drugs (5.6 percent decrease). Arrests for possession of marijuana was the only category increase with a 5.0 percent increase from 2003 to 2013. When controlling for change in the population of Arizona, decreases in the number of arrests for drug possession are more drastic (Figure 5). The arrest rate for drug possession decreased by 18.2 percent from 2003 to 2013. After a single year increase of 9.1 percent from 2003 to 2004 in the arrest rate for drug possession, the Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2003-2013 rate steadily declined throughout the rest of the decade with an arrest rate for drug possession in 2013 that was 18.2 percent lower than in 2003. 12 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Statewide Gang Crime Trends The ACJC Statistical Analysis Center conducts an annual gang threat assessment. The assessment uses self-reported information from law enforcement agencies4 statewide to estimate the number of gangs, gang members, and the types of gang activity that are seen in Arizona’s communities. Gangs in Arizona From 2009 to 2013, there was a slight decrease in 2011, then increase in 2013, in the percentage of jurisdictions in Arizona with active gangs. In 2009, approximately 75 percent of jurisdictions in Arizona reported having active gangs in their communities (Figure 6). By 2013, the percentage of jurisdictions reporting active gangs increased to approximately 78.1 percent. Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, 2009-2013 Gang Members in Arizona As part of the gang threat assessment, jurisdictions are asked to estimate the number of gang members who are active in their jurisdictions. From 2009 to 2013, the estimated number of active gang members in Arizona decreased from 32,722 in 2009 to 20,050 in 2013 (Figure 7). This is surprising given the data that suggest that Arizona has seen an increase in the percent of jurisdictions reporting active gangs. Additionally, fewer Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, agencies responded to the 2009-2013 survey in 2013 (64 agencies) than responded in 2009 (78 agencies). This decline in participation could explain the large reduction in the estimated number of gang members in the state. 4 The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center surveys all police, sheriffs, and tribal police agencies in Arizona for their annual gang threat assessment. From 2009 to 2013, more than half of all local law enforcement agencies in Arizona provided information for the gang threat assessment. 13 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Gang Activity in Arizona To better understand the type of criminal activity gangs and gang members are engaged in, the gang threat assessment asked agencies to report the level of involvement gangs had in the commission of various crimes. Figure 8 represents the percentages of agencies that reported high gang involvement in various crimes. In 2013, the largest percentage of agencies reported a high level of gang involvement in burglary (26.5 percent), followed by vandalism/graffiti (17.0 percent). This is a change from Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, 20092009 and 2011 where 2013 vandalism/graffiti was the highest percentage of involvement reported by agencies. In 2013, agencies did not report that gangs had a high involvement in murder and prostitution, however they did report some level of involvement in these crimes. Gang Involvement in the Distribution of Drugs The annual gang threat assessments also captured information on gang involvement in the distribution of drugs. Figure 9 contains data on the percentage of agencies with active gangs reporting high levels of involvement in the distribution of drugs by drug type. From 2009 to 2013, of the drug types asked about in the threat assessment, marijuana was the drug with the largest percentage of agencies reporting having a high level of gang involvement in its distribution. In 2013, nearly half of all agencies with active gangs and gang members in their jurisdiction reported that gangs have a high level of involvement in the distribution of marijuana. However, it is also worth noting that the percentage of agencies reporting high levels of gang involvement in the distribution of marijuana has decreased each year from 2009 to 2013. Additionally, the threat assessment reveals that gangs are highly active in the distribution of methamphetamine. In 2013, one out of three agencies reported high levels of involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine by gangs active in their jurisdiction. Finally, it is also worth noting that from 2009 to 2011, there has been a marked increase in the percentage of jurisdictions with active gangs and gang members reporting high levels of involvement by gangs in the distribution of heroin, from 10.3 percent of agencies to 20.0 percent. This percent then decreased to 8.2 percent in 2013. 14 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Gang Threat Assessment, 2009-2013 Drug Trafficking Organizations Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) as defined by the U.S. Department of Justice are complex organizations with highly defined command and control structures that produce, transport, and/or distribute large quantities of one or more illicit drugs. Mexican DTOs are involved in the smuggling and distribution of drugs, weapons, people, and money through well-formed routes to and from the United States. In the southwest area, Mexican Cartels and affiliated DTOs are most prominent in the wholesale and distribution of methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, cocaine/crack cocaine, controlled prescription drugs and other dangerous drugs (HIDTA, 2014). Mexican DTOs exploit the southern border and the points of entry to smuggle illicit goods using passenger vehicles, tractor trailers, and subterranean tunnels connected to a network of safe houses. In particular, the Sinaloa Cartel exploits well-established routes and improved smuggling methods to support drug distribution networks based in Arizona cities, which then supply drug networks throughout the United States. The Arizona/Sonora corridor is the most significant marijuana trafficking route for the Sinaloa Cartel and other Sonora-based DTOs. Since Arizona is essential to the Sinaloa Cartel, law enforcement operations that successfully disrupt and/or dismantle Arizona-based drug organizations directly impact other U.S. drug markets, i.e., availability, price and purity, methods of operation, and shifting trends (HIDTA, 2014). Mexican DTOs are the primary wholesalers of illegal drugs in the United States and are increasingly gaining control of U.S. retail-level distribution through alliances with U.S gangs (Biettel, 2015). Mexican DTOs dominate the production and distribution of wholesale quantities of marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine to the United States. These DTOs also work in conjunction with Columbian DTOs to transport and sell cocaine throughout the U.S. Due to the large quantity of drugs that are trafficked into the U.S., the relationship between U.S. based gangs and Mexican DTOs continues to be opportunistic in nature rather than based on an exclusive association with particular DTOs (DEA, 2015). Investigative intelligence reporting continues to show operational 15 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 coordination between Mexican DTOs, prison gangs, and street gangs within the United States; though most DTOs maintain a buyer/seller association with street gangs. By forming a relationship with drug trafficking organizations, national and neighborhood level gangs can increase their profits through drug distribution and transportation, enforcement of drug payments, and gain protection of drug transportation corridors from use by rival gangs (DEA, 2015). Mexican DTOs also use their relationship with local street gangs and other DTOs to facilitate a network of stash houses to coordinate the distribution of drugs to other domestic markets. Violent Index Offense Rates From 2003 to 2013, both Arizona and the nation experienced significant decreases in the violent offense rate (Figure 10). 2008 marked the first time in more than a decade that Arizona’s violent offense rate was lower than the nation’s. In 2013, Arizona’s violent index offense rate was only slightly higher than the nations. Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2003-2013 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter Offense Rates As defined by the UCR program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter is “the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.” 5 Overall, the murder rate in both Arizona and the nation was significantly lower in 2013 than it was in 2003 (31.6 and 21.0 percent lower, respectively) (Table 4). Throughout the time period examined, the murder rates for Arizona were higher than the nation’s. Forcible Rape Offense Rates As previously defined by the UCR program, forcible rape is “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” 6 In 2013 the definition was changed to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. 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 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/murder-topicpage/murdermain_final 6 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violentcrime/rapehttp://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html 16 5 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 classified as assaults or other sexual offenses not included in the UCR data. It is important to note that in Arizona, the criminal justice system does not use the term forcible rape and instead uses the term sexual assault. The term sexual assault is not utilized in presenting data within this document, as the term sexual assault captures a wide range of criminal behavior beyond forcible rape per the UCR program. For these reasons, the forcible rape data presented in this document could be regarded as a subset of sexual assault data. Nationally, the rate of forcible rape reported to the police was 21.5 percent lower in 2013 than in 2003. From 2003 to 2013, the nation’s rate decreased each year with the exception of increases from 2003 to 2004 and 2011 to 2012. By contrast, during the same time period, there was considerably more fluctuation in Arizona’s rape rate. After experiencing general decreases in the rate of rape from 2003 to 2008, the rate in Arizona increased from 2009 to 2013. From 2003 to 2013 the rape rate in Arizona increased 6.3 percent from 33.3 in 2003 to 35.4 in 2013. Table 4 shows the forcible rape rate for Arizona and the United States from 2003 to 2013. Table 4: United States and Arizona Violent Offense Rates* by Type of Offense, 2003-2013 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 U.S. 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.7 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter AZ 7.9 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.4 6.3 5.4 6.4 6.2 5.5 U.S. 32.1 32.2 31.7 30.9 30.0 29.3 28.7 27.5 26.8 26.9 Forcible Rape AZ 33.3 33.0 33.8 31.5 29.3 25.7 32.0 33.9 34.9 34.7 U.S. 142.2 136.7 140.7 149.4 147.6 145.3 133.0 119.1 113.7 112.9 Robbery AZ 136.5 134.4 144.4 149.6 151.7 149.2 122.8 108.5 109.9 112.7 U.S. 295.0 291.1 291.1 287.5 283.8 274.6 262.8 252.3 241.1 242.3 Aggravated Assault AZ 335.5 329.4 327.4 312.7 294.3 265.9 248.1 259.3 254.8 276.0 *Rate per 100,000 Residents Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2003-2013 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.” 7 In the nation as a whole and in Arizona, the robbery rate decreased from 2003 to 2013 (23.3 and 25.9 percent, respectively). For most of the time period from 2003 to 2013, the nation’s and Arizona’s annual robbery offense rate were very similar. 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.” 8 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 2003 to 2013, both Arizona and the United States experienced significant decreases in the rate of aggravated assault (21.3 and 22.3 percent, respectively). Throughout this time period, Arizona’s 7 8 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/robbery-topic-page https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/aggravated-assault-topic-page 17 2013 4.5 5.4 25.2 35.4 109.1 101.1 229.1 263.9 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 and the nation’s aggravated assault rates consistently declined, with the exception of a one-year increase in the rate of aggravated assault in the U.S. in 2012 in increase in Arizona in 2010 and 2012. Table 4 shows reported aggravated assault offense rates from 2003 to 2013 for Arizona and the United States. Index Offense Counts Like many states around the country, Arizona has experienced significant declines in index offense rates since 2003. Index offense rates are useful measures of crime and public safety in a jurisdiction because they allow for reasonable comparisons of crime 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. In Arizona, aggregate index offense rates (i.e., overall, violent, and property crime indices) and most offense-specific rates (e.g., aggravated assault, motor vehicle theft, etc.) have declined significantly from 2003 to 2013 (Figure 11). Although index offense rates for most crimes in Arizona have decreased, indicative of an increased level of public safety, increases in the number of rapes in Arizona signal a need for resources that allow criminal justice agencies to continue to effectively respond to their local crime problems and target those crimes for which increases are evident. Importantly, the resources must allow for Arizona’s criminal justice system to keep pace with increases in the frequency of crime and, at minimum, maintain if not strengthen the ability to respond to increases in the number of offenders and provide supportive services to those who have been victimized. The data reviewed thus far illustrate the importance of analyzing both trends over time in offense rates and trends over time in the number of crimes occurring in Arizona. The next section of this report describes change over time in the number of crimes that occurred in Arizona for the two crime indices and associated crime types. From 2003 to 2013, Arizona experienced reductions in the crime rates for all index offenses reviewed. This is consistent with national index offense rates that also declined during the same time period. Arizona’s declining crime rates, particularly the violent crime rate, are a function of both declines in the number of offenses that are reported to the police and increases in the population of Arizona. In Arizona, the overall violent crime rate has declined even though the number of rapes has increased (Figure 11). 18 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2003-2013 Violent Index Offenses After generally consistent increases in the number of violent index offenses reported to police from 2003 to 2006, the number of violent index offenses has consistently declined since then (Figure 12). In 2013, the number of violent index offenses reported to the police was 12.7 percent lower than in 2003 and 20.1 percent lower than in 2006. Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime in Arizona, 2003-2013 19 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter From 2004 to 2007, Arizona experienced a generally increasing trend in the number of murders committed in Arizona, but from 2008 to 2013 these numbers began to decrease (Table 5). Since 2003, the number of murders reported in Arizona has declined 29.1 percent to the lowest number of murders in more than 10 years occurring in 2013. Table 5: Arizona Reported Violent Offenses by Type of Offense, 2003-2013 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter 440 412 441 462 464 404 324 354 339 345 312 Forcible Rape 1,825 1,867 1,955 1,909 1,797 1,654 1,639 1,557 1,653 1,725 1,833 Robbery 7,535 7,638 8,455 9,106 9,493 9,648 8,021 6,838 7,007 7,253 6,495 Aggravated Assault 18,398 18,643 18,573 19,356 17,858 17,047 16,110 15,074 15,272 16,579 15,981 Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety, Crime in Arizona, 2003-2013 Forcible Rape From 2003 to 2013, the number of forcible rapes reported to the police in Arizona has fluctuated, but has had an overall increase of 0.4 percent. From 2005 to 2010, the number of forcible rapes reported to the police in Arizona decreased 20.1 percent. In contrast, from 2010 to 2013 the number of forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in Arizona increased by 17.7 percent (Table 5). Robbery From 2003 to 2013, Arizona experienced significant variation in the number of robberies reported to law enforcement (Table 5). The number of robberies increased from 2003 to 2008 by 28.0 percent. More recently, from 2008 to 2013 the number of robberies reported to the police declined by 32.7 percent. Aggravated Assault For the time period from 2003 to 2013, the number of aggravated assaults reported to Arizona law enforcement decreased 13.1 percent (Table 5). However, from 2003 to 2006 the number of aggravated assaults experienced an overall increase, with numbers beginning to decline in 2007 and the only increase after that occurring from 2010 to 2011. 20 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Drug Use Results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimate that 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were current (past month) illicit drug users in 2013. This figure represents 9.4 percent of the population aged 12 or older. This overall 2013 national rate (9.4 percent) was similar to the rate in 2012 (9.2 percent); however, was higher than the rates in 2003 through 2011 (Figure 13). *Difference between this estimate and the 2013 estimate is statistically significant at the .05 level Source: 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health Adult Illicit Drug Use in Arizona In accordance with the 2010 Arizona Health Survey, nearly one-third (31 percent) of adults in Arizona had used illicit drugs in their lifetime. Of the adults reporting lifetime illicit drug use, 6.5 percent reported using illicit drugs within the last year; half of which reported using drugs within the Table 6: Arizona Adults Reporting Past 30past 30 days. Marijuana was reported as the most day Illicit Drug Use in 2010 by Drug Type common of illicit drugs used by adults. Of the Type of Drug(s) Percent of Individuals* individuals who reported use in the past 30 days, Used 91 percent used marijuana, 3 percent used crack, Marijuana 91 17 percent used cocaine, 5 percent used heroin, 9 Crack 3 percent used methamphetamine and 11 percent Cocaine 17 used other illicit drugs (Table 6). Heroin 5 Methamphetamine 9 Other Illicit Drugs 11 *Respondents had the ability to select multiple responses. Of the one-third of adults who reported illicit drug use, a significant share of individuals began using Source: Arizona Health Survey 2010 before the age of 18. This is particularly evident for individuals reporting marijuana use. Seventy-one percent of those who have ever used marijuana initiated use before the age of 18. The percentage of respondents who reported first time illicit drug 21 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 use under the age of 18 were 39 percent of methamphetamine users, 35 percent of those who tried heroin, 24 percent of those who used cocaine, 22 percent of individuals who reported using crack cocaine and 28 percent of those reporting any other illicit drug. Unfortunately, an update to the Arizona Health Survey has not been conducted, the most recent results available are from 2010. Youth Substance Use in Arizona Alcohol continues to be the most used substance among youth in Arizona across all grades, with 31.5 percent of 8th graders, 52.9 percent of 10th graders, and 67.0 percent of 12th graders reporting having drank alcohol at least once in their lifetime. For substance use in the 30 days prior to taking the survey, alcohol was again the most widely used, with 13.4 percent of 8th graders, 27.8 percent of 10th graders, and 40.6 percent of 12th graders reporting using. As is evident with alcohol, rates of substance use among youth tends to increase as a youth’s age increases (Tables 7 and 8). An exception to this pattern can be seen in rates of inhalant use, which decreases as youth get older. Table 7: Percentage of Arizona Students Who Have Used Drugs in Their Lifetime 8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade Total Alcohol 31.5 52.9 67.0 46.2 Cigarettes 15.8 25.6 35.7 23.4 Marijuana 14.9 32.4 44.7 27.1 Hallucinogens 1.6 4.7 8.0 4.0 Cocaine 1.6 3.0 6.2 3.1 Inhalants 9.0 6.6 5.4 7.5 Methamphet0.5 1.1 1.3 0.9 amines Heroin 0.6 1.1 1.3 0.9 Ecstasy 2.1 4.4 7.4 4.1 Steroids 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.7 Prescription 7.0 12.0 15.0 10.4 Pain Relievers Prescription 1.6 5.3 8.4 4.3 Stimulants Prescription 3.9 6.3 7.8 5.5 Sedatives Prescription 9.3 15.0 18.7 13.2 Drugs Over-the5.8 8.2 9.6 7.4 Counter Drugs Synthetic 2.3 4.2 6.4 3.8 Drugs Source: Arizona Youth Survey 2014 Table 8: Percentage of Arizona Students Who Have Used Drugs in the Past 30 Days 8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade Total Alcohol 13.4 27.8 40.6 24.1 Cigarettes 5.7 10.1 15.7 9.4 Marijuana 6.9 16.8 22.9 13.6 Hallucinogens 0.7 1.7 2.4 1.4 Cocaine 0.6 0.9 2.1 1.0 Inhalants 3.1 1.3 0.9 2.0 Methamphet0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 amines Heroin 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy 0.8 1.3 1.7 1.2 Steroids 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 Prescription 3.8 5.4 5.5 4.7 Pain Relievers Prescription 0.8 2.1 2.8 1.6 Stimulants Prescription 1.7 2.6 2.7 2.2 Sedatives Prescription 4.9 7.1 8.0 6.3 Drugs Over-the3.1 3.7 3.4 3.4 Counter Drugs Synthetic 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 Drugs Source: Arizona Youth Survey 2014 22 The five substances that have the highest percentages of lifetime use among Arizona youth are alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and prescription pain relievers. Figure 14 shows the usage rates of the five highest used drugs, including alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD) by gender. The rates of substance use for males and females are generally similar to one another. Surprisingly, for some drugs females report slightly higher rates of use than males; cigarettes and marijuana are the only exceptions for the drugs shown in Figure 14. ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Source: Arizona Youth Survey 2014 Drug Use Related Consequences Drug Crime and Incarceration Arizona Department of Corrections Quantifying the impact of drug offenses on the corrections system in Arizona is challenging because there is limited access to county jail data concerning confinement. However, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) does make limited drug offense statistics available in various reports. The impact of the drug problem on the corrections system can be framed by the number of offenders confined for drug offenses, the ability of the correctional institution to provide drug treatment programs, and the rate of recidivism among drug offenders. Drug offenses create a significant cost to the state, impacting the ADC population more than any other serious offense. According to the ADC FY 2014 Inmate Population Fact Sheet, of 20,300 admissions during the fiscal year, drug offenders made up approximately 30.9 percent (about 6,282 inmates) of those processed into the ADC. 9 Admissions data is used because it is a better representation of the impact of the drug problem on ADC, as opposed to other reports showing the population of drug offenders at the end of a specific month. Drug offenses were number one among all serious offenses for admissions into 9 FY 2014 Inmate Population Fact Sheet, https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/REPORTS/Inmate_Population/063014_inmatepopulationfactsheet.pdf 23 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 ADC. The next closest offense was assault, with 11.4 percent of commitments. Additionally, this report found that 74.4 percent of new admissions were in need of some level of substance abuse treatment, with an additional 14.0 percent in need of education on substance abuse, but not treatment. Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) also provides information related to the impact of drug crimes on the institution (Table 9). In FY 2010, drug offenses comprised 18.7 percent of all committed Table 9: New Juvenile Commitments and Parole Revocations offenses. The 2010 Annual FY 2007 – FY 2010 Report published for the FY FY FY FY ADJC was the last report Committing Offense 2007 2008 2009 2010 available. Drug Offense - New Commitments Total New Commitments 115 (15.7%) 734 119 (16%) 746 102 100 (15.4%) (18.7%) 662 535 Source: Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, Annual Report FY 2007FY2010 Drug-Related Health Consequences Drug use affects the community outside of the criminal justice system in a multitude of ways. Three noteworthy ways that drug use affects the community and public health-related costs are emergency room visits, substance abuse treatment, and drug-related mortality. In 2013, there were 40,338 visits to Arizona emergency departments where a drug-related diagnosis was listed or mentioned. This number accounts for two percent of the 1.9 million emergency department visits that year and includes diagnoses for drug psychoses, drug dependence, and nondependent abuse of drugs. When comparing rates per population (i.e., the number of events per 100,000 residents), Arizona had a 99.1% increase in all drug-related emergency department visits between 2004 and 2013, with a rate of 732.0 per 100,000 population in 2013 (Figure 15). Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits The majority of drug-related emergency department visits involved nondependent abuse of drugs - a diagnostic category that increased 87.7% over the ten years with a rate of 515.8 per 100,000 population in 2013 (see Figure 16). Although the rate per population for drug dependence categories (132.9 per 100,000 population) was lower in 2013 compared to nondependent abuse, this diagnostic category saw the greatest increase of all three categories with a 145.1% increase between 2004 and 2013. Drug psychoses had the lowest rate of the three categories, with a rate of 83.2 per 100,000 population in 2013. Like dependence and abuse, psychoses also increased over the ten years (116.6 percent increase). It should be noted that the total number of emergency department visits represents each individual incident where a visit was made and does not represent the number of patients – one time or repeat patients - that went to the emergency room for a drugrelated reason. 24 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Figure 15: Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, Rates per 100,000 Population 800 Rate per 100,000 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, Population Health and Vital Statistics, 2004-2013 Figure 16: Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits by Category, Rates per 100,000 Population Rate Per 100,000 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 Drug Psychoses 2006 2007 2008 2009 Drug Dependence 2010 2011 2012 2013 Nondependent Abuse of Drugs Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, Population Health and Vital Statistics, 2004-2013 In some instances, a patient seeking treatment for a drug-related condition warrants a costly hospital stay. Looking at the combination of drug-related emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations provides some insight about the longitudinal trends of particular drug types of interest. 25 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 *Rates are for all ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, Population Health and Vital Statistics, Special Data Request Drug-Related Emergency Department and Inpatient Hospitalizations With a rate of 445.72 per 100,000 residents in 2014, opioid-related diagnoses were the highest category for drug-related events in Arizona emergency departments and hospitalizations every year between 2010 and 2014 (Figure 17). In addition, these rates cumulatively increased 69.3% between 2010 and 2014. Cannabis-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations increased at a similar rate to opioid-related events (61.3 percent between 2010 and 2014), and fall second to rates of opioids, with a rate of 359.9 per 100,000 population in 2014. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations involving amphetamines saw the greatest cumulative increase over the five year period (92.78 percent increase), but continue to remain below cannabis and opioids with a rate of 293.5 per 100,000 residents in 2014. Finally, events related to cocaine were the only cumulative rate reductions in Arizona, with an overall 22.1 percent decrease between 2010 and 2014. Cocaine continues to be the lowest of the four drug categories, with a rate of 75.5 per 100,000 population in 2013. While the cost of these collective events remains unknown, the Arizona Department of Health Services estimates that emergency department visits and hospitalizations for non-fatal poisonings alone (ICD-9 AND ICD-10 codes) cost Arizona nearly $213 million in 2014 10. Given the additional economic and social costs inherent in drug-related mortalities, $213 million can be considered a very low yearly estimate of the financial impact of substance abuse in Arizona. 10 Arizona Department of Health Services - Poisonings among Arizona Residents 2014, http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/owch/pdf/injuryprevention/poisonings-among-arizona-residents-report-2014.pdf 26 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Substance Abuse Treatment With rising rates of abuse and dependency comes a correlated need for substance abuse treatment in the community, and in turn, a correlated increase in additional public health costs. In FY 2013, there were 72,888 individuals enrolled in substance abuse treatment through Arizona’s public behavioral health system. Of those enrolled in treatment, alcohol was the most commonly used substance, followed by marijuana, stimulants and narcotics. Rates of Arizona individuals accessing public substance abuse treatment resources for marijuana, narcotics and “other substances” increased 39.4 percent, 80.7 percent and 62.6 percent, respectively, between 2007 and 2013 (Figure 18). In 2013, rates of substance abuse treatment admissions per 100,000 residents for marijuana, narcotics and other substances were 299.0, 166.1 and 33.2, respectively. Rates of treatment admissions for marijuana surpassed those of stimulants in 2009, were equivalent in 2010 and have consistently been the highest category of drug treatment admissions since. Stimulants were the only category to see a decrease in treatment admissions (a 30.0 percent decrease between 2007 and 2013); however, stimulants still remain relatively high, with a rate of 221.5 per 100,000 population in 2013. Figure 18: Substance Abuse Treatment Admissions, Rates per 100,000 Population Rates per 100,000 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2007 Marijuana 2008 2009 Narcotics 2010 2011 Stimulants 2012 2013 Other Substances Source: Arizona Department of Health Services Annual Report on Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, 2007-2013 Drug-Related Mortality The ultimate cost of drug abuse is the untimely death of the user. According to the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) there were 1,100 drug-induced deaths in 2013, and druginduced deaths comprised 2.2 percent of the 49,929 Arizona deaths in 2013. Overall, drug-related deaths have increased 45.1 percent across all ages between 2003 and 2013 (Figure 19). In 2013, drug-related death rates were 16.7 per 100,000 residents in Arizona. Middle-aged adults (ages 4564 years) experienced the greatest rate of deaths per 100,000 population, increasing 19.7 percent between 2006 and 2013. The Arizona Department of Health Services reported that between 2003 and 2013, middle-aged adults experienced an unprecedented increase in the mortality rate from drug induced deaths, with opioid-related deaths accounting for the largest majority of the deaths. In 2013, the rate of drug-related deaths for middle aged adults was 31.6 per 100,000 population. Rates of drug-related deaths among young adults (ages 20-44) also increased 8.3 percent between 2006 and 2013, and had a rate of 22.1 per 100,000 residents in 2013. Collectively, these results not only suggest an incredible economic taxation on our adult workforce population, but immense social costs for the children and families impacted by the drug-related deaths of these age populations. 27 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Figure 19: Drug-Induced Deaths, Rates per 100,000 Population 40 Rates per 100,000 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2003 2004 2005 Young Adult 2006 2007 2008 2009 Middle Aged Adult 2010 2011 2012 2013 All Ages Source: Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics 2003-2013 Cost of Illicit Drug Use on Society In 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice produced a report estimating the cost impact of illicit drug use in the country. The report, The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society (2011), highlighted the fact that illicit drug use has direct and indirect costs that stretch beyond the obvious area of crime, significantly impacting the areas of health and productivity. In terms of 2007 dollars, the report estimated the cost of illicit drug use to be slightly more than $193 billion. The cost of illicit drug use on crime included police protection, adjudication, and correctional activities, as well as crime victims (including medical costs and property costs), and other costs such as spending by government agencies on special programs that address drug crime. Cost estimates for health included treatment for illicit drug use in specialty settings such as detoxification, residential, or outpatient centers and treatment delivered in hospitals and emergency departments. Also included in the estimate were those associated with insurance administration, drug prevention initiatives, and prevention and treatment research. Finally, the report provides a cost estimate of illicit drug use on productivity. A loss in productivity occurs when someone cannot work or works less than he or she otherwise could due to illicit drug use. The productivity estimate includes lost labor participation (work hours not realized), lost productivity due to specialty treatment (such as residential treatment), hospitalizations, or incarceration, and lost productivity due to premature mortality and attributable to illicit drug use. The estimate of illicit drug use on society does not include costs associated with the education system, child welfare system, or environmental system. These are identified areas impacted by illicit drugs in society but were beyond the scope of the report. In estimating the cost of illicit drug use on the areas of crime, health, and productivity separate estimates were provided for each area that totaled $193 billion (Table 10). The estimated cost for the crime components was $62 billion, for the health components $11 billion, and for the productivity components $120 billion (Figure 20). The report emphasizes a strategy that includes: • Strong law enforcement efforts that reduce cultivation, production, and distribution of illicit drugs limiting consumer access and enhancing public safety. 28 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 • • Prepared communities that support comprehensive local prevention initiatives reducing the probability that individuals will initiate illicit drug use. A well-developed system of specialty treatment serving to break the cycle of drug use and criminality. The report is an example that changes in drug control policy have a cost to many areas of society beyond the criminal justice system. As such, consideration of these costs should accompany any analysis of current drug control policy or any proposed changes. FIGURE 20: COST OF ILLICIT DRUG USE Crime 32% Productivity 62% Health 6% Source: U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center, The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society, April 2011 Table 10: The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society Crime Cost Criminal Justice System $56,373,254,000 Crime Victims $1,455,555,000 Other $3,547,885,000 Health Specialty Treatment $3,723,338,000 Hospital and Emergency Department $5,697,186,000 Insurance Administration $544,000 Other $1,995,164,000 Productivity Labor Participation $49,237,777,000 Specialty Treatment (State and Federal) $2,873,037,000 Hospitalization $287,260,000 Incarceration $48,121,949,000 Premature Mortality (Homicide and Non-homicide) $19,783,981,000 Total $193,096,930,000 Source: U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center, The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society, April 2011 29 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Current and Coordinated Efforts The DGVCC program utilizes Byrne JAG funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance along with the RSAT grant and DEA funds to support activities that combat drug, gang, and violent crime. Funding for state, county, local and tribal governments supports a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime based on local needs and conditions. Byrne JAG funds may be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and information systems for criminal justice according to one or more of the following purpose areas:       Law enforcement Prosecution and court Prevention and education Corrections and community corrections Drug treatment Planning, evaluation and technology improvement. The Commission authorizes funding to six program areas in accordance with the DEA guidelines under A.R.S. § 41-2402 and A.R.S. § 41-2405 account. The six drug- and gang-related areas are apprehension and prosecution, forensic drug analysis, adjudication, criminal records improvement (under the Systems Improvement program), and drug abuse education and prevention. In 2009, ACJC was granted an award under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) through the Byrne JAG program, with funding directed toward job creation and retention. The Byrne JAG ARRA award, in conjunction with Byrne JAG non-ARRA funds and funds appropriated to ACJC through the statewide enhanced drug enforcement strategy, supported projects for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Grantees were required to report financial and activity progress through periodic reports. Additionally, recipients of ARRA funding were required to report specific job creation and retention data quarterly under stringent reporting deadlines. Effective drug, gang and violent crime control efforts under the Byrne JAG purpose areas and DEA guidelines have been established in all 15 Arizona counties. Project activities are required to be conducted with a collaboration component. Numerous programs not funded through ACJC are conducted statewide and complement activities under the drug, gang and violent crime control strategy, providing opportunities to collaborate and leverage resources. The longstanding, system-wide approach of the DGVCC program has proven effective in addressing the drug and gang criminal element in Arizona. The approach follows the structure and flow of the criminal justice system, allowing role-specific efforts toward a collective goal of reducing crime. Apprehension activities are conducted through multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces. Task force personnel collaborate to garner information and intelligence, leverage expertise, and extend efforts in tactical operations. Specific project activities vary according to the unique needs of Arizona’s diverse communities and include investigations, apprehension of offenders, conducting numerous types of tactical operations to halt drug and gang criminal activity, serving search warrants, disrupting or dismantling drug trafficking organizations, removing illicit drugs from the streets, seizing weapons and assets used or gained from drug trafficking and other illegal activities, conducting and participating in trainings, conducting controlled buys and controlled deliveries, investigating and disrupting clandestine methamphetamine labs, investigating and disrupting marijuana growing operations, and engaging in community education and awareness events. Efforts 30 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 are often conducted in coordination with other local, state, federal and tribal entities, as well as schools and community organizations. Prosecution projects work with task forces for focused efforts and increased effectiveness. Statewide civil forfeiture project activities include providing investigative and prosecutorial expertise in cases involving asset forfeitures. Coordinating efforts promotes collaboration and enhances program effectiveness through specialized legal assistance, training and case processing. It is important to note that data reported in this section are only reflective of activity supported by Drug, Gang, and Violent Crime Control grant funds. Increases or decreases in grant-reported activity data are directly related to the funding provided to approved projects. Trends in these data may not represent overall trends in statewide, system-wide criminal justice activity. Law Enforcement Drug Task Forces The inception of task forces to address crime in Arizona began with four formal drug task forces in 1987 that included federal, state, county, and local officers. These task forces were: the Border Alliance Group (BAG) in Cochise County; the Yuma County Narcotics Task Force (YCNTF); the Northern Arizona Metro Task Force (METRO) in Coconino County; and the MAGNET Task Force in Mohave County in northwestern Arizona. Each of these original task forces continues apprehension efforts in their high impact communities. Figure 21: Drug Arrests FY 2011-FY 2014 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Marijuana Methamphetamine Cocaine Heroin Other Illicit Drugs FY 2011 3,818 1,098 FY 2012 2,549 1,100 576 265 697 500 342 504 FY 2013 2,044 1,234 452 337 747 FY 2014 2,106 1,517 437 592 630 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2014 Beginning in July 2007, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission allocated grant funds (federal and state) to sixteen (16) drug task forces in the state. At the same time the Commission allocated grant funds to 13 county attorneys, one city attorney and the Arizona Attorney General's Office for enhanced prosecution in tandem with the drug, gang and violent crime investigations task forces. Multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces continue efforts in 14 counties across Arizona to combat drug, gang, and violent crime statewide. In FY 2014, task force activities conducted arrests on 31 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 5,282 drug offense violators (Figure 21). In FY 2014, 39.9 percent of the arrests were for marijuana, followed by 28.7 percent for methamphetamines/amphetamines. There were 265 arrests for heroin offenses in FY 2011 and 592 heroin arrests in FY 2014, an increase of more than 100 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2014. Drug Task Force Arrests From FY 2011 to FY 2014, task force officers averaged more than 5,300 drug-related arrests annually (Figure 22). The largest proportion of drug arrests was for possessing or concealing an illicit drug followed by the offense of distributing or selling. The third largest proportion of drugrelated arrests for the four-year period was for transporting or importing illegal drugs. The remaining arrests were distributed among the offenses of buying/receiving, cultivating/manufacturing, consumption/use and other drug-related arrests. Figure 22: Arrests by Charge Type FY 2011 - FY 2014 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Buy/ Receive Cultivate/ Distribute/ Sell Manufacture Possess/ Conceal Transport/ Import Consume/ Use Other Arrests FY 2011 263 230 1,415 3,664 726 73 83 FY 2012 143 78 1,048 2,829 765 42 90 FY 2013 161 84 992 2,889 606 61 21 FY 2014 85 60 804 3,368 793 137 35 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2014 Drug Trafficking Organizations Drug task force efforts include drug interdictions and assists, pursuing investigative leads and tips, serving search warrants and disrupting or dismantling Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs), as well as numerous other efforts to combat drug, gang, or violent criminal activities. Data collected by task forces includes drug trafficking organizations that are classified as low-level (street dealer), mid-level (distributor or retailer), or high level (manufacturer or supplier). A DTO is dismantled when the criminal organization is put out of existence or broken up to the extent that reconstruction of the same criminal organization is impossible. In the past five years, task forces have dismantled a total of 715 DTOs (Figure 23), the majority of which were low-level organizations (60%). In addition, FY 2015 had the highest number of DTOs dismantled in the last five years, accounting for 26% of the total dismantled DTOs. 32 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Figure 23: Number of Dismantled DTO's FY 2010 - 2015 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2010 2011 Low Level 2012 Mid Level 2013 High Level 2014 2015 Total Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2015 A DTO is disrupted when there is significant interference in the conduct of normal and effective operation by the targeted organization, as indicated by changes in organizational leadership, trafficking patterns, or drug production methods. Task forces disrupted 1,810 DTOs within the past five years (Figure 24), the majority of which were low-level (62%) followed by mid-level (34%). FY 2010 had the highest number of disrupted DTOs in the past five years, accounting for 23.4% of the total. The coordinated efforts have shown a continued upward trend between 2014 and 2015 in the disruption of low-level DTOs. Figure 24: Number of Disrupted DTO's FY 2010 - 2015 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 Low Level 2012 2013 Mid Level High Level Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2015 33 2014 Total 2015 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Prosecution Tandem prosecution projects are conducted in tandem with multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency drug task forces in all 15 Arizona counties. Prosecution activities include investigative and prosecutorial case processing efforts to combat drug and gang criminal offending. Projects statewide rely heavily upon dedicated efforts and focused expertise for successful operations. Drug enforcement efforts in each county utilize the expertise of drug prosecutors. The use of specialized legal experience and expertise throughout the process continues to be an efficient and effective use of collaboration. Case prosecution efforts are carried out by county attorneys, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, local prosecutors, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office provides oversight and prosecution for civil forfeiture and money laundering cases resulting from drug cases. County attorneys work in tandem with drug and gang task forces to prosecute those who violate state drug laws and pursue asset forfeiture actions related to drug violations committed in their jurisdictions and handle cases that do not meet federal thresholds. In some municipalities, local prosecutors are involved with drug prosecutions at the misdemeanor level as a result of county attorney declination policies or decisions, and in asset forfeiture actions. Prior to the initial implementation of Arizona’s drug control strategy 1987, only two county attorneys in Arizona had deputies assigned/dedicated full time to drug case prosecutions. As a result of the 1987 statewide drug strategy development and the allocation of funds (federal drug grants and state DEA funds) by ACJC, fourteen (14) of the fifteen (15) county attorneys in Arizona had at least one full-time drug prosecutor in 2015. The increase in coordinated drug control efforts continues to make an impact and is demonstrated through measured program performance. As a result of the numerous collaborative narcotics task force operations, many prosecutors are involved in decision-making (according to legal jurisdiction such as federal and/or state) early in the investigative process. The multi-jurisdictional nature of these efforts enhances the need for a cooperative atmosphere at all levels. The Arizona Attorney General Office's Financial Remedies Unit is active in inter-jurisdictional asset forfeiture actions and supplies assistance and training to federal prosecutors, county attorneys and law enforcement agencies in Arizona and nationally. Drug Convictions In FY 2014, a total of 17,509 drug violators were convicted in the state (Figure 25). This reflects task force and other law enforcement agency cases. More than 60 percent were felony convictions. Thirty-eight percent of the convictions were for paraphernalia, nearly 29 percent for marijuana and 17.6 percent for methamphetamine-related charges. Data for arrest offenses may vary compared to data for conviction offenses. Data is collected on a fiscal year basis and an arrest in one period may result in a conviction reported in a future fiscal year. In addition, there are numerous outcomes that could result from an arrest including deferred prosecution, diversion programs, and plea agreements. For example, successful completion of a diversion program could result in an arrested individual’s charges being dismissed or conviction of a lesser offense, depending on the prosecution office policy. 34 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Figure 25: Drug Convictions FY 2011- FY 2014 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Marijuana Methamphetami ne Cocaine Heroin Paraphernalia Other Illicit Drugs FY 2011 7,996 2,912 1,484 536 6,058 3,104 FY 2012 6,076 3,225 1,313 916 7,299 1,830 FY 2013 5,295 3,206 965 1,035 6,959 1,826 FY 2014 5,035 3,075 684 746 6,646 1,323 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2014 Drug Crime Sentences In FY 2014, there were 3,935 drug offenders sentenced to prison, which represents a 19.9 percent decrease from the 4,910 that received prison sentences in FY 2011 (Figure 26). The most common sentence for drug convictions was probation for each year from FY 2011 to FY 2014 followed by a sentence of prison time. Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2011-2014 35 Civil Forfeitures ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 The Attorney General’s Office Financial Remedies Section participates with Arizona’s multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces by contributing the legal expertise of a forfeiture investigator or a forfeiture prosecutor to assist with task force cases. The Financial Remedies Section assists multi-agency task forces by working with Arizona financial institutions, the Arizona Forfeiture Association (AFA) and the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS). DPS and task force personnel involve the Financial Remedies Unit in statewide civil forfeiture actions and money laundering resulting from drug cases. The specialized efforts of the Financial Remedies Unit are a major contributor to the overwhelming success of the asset forfeiture component in Arizona. In FY 2014, the Attorney General’s Financial Remedies Section received a successful judgment on $38.3 million in forfeited assets (Figure 27). These assets included vehicles, currency, weapons, and real property. These successful forfeitures use civil racketeering remedies available in Arizona law to disrupt or dismantle criminal enterprises, deter crime by depriving wrongdoers of the fruits and instrumentalities of criminal activity, reduce money laundering, and restore property rights to crime victims. Figure 27: Value of Civil Forfeitures FY 2011-2014 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 Dollars 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 - FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2014 36 FY 2014 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Forensics In addition to law enforcement apprehension projects and prosecution projects such as tandem prosecution and civil forfeiture activities, forensic laboratories, court adjudication activities, and corrections project may support efforts to combat drug, gang and violent crime under strategy guidelines. These activities and related coordinated programs are critical components of the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program. Crime Lab Support The forensic laboratory component currently includes three DPS regional laboratories and the city of Tucson Police Department crime lab. Forensic laboratories conduct scientific analysis to assist in the prosecution of cases generated by the multi-jurisdictional task forces. Forensic science professionals frequently provide expert testimony during the court process. Forensic laboratories completed 28,740 drug forensic analyses during FY 2011. More than 49 percent of analyses completed showed positive for marijuana in FY 2014 (Figure 28). Marijuana remained the most commonly identified illicit substance through forensic analysis from FY 2011 through FY 2014, ranging from 48 to 52 percent of tests conducted. Figure 28: Forensic Drug Analysis FY 2011-2014 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - FY 2011 16,669 FY 2012 14,784 FY 2013 14,331 FY 2014 15,243 Methamphetamine 5,670 5,593 5,546 6,168 Cocaine (powder & crack) 2,352 2,349 1,497 1,628 Marijuana Source: Arizona Criminal Justice EDGE Report, 2011-2014 Adjudication The court adjudication component provides needed services for Arizona’s criminal justice system. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has administrative authority over court-related activities receiving Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program funds. The funds are used to 37 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 accommodate increased caseloads resulting from enhanced drug enforcement efforts in Arizona. These projects provide a wide range of services to expedite the judicial process by adding additional court divisions, judges and related essential staff for superior courts and probation departments. Cases Filed Under Grant The number of drug-related cases filed in Superior Court has increased 12.3 percent from 18,134 cases in FY 2011 to 20,361 cases in FY 2014 (Figure 29). Adjudication support projects conduct a broad range of court services, including probation-related services, case processing, drug courts, and other treatment and court diversion activities. The AOC reports that at least half of the drug cases filed in superior courts were disposed of within 90 days of filing (Table 11). Figure 29: Number of Drug Related Cases Filed, FY 2011 FY 2014 25,000 20,000 Table 11: Cases Disposed Within 90 Days FY 2011 – FY 2014 18,134 18,714 16,924 20,361 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 12,067 11,260 10,235 10,170 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 20112014 15,000 10,000 5,000 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, 2011-2014 Probation Services The probation services division of AOC reports the number of urinalysis drug tests performed using grant funds for FY 2014 was 16,342, which is 56.4 percent less than the number of tests (37,496) performed in FY 2011 (Table 12). The number of presentence reports prepared by the probation department has increased from 1,008 in FY 2011 to 1,100 in FY 2014, representing a 9.1 percent increase (Table 13). Table 13: Pre-sentence Reports Prepared FY 2011 – FY 2014 Table 12: Drug Tests Performed FY 2011 - FY 2014 FY 2011 FY 2014 37,496 16,342 Percent Change -56.4% FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 1,008 1,618 1,293 1,100 Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE Report, Source: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, EDGE 2011-2014 Report, 2011-2014 38 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Other Projects and Resources Corrections and Community Corrections Corrections and community corrections projects may be eligible to apply for funding under this program depending upon Commission-established program priorities. The corrections and community corrections component enhances resources required by county jails to supervise the additional inmates brought into the system following convictions that were supported by the statewide drug enforcement and prosecution efforts. Residential Substance Abuse Treatment The DGVCC program supports substance abuse treatment within corrections and jail facilities utilizing RSAT funding. RSAT projects seek to break the cycle of substance abuse, anti-social behavior, and prepare inmates for community re-entry by providing services that will develop cognitive, behavioral, social, and vocational skill sets. In CY 2014, RSAT projects served 579 individuals. Substance Abuse Prevention and Education Grant In February 2015, ACJC opened a grant solicitation for substance abuse and education projects throughout the state, in collaboration with Arizona Department of Health Services. ACJC awarded over $600,000 to 13 criminal justice and non-profit agencies. The agencies had only six months to spend the funds. Projects funded had to be evidence based and included drug courts, randomized drug testing, Good Choices-Bright Futures Program, Celebrating Families Program, Community Reintegration Program, Teen Court Program, Alcohol Adult Literacy Project, and a marijuana harmfulness program. These projects provided a number of services to the citizens of Arizona, including disposal of prescription drugs, drug prevention and education programs for adults and children, training for drug prevention professionals, enhanced drug testing, parenting skills to prevent substance abuse, and anti-drug messaging through mass media. Coordination and Leveraging of Resources The DGVCC program coordinates and leverages resources with other program funding sources to further Arizona’s efforts to combat drug and gang crime. Criminal justice personnel statewide focus on reducing drug supply, drug demand, criminal street gang crime, and violent crime. They also utilize programs that address crime problems consistent with program guidelines and the needs of the state. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONCDP) has designated Cochise, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA). La Paz and Mohave counties received the HIDTA designation, in part, due to the heavy drug trafficking problems along the Colorado River and Arizona’s border with California. The ONDCP uses established criteria to determine whether the HIDTA designation is appropriate. HIDTA determinants include: being a center for illegal drug production or distribution; state, local, and tribal law enforcement has committed resources to the area’s drug trafficking problem; drug-related activities have a significant harmful impact; and an allocation of federal resources is required to 39 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 address the drug-related activities in the area. The Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program and HIDTA Initiatives have been designed to work strategically and in unison with each other. Project Safe Neighborhood The federal Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) Initiative supports the ongoing strategy to reduce gun and gang violence in Arizona. These programs compliment Arizona’s Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control projects and leverage resources. Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) has a dedicated gang investigative and enforcement team, the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM). This statewide gang task force is dedicated to four areas: 1) deter gang activity through investigations, enforcement and prosecution; 2) dismantle gang and organized crime and related enterprises; 3) deter border related crimes; 4) disrupt human smuggling organizations. GIITEM brings together law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies from state, county, municipal, federal and tribal jurisdictions in a coordinated, intelligence-driven approach to address gang criminal activity. In many jurisdictions, the GIITEM task forces are co-located with multi-jurisdictional narcotics task forces, which enhance coordinated efforts and optimizes intelligence for interdiction activities. Effective coordination of efforts is regarded as a basic tenet of the Strategy, recognizing that coordination leads to well-informed decision making. Ultimate success of the approach to drug, gang and violent crime control requires carefully established priorities, flexibility, and coordination and cooperation at all levels, including intergovernmental, interdisciplinary, and the statewide community. The ACJC and staff, through their support and involvement, embody the themes of focused efforts and coordination. The Strategy was developed with inter-governmental, interagency, and interdisciplinary coordination and cooperation as essential components. In addition, the Commission and its members are active participants in many organizations, boards, councils, partnerships, working groups, and committees that reflect the nature and value of organization-wide collaboration and cooperation. 40 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Program Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program have been explored, catalogued and evaluated. Completing a thorough analysis of each of these elements provides clarity in understanding the conditions and situation in which the DGVCC program operates. The ultimate value is in understanding the strategic implications of this analysis. Understanding the strategic implications of the analysis is an important prelude to identifying strategic issues and developing effective strategies to addressing the problem. The table presented on the next page provides a summary of the assessment conducted pertaining to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program. In addition, this table presents a listing of distinctive competencies that represent the abilities that enable the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program to perform well against key performance indicators. 41 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges (SWOC) SWOC Analysis – ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program Strengths  Information sharing among task forces, tandem prosecution and forensic support projects  Projects reflect a specialist environment in addressing drug, gang and violent crime  Implementation of proactive policing strategies  Coordination of resources  The multiple funding streams allow for flexibility of funding projects across the criminal justice system  Established DGVCC program infrastructure creates opportunity for producing long-term outcomes  Significant data collection from agencies  Adjudication projects are broad in scope  Diversification in projects funded across the criminal justice system Weaknesses  Size of task forces has decreased, impacting ability to address drug, gang and violent crime  Reduced agency participation  Funding support provided by local agencies has decreased  Changes in priorities, noted by recognition that some agencies have returned to traditional policing and prosecution strategies  Competitive nature of solicitation process does not necessarily foster collaboration  Resources available to support program tend to fluctuate  Changing funding environment, yet uncertainly whether projects are prepared to adapt  Defining impact on drug, gang and violent crime is innately challenging due to a variety of contributing factors Opportunities  Opportunity to establish new partnerships  Opportunity for increased communication among agencies  Cost/benefit analysis of the Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control program  Opportunity to create structure for disseminating information on best practices/what works  Coordination of funding sources  Ability to respond to changing needs through updates to strategic plan  Reduction in resources can promote creativity and innovation in approach  As the national trend continues to move in the direction of supporting evidence-based programming, opportunity exists to assist agencies in understanding effectiveness of projects 42 Challenges  Federal funds to support program are trending downward  State budget continues to be a challenge  Reduced Drug Enforcement Account revenue  Jurisdictional boundaries and information sharing  Shrinking agency resources  Erosion of support for apprehension and prosecution of drug cases – costly to manage  Community make-up changes  Reported data demonstrates reduced arrests; however, this may not necessarily translate to reduced crime and less of a need  Indirect impact of reduction of support to federal grant programs other than Byrne JAG  Adverse impact of medical marijuana  Cost of drug policy changes on the criminal justice system, public health, education system, and economic system Distinctive Competencies  Quality data  Empirical evaluation of projects – establish sound methodology for evaluation in the current environment  Project level – demonstrate value of the project through implementing best practice approaches  Continue to assure funding decisions are likely to have the greatest impact  Effectively assist grantees with working within the parameters of grant management rules and regulations  Support evidence-based, proven-effective projects  Support, replicate and expand strategic efforts ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Goals The Strategy calls for an approach to addressing drug, gang and violent crime, with a particular focus on addressing the supply and demand for illicit drugs. Goals of the DGVCC program have been developed based on the scope of the problem, parameters of funding sources and review of overarching strategies including the 2014 National Drug Control Strategy and the 2013 Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. The following two goals set forth the foundation and direction for the DGVCC program:  Curtail the flow of illicit drugs, drug proceeds and instruments used to perpetuate violence across Arizona  Reduce violent crime, reduce illicit drug use, and deter repeat offenders in Arizona. Purpose Areas As the vehicle for achieving the aforementioned goals, the Commission will utilize seven purpose areas to guide the funding priorities. The purpose areas listed below were selected for their ability to best contribute to achieving the goals of the DGVCC program in addition to their system-wide scope, responsiveness to the expressed system needs, and flexibility to accommodate fluctuation in available resources. In the selection of purpose areas, consideration has also been given to purpose areas chosen in previous years for their proven ability to produce results for the state of Arizona. While acknowledging the distinct value of each purpose area, the Commission has historically prioritized the apprehension, prosecution, forensic support services and adjudication and sentencing purpose areas.        Apprehension Prosecution Forensic Support Services Adjudication and Sentencing Corrections and Community Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment for Corrections-Involved Individuals Prevention and Education Apprehension: Serving as the entry point into the criminal justice system and having a primary role in maintaining public order and enforcing the law, law enforcement efforts play a critical role in contributing to the achievement of the two goals of the Strategy. Key elements of focus include disrupting and dismantling trafficking and associated criminal networks, and interdicting drugs, proceeds and weapons. The apprehension purpose area may include, but is not limited to, efforts promoting enhanced information sharing and intelligence exchange, approaches to address locally distinct drug, gang and violent crime-related challenges, and proactive policing strategies to address drug, gang and violent crime such as multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces. Over the years, the DGVCC program has provided consistent support to multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces and has regarded task forces and their tandem prosecution projects as the centerpiece of program efforts. 43 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Prosecution: With the duty of seeking justice and protecting the public safety and welfare of the community, prosecutorial efforts have a critical function as cases pertaining to drug, gang and violent crime move through the criminal justice system, from investigation to charging decisions and sentencing. Prosecutorial efforts are an important contributor to achieving the goals of the Strategy, with a primary role of holding offenders properly accountable. The prosecution purpose area may include, but is not limited to, prosecutorial efforts in tandem with multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional drug, gang and violent crime task forces, efforts to deny criminals currency, property and drugs such as statewide civil forfeiture efforts, and other effective prosecution strategies to address drug, gang and violent crime. Historically, prosecution efforts in tandem with multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task forces have been a primary focus for moving forward the goals of the DGVCC program. Forensic Support Services: Forensic support services directed toward detecting crime and identifying criminals are fundamental to supporting law enforcement and prosecution agencies in addressing drug, gang and violent crime. Providing expedient, reliable, accurate and unbiased forensic support services promotes efficient case processing and enhances the operation of law enforcement and prosecution functions in the state, contributing to the advancement of the goals of the Strategy. The Commission has provided continuous support to the forensic support services purpose area over the years, as forensic support projects have provided significant utility to apprehension and prosecution efforts. The forensic support services purpose area includes activities such as evidence examination and analysis, development of investigative leads, training, providing expert courtroom testimony and other forensic support services as they pertain to drug, gang and violent crime-related cases. Adjudication and Sentencing: When stability and balance are characteristic of adjudication and sentencing processes for drug, gang and violent crime cases, there is greater system efficiency, offenders are held appropriately accountable and offenders often receive services to deter repeated offenses. Efficient, effective adjudication processes contribute to moving forward the goals of the Strategy. Traditionally, the Commission has regarded the adjudication and sentencing purpose areas as fulfilling a critical support role to apprehension and prosecution efforts and thus has provided consistent support to adjudication and sentencing projects. The adjudication and sentencing purpose area may encompass a range of activities associated with court processes. Such activities include, but are not limited to, pre-trial services, improved criminal court case processing, supporting specialty courts and public defender services. Corrections and Community Corrections: Corrections and community corrections are critical elements to assuring public safety and offender accountability in addition to providing opportunities to deter repeated offenses. Corrections and community corrections can be a pathway for impacting drug, gang and violent crime and moving forward the goals of the Strategy. This purpose area includes projects responding to the needs of prison and jail facilities and corrections practitioners to providing secure care for offenders of drug, gang and violent crime. Projects could include, but are not limited to, safety and security improvements, inmate programming, corrections equipment and technology, and contraband control and detection. For community corrections, projects may include, but are not limited to, pre-release planning, coordinated reentry services, and supporting probation and parole services for offenders of drug, 44 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 gang and violent crime. Substance Abuse Treatment for Corrections-Involved Individuals: Providing substance abuse treatment for corrections-involved individuals can reduce the likelihood of reoffending; consequently improving public safety and reducing the burden on the criminal justice system. Providing treatment and early intervention to youth involved in the juvenile justice system can prevent adjudicated youth from returning or entering the adult criminal justice system. Supporting such efforts contributes to moving forward the goals of the Strategy. This purpose area includes, but is not limited to, providing residential substance abuse treatment for inmates, preparing offenders for reentry into the community, and supporting community-based treatment and other broad-based aftercare services upon release. Prevention and Education: Effective prevention and education efforts designed to prevent and/or reduce drug, gang and violent crime are cost-effective and result in increased public safety. A proactive approach that addresses drug, gang and violent crime before its inception creates opportunity to thwart negative consequences related to safety, health and academic achievement. Prevention and education efforts may be an effective means in moving forward the goals of the Strategy. The prevention and education purpose area encompasses evidence-based interventions and environmental prevention strategies. Efforts should involve multiple sectors of the community and focus on reducing access and opportunity, enforcing consequences and decreasing the likelihood of engaging in drug, gang and/or violent crime by addressing risk and protective factors. 45 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 46 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Strategic Principles The analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the DGVCC program provides a basis for identifying issues important to overcome in promoting the success of the Strategy. The analysis also paves the way for creating strategic principles as a means for addressing the issues. In combination with the identified purpose areas, strategic principles have been identified to serve as a guide to the Commission in defining funding priorities. Application of the strategic principles to funding decisions builds on the identified strengths, capitalizes on opportunities and seeks to minimize the effects of weaknesses and challenges of the DGVCC program, serving as a pathway to achieving the goals of the program.  Proactive policing and prosecution strategies are effective in eradicating drug and gang crime and work well with a collaborative strategy.  Utilizing specialized personnel and processes across the criminal justice system is an efficient, cost-effective approach to combat drug, gang and violent crime.  Mitigate the effects drug offenses have on the criminal justice system by supporting drug prevention, education, and awareness efforts.  Diversified funding of projects promotes balance in addressing workload throughout the criminal justice system.  Local agencies must be committed to shared efforts addressing drug, gang, and violent crime problems in the state.  In allocating funds, identifying and considering gaps in services of the criminal justice system is a means of promoting efficiency and effectiveness within the criminal justice system.  Continually assessing what really works as a response to changing resources is an effective means of maximizing resources.  Strong collaboration and intelligence and information sharing provide a competitive advantage in eradicating the drug problem, gang crime and associated violent crime in the state.  Intelligence and information exchange contributes to a better understanding of the drug, gang and violent crime problem and assists in designing effective criminal justice strategies.  Maintaining and building partnerships at federal, state and local levels is an effective means of leveraging resources and creates opportunities for a greater impact.  Stability in funding and committed agency participation are essential to promoting sustainability and successfully achieving program objectives.  Collecting sound, reliable, and timely data is needed to inform stakeholders of program effectiveness.  Disseminating information on the impact of the efforts of the DGVCC program can be a means for promoting program sustainability.  Supporting evidence-based approaches and/or innovative approaches with an evaluation component is essential to allocating resources. 47 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 48 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Program Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Performance monitoring and evaluation is fundamental to determining whether projects are making progress toward the goals of the DGVCC program. Review and analysis of the information reported by grantees also provides opportunities to refine the program approach. The ACJC grant application process is structured in a manner that requires applicants to develop a logical link between the problem statement, goals, objectives, project summary, collaboration efforts, budget, and evaluation plan in submitting a project proposal. Upon award, grantees are required to develop performance benchmarks for the grant year. In addition to qualitative information reported by grantees, monitoring of goal(s), objective(s) and performance measurement data and the performance benchmark data are used to evaluate project performance. Standardized goals, objectives and performance measures specific to each purpose area have been developed to provide quantitative data in the evaluation of the DGVCC program. It is a combination of this quantitative data along with qualitative information reported by projects that will be utilized in evaluating project performance. The tables below present standardized goals, objectives, and performance measures by program purpose area. The measures outlined below provide readers with the direction the DGVCC program assumes in quantitative evaluation of projects and is not intended to be all inclusive. Purpose Area: APPREHENSION APPREHENSION Goal 1: To reduce or disrupt the flow of illicit drugs imported, transported, and sold in the community. Objective 1.1 Performance Measure: Increase arrests for importing/transporting of 1. Number of arrests for transport/import of drugs illicit drugs Objective 1.2 Increase arrests for the distribution of illicit drugs Objective 1.3 Disrupt methamphetamine labs Objective 1.4 Eradicate marijuana cultivation grows Objective 1.5 Disrupt or dismantle Drug Trafficking Organizations Objective 1.6 Arrest members of criminal street gangs Performance Measures: 1. Number of arrests for distribution/sale of drugs 2. Number of arrests for buying/receiving drugs Performance Measures: 1. Number of methamphetamine-related investigations 2. Number of clandestine labs seized. 3. Number of methamphetamine dump sites discovered 4. Number of methamphetamine sites referred for mitigation/cleanup Performance Measures: 1. Number of indoor marijuana grows seized 2. Number of outdoor marijuana grows seized Performance Measures: 1. Number of DTOs disrupted 2. Number of DTOs dismantled Performance Measures: 1. Number of arrests of criminal street gang members 49 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 APPREHENSION Goal 2: Strengthen collaborative partnerships between federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Objective 2.1 Performance Measures: Conduct coordination or collaboration 1. Number of deconfliction events activities with other agencies 2. Number of tips/leads referred to other task forces 3. Number of counterterrorism referrals 4. Number of drug-endangered child referrals or calls to the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) 5. Number of drug interdiction activity assists Objective 2.2 Performance Measures: Conduct intelligence-driven, collaborative 1. Number of intelligence-driven, collaborative investigations investigations 2. Number of intelligence-driven investigations resulting in arrest 3. Number of intelligence-driven investigations resulting in drug seizures Purpose Area: PROSECUTION PROSECUTION Goal 1: To enhance the pursuit of justice for drug and drug-related gang and violent crimes in an equitable, unprejudiced, and expeditious manner. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Prosecute drug-related cases 1. Number of drug-related cases referrals received 2. Number of drug-related cases declined for prosecution 3. Number of drug-related cases deferred to a diversion program 4. Number of drug-related cases dismissed 5. Number of drug-related cases resulting in conviction 6. Number of drug-related cases resulting in acquittal Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Prosecute members of criminal street gangs 1. Number of criminal street gang members prosecuted PROSECUTION Goal 2: Strengthen collaborative partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Objective 2.1 Performance Measures: Conduct coordination or collaboration 1. Number of drug-related law enforcement activities with other agencies investigation assists 2. Number of meeting(s) with law enforcement related to case preparation, case processing and/or hearings 3. Number of trainings/briefings offered to law enforcement from prosecutors 4. Number of trainings/briefings offered by law enforcement and attended by prosecutors PROSECUTION Goal 3 (Statewide Civil Forfeiture Efforts Only): Deprive Arizona drug money laundering criminals of their profits. Objective 3.1 Performance Measure: Achieve successful outcomes in high-impact 1. Number of successful outcomes cases 2. Total number of high-impact cases 50 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Objective 3.2 Disrupt criminal enterprises with consequence of limiting subsequent criminal conduct Objective 3.3 Partner with task forces to prepare and execute seizure warrants in cases where money laundering is a principal allegation Performance Measure: 1. Number of criminal enterprises disrupted 2. Number of cases involving criminal enterprises Performance Measure: 1. Number of seizure warrants issued on behalf of task forces in money laundering cases 2. Total number of seizure warrants issued in money laundering cases PROSECUTION Goal 4 (Statewide Civil Forfeiture Efforts Only): Improve coordination of Arizona forfeiture/money laundering efforts. Objective 4.1 Performance Measure: Provide forfeiture/money laundering training 1. Number of prosecutors and/or investigators that are programs for attorneys and investigators provided training on forfeiture/money laundering 2. Number of training participants demonstrating statewide increased knowledge Objective 4.2 Performance Measure: Provide analytical/investigative law 1. Number of requests for assistance received enforcement assists 2. Number of assists provided Purpose Area: FORENSIC SUPPORT SERVICES FORENSIC SUPPORT SERVICES Goal 1: To enhance forensic analysis processing to aid in the apprehension and prosecution of drug offenders. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Conduct forensic drug analysis 1. Number of requests for analysis awaiting analysis (in queue or backlogged) 2. Number of analysis reports completed 3. Average number of days from receipt of sample to analysis report Objective 1.2 Performance Measure: Provide expert witness testimony 1. Number of times staff testified in court 2. Number of times staff testified in court on cases brought forward by task force Objective 1.3 Performance Measures: Efficiently process forensic cases 1. Number of cases handled per FTE 2. Average number of working days to complete analysis 3. Average processing cost per analysis FORENSIC SUPPORT SERVICES Goal 2: To collaborate with apprehension and prosecution agencies in the investigation and examination of drug-related evidence. Objective 2.1 Performance Measure: Assist law enforcement in the examination of 1. Number of investigation assists drug evidence 2. Number of task force specific investigation assists Objective 2.2 Performance Measures: Conduct drug field testing training 1. Number of field test training classes completed 2. Number of officers trained in drug field testing 3. Number of agencies participating in field testing sessions 4. Number of training participants demonstrating increased knowledge 51 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Purpose Area: ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCING ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCING Goal 1: To enhance court adjudication services for drug offenders. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Provide enhanced court service activities for 1. Number of drug court participants drug offenders 2. Number of drug court graduates 3. Number of drug court participants that did not recidivate during participation 4. Average processing time of drug-related cases funded by the grant 5. Number of indigent defendants requesting services 6. Number of indigent defendants served Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Provide probation services 1. Number of drug offenders that received surveillance 2. Average number of days to prepare cases for drug offenders 3. Total number of drug probationers screened for services 4. Total number of drug probationers receiving drug treatment 5. Total number of drug probation absconders apprehended Objective 1.3 Performance Measures: Conduct presentence investigations 1. Number of presentence investigation reports prepared 2. Number of presentence investigation reports submitted on time without a continuance Purpose Area: CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Goal 1: Provide a safer and more effective environment for inmates and staff at correctional and detention facilities. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Identify and disrupt criminal support systems 1. Number of successful criminal syndicate investigations of inmates involving civilian suspects 2. Number of successful prosecutions involving inmates and civilians for prison contraband Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Identify Security Threat Group (STG) 1. Number of validation packets and gang member members, associates, and prospective identification cards used to document prison gangs 2. Number of inmates participating in debriefings to members cooperate with investigators 3. Number of inmates entering into the Step Down program, in which STG members formally denounce their membership and agree to stop associating with their gang Objective 1.3 Performance Measures: Enhance security measures within 1. Number of seizures of contraband located, entering correctional facilities facilities and within facilities 2. Number of successful prosecutions for prison 52 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 contraband CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Goal 2: To maintain effective community supervision of drug offenders, facilitate their successful transition from prison to the community and return offenders to prison when necessary to protect the public. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: To effectively release, supervise and monitor 1. Percentage of drug offenders on community drug offenders under active Department supervision community supervision. 2. Percentage of drug offenders on community supervision returned to prison for technical violations 3. Percentage of drug offenders on community supervision returned to prison for a new crime 4. Number of drug offenders returned to prison for absconding Purpose Area: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 1: Prepare offenders for reintegration into the communities by incorporating reentry planning activities into treatment programs. Reduce recidivism rates. Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Increase the number of offenders that have 1. Number of participants tracked 1 year following remained arrest free for one year following release from an aftercare program. 2. Of the number that were tracked, the number that release from aftercare. remained arrest-free. Objective 1.2 Performance Measures: Increase the number of participants who 1. Total number of participants that have completed the completed the residential program and have BJA-funded program and have passed the drug test passed drug testing. during this reporting period. 2. Total number of offenders that have completed the BJA-funded program and have been drug tested (that passed and failed) SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 2: Enhance the capability of states and local government to provide residential substance abuse treatment to incarcerated inmates. Objective 2.1 Performance Measures: Increase the number of RSAT participants. 1. Number of participants entering residential treatment 2. Number of days of residential treatment provided. 3. New treatment beds added with RSAT funds. 4. Treatment beds funded through other sources, but enhanced with RSAT-funded services. 5. Average length of stay (in days) in the residential program for those completing the program. 6. Average treatment cost per participant for residential program 53 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 3: Prepare participants for reintegration into the community by incorporating reentry planning activities into treatment programs. Objective 3.1 Performance Measures: Increase the number of participants who 1. Number of participants who successfully completed successfully complete the program. the program. 2. Number of participants who dropped out of the residential program. 3. Number of participants who were terminated from the residential program. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR CORRECTIONS-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS Goal 4: Assist both the participants and their communities through the reentry process through the delivery of both community-based treatment and other broad based post-release services. Objective 4.1 Performance Measures: Increase the percent of participants 1. Total number of participants entering an RSATsuccessfully completing the post-release funded post-release program. program. 2. Average length of stay in the post-release program, in days, for those completing the program. 3. Total number of participants successfully completing the post-release program. 4. Total number of participants who dropped out of the post-release program. 5. Total number of participants who were terminated from the post-release program. 6. Average treatment cost per participant for the postrelease program. Purpose Area: PREVENTION AND EDUCATION PREVENTION AND EDUCATION Goal 1: Decrease the likelihood of engagement in drug, gang and/or violent crime Objective 1.1 Performance Measures: Conduct effective education and awareness 1. Number of individuals receiving drug and/or gang events on the risks associated with drug and prevention and education programming gang involvement 2. Number of individuals demonstrating an increased knowledge that received programming Objective 1.2 Improve pro-social behaviors Performance Measures: 1. Number of individuals served 2. Number of individuals completing program requirements 3. Of individuals completing program requirements, number of individuals exhibiting desired change in targeted behaviors 54 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 References Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2011). 2012-2015 Drug, Gang, and Violent Crime Control State Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/Arizona_Drug_Gang_and_Violent_Crime_C ontrol_Strategy_2012-2015.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2015). Arizona Youth Survey 2014 State Report. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2014%20Arizona%20Youth%20Survey%2 0State%20Report.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2014). Enhanced Drug and Gang Enforcement Report 2011-2014. Available at http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/publications/publications.aspx?ServId=1003 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2015). Enhanced Drug and Gang Enforcement Report 2011-2015. Available at http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/publications/publications.aspx?ServId=1003 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2011). Gang Threat Assessment 2009. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2009%20Gang%20Threat%20Assessment _Stat%20Report_revised.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2013). Gang Threat Assessment 2011. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2011%20GTA.pdf Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2015). Gang Threat Assessment 2013. Retrieved from http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2013GTA_Final_4.13.15.pdf Arizona Department of Corrections. (2014). FY 2014 Inmate Population Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/REPORTS/Inmate_Population/063014_inmat epopuationfactsheet.pdf Arizona Department of Health Services. (2013). Population Health and Vital Statistics, 20042013. Retrieved from http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/hip/index.php?pg=drugs Arizona Department of Health Services. (2013). Annual Report on Substance Abuse Treatment Programs Reports, 2007-2013. Available at http://www.azdhs.gov/bhs/reports/annual.htm Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (2010). Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Annual Report, FY 2010. Retrieved from http://www.azdjc.gov/FactsNews/ADJCPublications/Annual%20Report%202010-Final.pdf Arizona Department of Public Safety. (2013). Crime in Arizona Reports 2003-20013. Available at http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/Crime_In_Arizona/ 55 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (2014). Annual Report. Beittel, J.S. (2015). Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations. Congressional Research Service. Drug Enforcement Administration (2015). 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Crime in the United States, 2009-20013. Available at https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime Gottfredson, M.R. (1986). Substantive Contributions of Victimization Surveys. Crime and Justice, 7: p 251-287. National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA). (2011). Cornerstone for Justice: Byrne JAG and its Impact on the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from http://www.ncja.org/NCJA/Navigation/PoliciesPractices/Byrne_JAG_Impact/Byrne_JAG_R eport.aspx Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (2014). 2014 National Drug Control Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ndcs_2014.pdf Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (2013). 2013 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/southwestborder Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center, Arizona State University. (2010). Results from the Arizona Health Survey: Adult Substance Use in Arizona 2010. Phoenix AZ: St. Luke’s Health Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.arizonahealthsurvey.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/ahs-2010 SubstanceUseDec10.pdf Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014) Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSD UHresults2013.pdf Truman, J.L., & Rand, M.R. (2014). Criminal Victimization, 2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates (2013). United States Census Bureau, Population Estimates Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/popest/index.html U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center. The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society (Product No. 2011-Q0317-002). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Justice. 56 ACJC Drug, Gang and Violent Crime Control Strategy 2016-2019 Disclaimer: This project is supported by Award No. 2012-DJ-BX-0560 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Justice. This document is available in alternative formats by contacting the Commission office at (602) 3641146. 57