Juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS) annual report fiscal year 2000 |
Previous | 1 of 9 | Next |
|
This page
All
Subset |
Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision
(JIPS) Annual Report Fiscal Year 2000
Arizona Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Services Division April 2001
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
David K. Byers, Director
THIS REPORT PUBLISHED BY
The Juvenile Justice Services Division
Frank Carmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Division Director Fred Santesteban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Manager Brett Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Specialist
For additional information about the Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision Program, or for clarification of any information contained in this report, please contact the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice Services Division at (602) 542-9443. To assist persons with disabilities, this publication can be provided in an alternative format upon request. � 2001 Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts. All or any part of this document may be
reproduced and distributed for government or nonprofit educational purposes, with attribution to the owner.
About the report: This annual report covers the time period from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000, inclusive. The program information is divided into 9 components: New Cases, Contacts, Activity, Financial, Subsequent Offenses, Cases Closed, JIPS Detention, Fiscal Year 1998 - Fiscal Year 1999- Fiscal Year 2000 Statewide Comparisons and Longitudinal Comparisons. Introducing each section is a synopsis that describes how the information presented relates to the program. Data are shown in graph format. Should the reader like more detailed information, the data tables which are the source of the graphed information are also included. These tables contain department-specific as well as statewide data. The data in the annual report are drawn from the Juvenile On Line Tracking System (JOLTS). Each Department is responsible for entering the information that makes this report possible. The information is entered by either probation officers or support staff. This task is an extremely important link in creating this annual report as well as many other reports published by this office. JOLTS, however, is much more than a data collection and reporting system. JOLTS is a necessary and effective tool utilized daily by juvenile probation personnel statewide to more efficiently and appropriately manage probation caseloads. JJSD appreciates the effort necessary to ensure the data are correctly entered in a timely manner. The breakdown of data into each of the 15 departments might tempt some to compare figures among departments. The only relevant criteria, however - the only true gauge of performance - is the degree to which the JIPS mission is being fulfilled. The County Descriptors following the Executive Summary expand on the data presented by explaining how each department approaches accomplishing the mission of JIPS by tailoring the program to meet the particular needs of their community.
Please contact the Juvenile Justice Services Division at (602) 542-9443 with any questions about this report.
TABLE ABLE
OF
CONTENTS
PAGE
Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS)
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Charts & Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 County Descriptors Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Apache County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Cochise County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Coconino County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Gila County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Graham County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Greenlee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 La Paz County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Mohave County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Navajo County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Pima County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Pinal County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Santa Cruz County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Yavapai County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Yuma County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 New Cases Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Applicable Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pie Chart & Bar Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24 25 27 32
Contacts Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Pie Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Activity Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Pie Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Financial Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Supporting Data Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Subsequent Offenses Synopsis & Definition of Applicable Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Pie Chart & Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Cases Closed Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Charts & Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 JIPS Detention Program Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 FY 1998 - FY 1999 Statewide Comparison Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Data Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Longitudinal Comparisons Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Pie Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Data Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XECUTIVE
The mission of JIPS is to effect positive change in a high risk juvenile population through a highly structured, community-based probation program committed to the prevention of further juvenile offenses and the protection of the community. Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) is a sentencing consequence used by juvenile court judges for those youth who are in need of increased levels of supervision and a highly structured and accountable program. JIPS is administered by the Juvenile Justice Services Division (JJSD) of the Administrative Office of the Courts and is locally managed by the Juvenile Probation Department of the Superior Court in each of Arizona's 15 counties. JIPS is not a "one size fits all" program. As previously noted, each department has tailored their program within the parameters established by Statute and Administrative Orders to meet the unique needs of their county. Arizona Revised Statute �8-351 to �8-358 and Supreme Court Administrative Order 2000-83 specify definite procedural guidelines for the JIPS program. The comprehensive intent of legislation and the administrative order is to allow juvenile delinquents to remain at home in the community, under supervision of a probation officer, rather than be removed from the home and placed in either a residential treatment facility or the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). JIPS has proven, and continues to prove, to be a less costly alternative to ADJC or residential treatment. Specific terms of probation apply to youth on JIPS. They are required by statute to be involved in at least 32 hours of constructive activity per week. They are seen several times a week and cannot leave home unless they have authorization from their JIPS officer. JIPS differs from regular probation in the increased frequency of contact, the requirement to actively participate in 32 hours of structured programs per week, the liberty restrictions concerning unsupervised time away from home, the frequency of drug testing and the lower officer to probationer ratio. For FY00, the state legislature appropriated $13,705,600, to fund JIPS statewide and program expenses for the year were $13,390,657. The population data indicate that 2,225 youth were placed into the program with 3,809 youth receiving JIPS services and 2,170 youth were released from JIPS during the year. The annual cost per youth served, including administrative costs, was approximately $3,051 or about $8.36 per day per youth served. JIPS youth completed 2,427,256 hours of structured activity toward compliance with the 32 hours of structured weekly activity required for each youth on JIPS. More than 204,000 of these hours were unpaid community service hours. On the following page, the reader can gain an understanding of a typical JIPS day in FY00.
Page 1
On Any Given Day in FY00...
, 1636 YOUTH WERE ON JIPS. 1630 JUVENILES WERE FOLLOWING THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF JIPS; 6 WERE NOT. , 762 JIPS PROBATIONERS HAD FACE TO FACE CONTACT WITH THEIR JIPS OFFICER. 45% OF THESE CONTACTS TOOK PLACE AFTER 6:00PM. , 6650 COMPLIANCE HOURS WERE PERFORMED BY JIPS PROBATIONERS. , 78 DRUG TESTS WERE CONDUCTED ON JIPS YOUTH. 68 OF THE TESTS SHOWED NO USE OF DRUGS AND 10 TESTS INDICATED USE OF ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. , 1290 INDIVIDUALS WERE CONTACTED BY JIPS OFFICERS.
Page 2
By Gender
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00
Profile of New JIPS Cases
Total New Cases: 2,225 By Offense
Violence 5.8% Grand Theft 23.5% Citation 9.5% Theft 5.3% Obstruction 31.8% Female 14.5% Fight 4.9% Drugs 9.5% Peace 9.1%
Male 85.5%
Status 0.6%
Number of Prior Referrals
299 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ 166 203 212 275 240 185 155 131 92 267
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1 604
Number of Prior Adjudications
609 484
250 142 74 30 12 7 8+ 20
2
3
4
5
6
Page 3
JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00
Juvenile Offenders Placed on JIPS By Fiscal Year
2,466 2500 2,060 2000 1,462 1500 1,023 1000 704 1,289 1,550 1,643 1,880 2,219 2,225
500
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Trends of Positive Case Outcomes By Fiscal Year (Numbers*)
Total Positive Outcomes Released from Probation 1400
1,197
JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00
Released to Regular Probation Turned 18
1,390 1,321
1200
1,140
1000
793
909
923
932
800
663
757
600
557 490 491 456 492 507
566
581
596 568 560
457
400
270 201 295 243 162 140 155 145 156 193 159 188
364
370 246 268 262
200
238 177 112
210
130
0
FY90
FY91
FY92
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY2000
JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 Trends of Positive Case Outcomes By Fiscal Year (Percent*)
Total Positive Outcomes Released from Probation Released to Regular Probation Turned 18
65.8% 61.8% 66.0% 67.6% 61.0% 60.1% 69.5% 64.1%
70.0%
64.6%
65.5%
65.4%
60.0%
50.0%
40.5% 40.3% 37.3% 35.2% 36.8% 30.3% 29.2% 31.4% 25.8% 24% 23.3% 26.2%
40.0%
30.0%
26.5%
26.7%
20.0%
14.8%
23.5% 13.4% 15.3% 11.5% 11.8% 11.5% 12.7% 14.0%
17.4%
19.5% 21.4%
18.6% 14.1% 12.3% 12.1%
10.0%
13.4%
9.4%
11.2%
0.0% FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00
COUNTY DESCRIPTORS OUNTY
SYNOPSIS
This section provides the reader with an increased awareness of how each county, while pursuing the same goals, and in the manner prescribed by statute and the appropriate codes, approaches the day-to-day management of their JIPS program. As is evident, each County's Juvenile Probation Department is faced with unique circumstances based on many factors. In addition to the variances in the sizes and populations of the counties; other factors including scattered population clusters, local availability of treatment resources and the presence of tribal lands and jurisdictions, all contribute to the individual approach each Department must develop and implement to accomplish the mission of JIPS.
Page 7
Page 8
A P A C H E COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team coverage: St. Johns 11,127 1 11,127 sq. miles
A
pache County JIPS, utilizes a two person team which covers all of Apache County. The JIPS team also supervises youth on high risk status, if the Intensive Probation caseload is below capacity. The JIPS team has been supervising youth on the Navajo Indian Reservation for three years. For FY2000, approximately one third of the juveniles on the JIPS caseload resided on the reservation. In FY2000, Apache JIPS instituted a study hall program for juveniles placed on intensive probation. Each juvenile on intensive probation must attend the study hall for one hour a week, regardless of their grades. The study hall was continued throughout the summer, helping juveniles with life skills and job skills. Although the program has only been running one year, the response from the juveniles and parents has been positive. The JIPS team also supports the Apache County Search and Rescue Team, which was started by the Apache County Juvenile Probation Department. As a condition of intensive probation, juveniles that reside in the Springerville, Eagar or St. Johns area are ordered to complete 60 hours of basic training with the rescue team. The training includes; first aid, CPR, wilderness survival, map and compass skills, Global Positioning System (GPS) training, repelling and teamwork with peers and instructors. Since 1997, the Apache Search and Rescue Team has been an essential part of the Summer Search and Rescue units at the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Parks; as well as providing assistance in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico when needed.
Page 9
C O C H I S E COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Bisbee 6,000 6 1000 sq. miles per team
C
ochise County Juvenile Court Services provides JIPS in all communities within the County. Offices are located in Bisbee, Douglas, Sierra Vista, Benson and Wilcox. The same standard of supervision and services are applied throughout the county, including remote rural locations.
Cochise JIPS meets the programmatic criteria as defined by statute. Cochise JIPS also provides supportive summer programming which integrates a cognitive behavioral theoretical approach. Treatment plans are developed to identify specific goals and desired behaviors in an identified time frame. The JIPS program conducts an end of the summer incentive each year. For FY2000, the summer incentive activity was a camping trip to the White Mountains near Alpine, Arizona. Juveniles must have achieved specific goals in order to participate in the activity, which included fireside chats, archery, community work service, fishing, hiking and education. Another educational program adopted this year for intensive probationers was partly funded through a grant by the U.S. Forest Service. During the summer, probationers designed a nature walk that will be a living exhibition of the San Pedro River. While this project is not yet complete (target end date is April 2001), it includes many educational and creative components - most, if not all, of which the juveniles have never confronted before. The planning process included education in masonry, landscape design, carpentry, design, biology, botany, plumbing, city codes and risk management regulations. The juveniles who participate in this activity are also preparing an individual resume that includes all of their experiences on this project.
Page 10
C O C O N I N O COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Flagstaff 18,806 3 6,268 sq. miles per team
C
oconino County is the largest county in the state. The JIPS program has 3 teams which are tasked to provide supervision for the entire county. Research based principals are applied in carrying out supervision of juveniles in the JIPS program. The first principal concerns a change in the way JIPS is considered intensive. Based on the research suggesting a correlation between participation in the treatment programs and recidivism reduction, a more effective strategy is the provision of intensive services and treatment. This is not to the exclusion of intensive surveillance and consequences, it is in addition to them. Coconino County Juvenile Court provides a Day Reporting Program which includes Keys to Innervision, an intensive outpatient substance abuse program, parent meetings and educational tutoring. In selected cases, a youth placed on JIPS would be assigned a probation officer, a surveillance officer and a masters level therapist. The objective is to merge probation and treatment goals utilizing in-home therapy and weekly staffings. The second principal in JIPS, exercises a balanced approach to the supervision of offenders. Although a focus and emphasis on treatment and services is advocated, JIPS must provide the full range of probation activities to include community protection, victim reparation and competency development.
Page 11
G I L A COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Globe 4,7520 2 2,376 sq. miles per team
G
ila County Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) is a house arrest program for juveniles who qualify for commitment to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, if it were not for the JIPS program. The program allows the juvenile the opportunity to remain at home and continue to be with their family while affording them the opportunity to change their delinquent behavior. Each juvenile is expected and held accountable to pay back society by completing community work service, paying court ordered fees, and being a law abiding citizen. In addition to the levels of supervision, as mandated by the Arizona Revised Statute and the Supreme Court Administrative Order for JIPS, Gila County JIPS utilizes a program called "Windows". Instead of
traditional curfew requirements, juveniles earn`Windows' or blocks of time, which a juvenile can utilize at the discretion of their probation officer. The Windows can be used as free time. Thus, by abiding by court orders and the law, the probationer can earn more free time. The Windows can be earned or revoked based upon the compliance or lack of compliance with court orders and the law.
Page 12
G R A H A M COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Average coverage: Safford 5,128 1 5,128 sq. miles
G
raham County has a two person team that services the entire county. The philosophy of the Graham County JIPS program is to hold the juveniles accountable for their actions. This is accomplished through diligent surveillance in conjunction with the youth's schedule.
The officers work closely with the schools and the Safe Schools Program Officer. With the assistance of the Safe Schools Officer, the JIPS juveniles are held to a higher standard of accountability. The JIPS program emphasizes treatment and education. Graham JIPS is motivated to stimulate this as the stepping stone to success and the positive outcomes within the program that are reflected by the efforts of officers to keep juveniles in school. The JIPS team is determined to help the probationer succeed and does everything possible to help the juvenile achieve their goal.
Page 13
G R E E N L E E COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Clifton 1,876 1 1,876 sq. miles
G
reenlee County Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision combines a solid mixture of accountability and rehabilitation. The rural setting provided by this small county allows for maximum supervision of juvenile offenders. The JIPS team can closely monitor every move of the juvenile, thus insuring swift positive reinforcement for positive behavior and quick consequences for negative behavior. A combination of local resources and the utilization of the JAWS program in Yuma county, directs a strong tone of accountability in Greenlee County. Rehabilitation of the youth is achieved through the use of local resources. The JIPS team is dedicated to work hand in hand with the community to monitor the juveniles on a daily basis. This team of probation professionals has a combined 22 years of experience working with at risk juveniles. Other highly qualified counselors, teachers, police officers, local dignitaries and civic groups work closely with the juvenile probation department to assist the youth with their journey to reestablishing positive behaviors in order to become a productive citizen of society.
Page 14
L A PAZ COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Parker 4,500 1 4,500 sq. miles
L
a Paz County has a two person team that services both adult and juvenile probationers. They began providing adult services to both La Paz and southern Mohave County in 1985, and added juvenile services to La Paz County in 1987. In 1990, Mohave County assumed supervision of it's entire county. La Paz County Probation services an area of 4,518 square miles out of a single office in the county seat of Parker. A round trip visit to a single probationer in the farthest portion of the county can take up to 4 hours. The Department must be innovative in servicing the youth on Intensive Probation. With just two high schools in the county, which are 60 miles apart, the resources are limited when a child is suspended from the public education system. The dedication of recently acquired service providers has allowed youth to receive counseling in their home communities rather than having to travel as much as an hour or more to the county seat. The three other probation officers and one supervisor assist in providing the necessary 24 hours per day, 7 days per week supervision and on call responses for the JIPS team. The "wearing of many hats" and cooperation among employees, public agencies and service providers are key components in this successful JIPS program.
Page 15
M A R I C O P A COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Phoenix 9,226 28 330 sq. miles per team
M
aricopa County Juvenile Court Center (MCJCC) operates a JIPS program, that, as mandated by Arizona Statutes and the Administrative Office of the Courts, has very clear objectives to which juveniles must adhere. A juvenile ordered to intensive probation must review and sign a contract outlining the three levels of the program. By successfully completing each level, the child may be rewarded with less supervision, more trust, and more privileges. The terms of this contract emphasize surveillance, home detention, education, drug testing, counseling, and community service work. By providing effective monitoring, behavioral training, and educational skill interventions to offenders, MCJCC is achieving what the community values most: safety, accountability, and prevention. JIPS is designed as a highly structured, closely supervised program that focuses on short and long-term behavioral changes. The division consists of teams of probation and surveillance officers assigned to specific geographic regions. By staffing officers throughout neighborhoods, the officers can assess community strengths and resources, thereby enhancing a juvenile's ability to become successful on probation and in the future. Maricopa JIPS has two integral programs, JIPS Community Outreach Program (JCOP) and Violators of Intensive Probation Services (VIPS). JCOP is designed to provide juveniles with a wide variety of services, programs, resources and supervised community service projects. VIPS is a designed 28-day, highly structured program, located within the juvenile detention facility featuring educational components, family support groups, and community service projects and is primarily used for JIPS probationers pending court on a technical violation of probation and is used to help reestablish the correct course of rehabilitation for the probationer. Page 16
M O H A V E COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Kingman 13,479 3 4,493 sq. miles per team
M
ohave County JIPS Supervision Program consists of two, three person teams and one two person team. These officers travel many miles in their duties. The officers are responsible for supervision of juvenile offenders covering a vast geographical area in this rural county. Much of this area is rural and creates interesting situations when locating homes. It is not unusual for the officers to receive a map with no discernable addresses or paved roads when a juvenile is placed on JIPS. The JIPS program for Mohave County is proud of the relationship developed with the Mohave County Sheriff's Office in supporting the boot camp style, SHOCK Incarceration Program, boasting a success rate of 87% of the graduates not re-offending. JIPS juveniles were the first to enter the program, creating a strong, stable base for expansion of the program to include standard supervision juveniles. Mohave County is considered a rural county and faces limitation in the amount of services available for juveniles. However, with these limitations the JIPS officers are able to keep juveniles in appropriate counseling and assist in developing stable environments for the juveniles they supervise.
Page 17
N A V A J O COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Holbrook 9,949 5 1,990 sq. miles per team
N
avajo County Juvenile Probation has a capacity to supervise 60 juveniles on intensive probation. JIPS officers are also adult Intensive Officers in this combined department. Probation offices are located in the communities of Holbrook, Winslow, Snowflake, Show Low, Heber and Pinetop.
Logistical problems are frequently at the forefront of issues confronting intensive probation. Time and distance to resident locations can be challenging factors in making mandated contacts. Navajo County is home to one of the largest Native American Reservations in the country. Thus, the probation department continues to work towards cooperative measures to ensure services are also provided to reservation residents. Creating a working relationship with the reservation government is an ongoing process that demands continual readjusting to meet the needs of both communities. Treatment options in this rural county are limited. A recently initiated intensive outpatient treatment model, provided by a Show Low service provider, has helped ease the challenges to offering rehabilitative services and has eased the strain on the existing outpatient treatment programs in the county. Any residential treatment however, requires an out of county placement. As the population of the county grows, a local inpatient substance abuse program becomes not only more necessary, but also more feasible.
Page 18
P I M A COUNTY
C o u n t y seat: Tucson Tucson S q u a r e miles: Square 9,240 9,240 J I P S teams: JIPS 11 T e a m Avg. coverage: 8 4 0 sq. miles per team
P
ima County JIPS is one of the charter programs in the Arizona IPS system. The program started approximately 12 years ago with four, two-person teams and has evolved into 26 officers comprising 11 teams. Two of the teams supervise exclusive JIPS sex offenders in the county. Because of the vast area of coverage, and the serious nature of the offenders, each sex offender team supervises a maximum of 15 cases. Contact requirements for the specialized caseloads are also more intense.
Nighttime contacts have been a highlight of Pima County JIPS since the inception of the program. The average monthly percentage of nighttime contacts, after 6:00pm and before 6:00am, is over 65%. Studies have indicated that the times juveniles are most likely to get into trouble is during the night. Thus, by increased nighttime contacts, Pima JIPS is ensuring juveniles remain crime free. The JIPS Quest Program, unique to Pima county, started in 1996. The program provides educational services to JIPS youngsters in a highly structured, controlled setting. In addition, the CREW program, which is operated by the court, provides a method of repaying the community. Daily work crews provide graffiti abatement, park and roadway cleanup and labor for other community projects.
Page 19
P I N A L COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Florence 5,386 3 1,795 sq. miles per team
P
inal County Department of Juvenile Court Services operates a JIPS program with two 3-person teams and one 2-person team. Team coverages include Casa Grande, Eloy, Apache Junction, Florence and the surrounding communities.
The department operates a specialized caseload for Juvenile Sexual Offenders under the direct supervision of the JIPS program. The department was awarded funding through the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant specifically for the program. Initially, there were 5 juveniles under court ordered Intensive Probation Sex Offenders terms and approximately 10 alleged juvenile sex offenders in the pre/post adjudication phase of the program. The JIPS detention program, entitled H.O.P.E. (Helping Others Prosper through Encouragement), has moved from a paramilitary approach to an educational approach. Juveniles are assigned to this weekend program at the request of the probation officer and approval of a program supervisor. The H.O.P.E. program operates for six consecutive weekends, overnight, and is designed to supplement supervision and enhance the life skills of the juvenile offender. Probation officers have the ability to refer juveniles into the program prior to the program start. The department has also provided a summer alternative for probation youth (JIPS and Standard). In conjunction with Homeboyz program, the department operated a summer youth program involving physical fitness, education, recreation and community service work. There were two - four week programs for juvenile male offenders, with a maximum number of 20 youth per program. The program had profound success for the first summer, and is being considered for use during the school year. Page 20
S A N T A CRUZ COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Nogales 1,246 1 1,246 sq. miles
S
� � �
anta Cruz County is the smallest county, per square mile, in the state. However, like the quote, "one can't judge a book by its cover," neither can this county be judged by its size. Nogales is the county seat of Santa Cruz county, based on U.S. Border Patrol statistics, the Point of Entry at the Nogales, Sonora Mexico site is one of the busiest crossings in the country. This creates many challenges for the probation officers of our county. With a dominant population of Spanish speaking clientele, our officers must understand, not only the language, but also the wide diversity of cultural differences the youth of this county represents.
The JIPS Community Service Work Crew is supervised by officers assigned to the JIPS team. The reasoning for such is three fold. First, Santa Cruz JIPS wants to ensure that probationers are closely monitored, as well as on task, while the juveniles provide a much needed service to the community. Second, the team strives to build a strong work ethic. For instance, the team asserts the need for punctuality or showing up on time and quality of work to create a creditable end product. Thirdly, because this is `community service', it is crucial that the JIPS team ensures that the quality of the service to the citizens and the community surpasses their expectations.
The community has come to expect nothing but the finest quality from the work crews. The crews are constantly being requested by the county parks, schools, law enforcement, churches, senior citizens, and hospitals. Santa Cruz County JIPS is proud to provide quality service back to the community that supports the goals for rehabilitation of the youth of Santa Cruz County. Page 21
Y A V A P A I COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Prescott 8,091 7 1,156 sq. miles per team
Y
avapai County began it's Juvenile Intensive Probation Program in 1987 with two officers and an average of 8 probationers. One officer was assigned to the Prescott area or the western areas of Yavapai County and the other officer was assigned in the Verde Valley area, or eastern areas of Yavapai County. In the past 13 years a number of JIPS officers have been added to the program to cope with the population increase of Yavapai County.
Currently, there are seven JIPS officers in the program; 3 in the eastern area and 4 in the western area. The maximum capacity of the program is 105 probationers. The average caseload is approximately 13 probationers. The most unique design of Yavapai County's JIPS program is that the officers provide all case management and supervision (contacts) of probationers. Many other counties have surveillance officers as part of the JIPS team. In Yavapai JIPS, surveillance officers are not used. Yavapai County Juvenile Court has a JIPS Violators program. Essentially, if a JIPS probationer is on the "edge" of non-compliance with the terms and conditions of probation, the officers may request that the court detain the juveniles for up to 15 days. During that 15 day period the juveniles are provided various "programming" alternatives; substance abuse, life skills/choices, anger management, and community service involvement. Once the juveniles completed the program the officers use the programming offered in the program as a focal point for continued rehabilitative services.
Page 22
Y U M A COUNTY
County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Yuma 5,522 6 920 sq. miles per team
Y
uma County JIPS prides itself on its collaborative approach to quality case supervision. Officers not only execute the mission of JIPS, but also invest in the community. By giving back to the community that supports the program, officers have created high levels of trust with the public and other agencies.
During 1999 and into the year 2000, JIPS Officers have dedicated themselves to assisting and educating the community. Officers have presented topics such as careers in probation, dangers of illegal drug use, gang education, and probation services available to juveniles, families, schools, and other community members. The JIPS program has partnered with local law enforcement and collaboratively worked on numerous projects to reduce juvenile crime. These projects include, "Operation Safe Crossing", which is designed to divert juveniles from crossing the Mexico border on graduation night; providing officers to work the Yuma County Fair; and the Law Enforcement Halloween program sponsored by Yuma County Adult Probation to promote a safe Halloween. JIPS utilizes the JAWS (Juvenile All Weekend Supervision) program. JIPS officers work with military volunteers to provide a weekend of discipline and structure. Over the course of a weekend, juveniles are able to become CPR certified, learn basic military procedures, adhere to a code of conduct, and provide valuable work to the community. The weekend closes with a graduation ceremony for juveniles and their families. Yuma JIPS is often times the leader in bringing agencies together to determine better alternatives for rehabilitating youth. JIPS, however, is not only a leader in rehabilitation, but also strives to create programs that prevent youth from becoming high risk. Page 23
NEW CASES EW
SYNOPSIS
According to statute, only a youth who has been adjudicated delinquent may be ordered into the program. During FY00, 2,225 youth were placed on JIPS. These youth are classified by number of prior referrals and number of prior adjudications. A referral is simply a piece of paper that lists the offense (or offenses) that a juvenile is accused of committing. It is called a referral because it is the official document that directs an individual to juvenile court. A wide range of infractions, from `5 Minutes Late on Curfew' to `Assaults Against Person,' may be specified on this paper. No formal finding of guilt is included on a referral. Adjudications, on the other hand, are a formal finding of guilt; they are the equivalent of a conviction in adult court. The offense for which a youth is placed on JIPS is commonly called the "instant offense." Nine categories are utilized by the Juvenile On-line Tracking System (JOLTS) to capture these data. These categories are consistent with the information contained in the Juveniles Processed data books published by the Juvenile Justice Services Division. Please note, for aesthetic reasons, the titles in some of the graphs have been abbreviated (See page 5 for detailed information). The top four categories for instant offenses were Obstruction (31.8%), Felonies Against Property (23.5%) and Drugs and Citations (9.5%).
Page 24
NEW CASES
Definition of Applicable Terms C i t a t i o n s / A d m i n i s t r a t i v e - Court hold, courtesy hold, dependency, immigration, material witness, sovereignty, traffic, or warrant. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Citations" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. D r u g s : Felonies & Misdemeanors - Possession, use, sale, smuggling, or manufacturing any illegal drug (dangerous, narcotic, toxic substance, hallucinogen, or prescription), sniffing, drug paraphernalia, involving minor in drug offense, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Drugs" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. M i s d e m e a n o r s Against Person (formerly Fight) - Assault, simple assault, domestic violence, endangerment, threatening intimidation, lewd and lascivious acts, unlawful imprisonment, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Fight" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. F e l o n i e s Against Property (formerly Grand Theft) - Aggravated criminal damage, criminal damage, shoplifting, arson of unoccupied structure, armed burglary, burglary, computer fraud, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, unauthorized use of vehicle, organized crime, failure to return rental property, trafficking, possession of stolen property, stolen vehicle, theft, or the conspiracy of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Grand Theft" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. O b s t r u c t i o n of Justice: Felonies & Misdemeanors - Contempt of court, DUI, DWI, escape, unlawful or felony flight, failure to appear, hindering prosecution, influence witness, obstruction, perjury, parole or probation violation, resisting arrest, tampering, solicitation, or conspiracy or attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Obstruction" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. P u b l i c Peace: Felonies & Misdemeanors - Aggravated DUI, carry concealed weapon, child neglect, commercial sex, contributing to delinquency of a minor, crime against nature, cruelty to animals, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, drunkenness, eavesdropping, false reporting, failure to stop, failure to appear, firework violation, gambling/gaming, harassment, indecent exposure, obscenity, prostitution, reckless burning, reckless driving, riot, public sexual indecency, speeding, traffic offenses, trespassing, criminal trespassing, unlawful assembly, weapons offenses, discharge firearm, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Peace" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. S t a t u s Offenses (incorrigible, runaway, etc.) - Curfew, consuming alcohol, incorrigible, liquor possession, runaway, tobacco possession, truancy, or minor consuming. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Status" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. Page 25
M i s d e m e a n o r s Against Property (formerly Theft) - Criminal damage, issue bad check, theft, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Theft" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. F e l o n i e s Against a Person (formerly Violence) - Aggravated assault, arson of occupied structure, child molesting, child prostitution, child abuse, criminal syndicate, custodial interference, drive-by shooting, kidnaping, endangerment, homicide, incest, leaving accident, manslaughter, murder, robbery, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual conduct with minor, or the conspiracy of or attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Violence" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables.
Page 26
JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 New Cases by Severity Type
Grand Theft 23.5% 523
Citation 9.5% 211 Violence 5.8% 129
Status 0.6% 13
Theft 5.3% 118 Fight 4.9% 110
Peace 9.1% 202 Obstruction 31.8% 708 Drugs 9.5% 211
Total New Cases 2,225
New Cases by Severity Type
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
129 523
708
Total New Cases: 2,225
211 110
202 118
211
13
Grand Theft Fight Violence Obstruction
Peace Drugs Theft
Status Citation
JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 New Cases Added
2nd Felony 10.9% 243 From Standard 32.9% 733
Other 56.1% 1,249
Total New Cases Added: 2,225
New Cases by Prior Referrals
Total New Cases: 2,225
267 240
300
275
250
203 212 185 166 155
200
150
131
92
100
72
50
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prior Referrals
227 youth had 11 or more referrals.
New Cases by Prior Adjudications
700
604 609
Total New Cases: 2,225
600
484
500
400
300
250
200
142 74
100
30
12
0 0 1 2 3 4 Prior Adjudications 5 6 7
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases by Gender
Male # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 21 81 44 34 22 3 5 878 83 36 346 94 29 97 129 1,902 % 91.3% 87.1% 83.0% 81.0% 78.6% 42.9% 100.0% 87.7% 78.3% 73.5% 89.4% 85.5% 82.9% 85.1% 75.0% 85.5% # 2 12 9 8 6 4 0 123 23 13 41 16 6 17 43 323 Female % 8.7% 12.9% 17.0% 19.0% 21.4% 57.1% 0.0% 12.3% 21.7% 26.5% 10.6% 14.5% 17.1% 14.9% 25.0% 14.5% 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225 Total
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases by Severity Type
Felonies Against Person # % Felonies Against Property # % Obstruction of Justice: Misdemeanors Drugs: Fel & Misd. Against Person Fel & Misd # % # % # % Public Peace: Fel & Misd # % Misdemeanors Against Property # % Status Offenses # % Citation/ Administrative # % Total New Cases #
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide
1 5 0 1 4 0 1 47 16 1 16 14 1 13 9 129
4.3 5.4 0.0 2.4 14.3 0.0 20.0 4.7 15.1 2.0 4.1 12.7 2.9 11.4 5.2 5.8
6 22 8 11 7 3 1 254 35 10 71 26 7 35 27 523
26.1 23.7 15.1 26.2 25.0 42.9 20.0 25.4 33.0 20.4 18.3 23.6 20.0 30.7 15.7 23.5
6 29 14 5 13 0 1 325 40 15 94 27 10 36 93 708
26.1 31.2 26.4 11.9 46.4 0.0 20.0 32.5 37.7 30.6 24.3 24.5 28.6 31.6 54.1 31.8
1 8 1 8 1 1 0 41 3 2 14 14 1 6 9 110
4.3 8.6 1.9 19.0 3.6 14.3 0.0 4.1 2.8 4.1 3.6 12.7 2.9 5.3 5.2 4.9
2 10 6 12 0 3 1 97 1 7 34 5 8 12 13 211
8.7 10.8 11.3 28.6 0.0 42.9 20.0 9.7 0.9 14.3 8.8 4.5 22.9 10.5 7.6 9.5
0 15 14 3 1 0 0 105 2 2 32 8 3 5 12 202
0.0 16.1 26.4 7.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 10.5 1.9 4.1 8.3 7.3 8.6 4.4 7.0 9.1
1 1 3 0 1 0 0 84 0 1 16 2 3 2 4 118
4.3 1.1 5.7 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 2.0 4.1 1.8 8.6 1.8 2.3 5.3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
6 3 7 2 1 0 1 37 9 11 110 13 2 5 4 211
26.1 3.2 13.2 4.8 3.6 0.0 20.0 3.7 8.5 22.4 28.4 11.8 5.7 4.4 2.3 9.5
23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225
Under each offense category (e.g., Grand Theft), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Apache). In the example given, Apache had 6 new cases with felonies against property, which accounted for 26.1% of Apache's total new cases for the year (23). Percentages total across, not down.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases Added
Total New Cases Added %
34.8 68.8 50.9 42.9 75.0 100.0 60.0 40.5 37.7 38.8 99.5 93.6 85.7 43.9 40.1 56.1
2nd Felony # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide
5 2 1 9 4 0 0 142 23 13 0 6 3 32 3 243
From Standard % #
10 27 25 15 3 0 2 454 43 17 2 1 2 32 100 733
Other #
8 64 27 18 21 7 3 405 40 19 385 103 30 50 69 1,249
%
43.5 29.0 47.2 35.7 10.7 0.0 40.0 45.4 40.6 34.7 0.5 0.9 5.7 28.1 58.1 32.9
#
23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1,001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225
21.7 2.2 1.9 21.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.2 21.7 26.5 0.0 5.5 8.6 28.1 1.7 10.9
Other includes juveniles transferred from another jurisdiction and those not previously on standard probation.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases by Prior Referrals
0 # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 1 4 6 4 7 2 1 56 15 4 28 12 4 12 10 166 % 4.3 4.3 11.3 9.5 25.0 28.6 20.0 5.6 14.2 8.2 7.2 10.9 11.4 10.5 5.8 7.5 # 2 10 4 3 2 0 1 91 20 1 27 16 1 14 11 203 1 % 8.7 10.8 7.5 7.1 7.1 0.0 20.0 9.1 18.9 2.0 7.0 14.5 2.9 12.3 6.4 9.1 # 0 4 1 2 1 1 2 11 1 33 12 4 13 11 212 2 % 0.0 4.3 1.9 4.8 3.6 14.3 40.0 10.4 2.0 8.5 10.9 11.4 11.4 6.4 9.5 # 0 4 5 2 1 0 0 13 3 42 17 2 10 17 3 % 0.0 4.3 9.4 4.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 12.3 6.1 10.9 15.5 5.7 8.8 9.9 # 5 8 1 3 0 1 0 8 6 31 13 6 10 19 4 % 21.7 8.6 1.9 7.1 0.0 14.3 0.0 7.5 12.2 8.0 11.8 17.1 8.8 11.0 # 2 4 2 5 1 0 0 13 8 43 12 2 16 18 5 % 8.7 4.3 3.8 11.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 12.3 16.3 11.1 10.9 5.7 14.0 10.5 # 2 8 3 5 2 1 0 82 5 6 34 8 7 12 10 185 6 % 8.7 8.6 5.7 11.9 7.1 14.3 0.0 8.2 4.7 12.2 8.8 7.3 20.0 10.5 5.8 8.3 # 3 8 4 2 3 0 1 74 5 8 19 6 2 6 14 155 7 % 13.0 8.6 7.5 4.8 10.7 0.0 20.0 7.4 4.7 16.3 4.9 5.5 5.7 5.3 8.1 7.0 # 1 5 5 6 0 0 0 52 6 5 34 2 2 3 10 131 8 % 4.3 5.4 9.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.7 10.2 8.8 1.8 5.7 2.6 5.8 5.9 # 5 7 2 2 0 0 0 33 5 1 22 2 1 4 8 92 9 % 21.7 7.5 3.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 4.7 2.0 5.7 1.8 2.9 3.5 4.7 4.1 # 0 4 5 1 3 2 0 25 1 2 17 1 1 1 9 72 10 % 0.0 4.3 9.4 2.4 10.7 28.6 0.0 2.5 0.9 4.1 4.4 0.9 2.9 0.9 5.2 3.2 # 2 27 15 7 8 0 0 43 4 4 57 9 3 13 35 11+ % 8.7 29.0 28.3 16.7 28.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 3.8 8.2 14.7 8.2 8.6 11.4 20.3 Total # 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225
116 11.6
159 15.9
129 12.9
141 14.1
275 12.4
240 10.8
267 12.0
227 10.2
Under each number of prior referrals (e.g., 2), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Cochise). In the example given, Cochise had 4 new cases with 2 prior referrals; these 4 cases accounted for 4.3% of Cochise's total new cases for the year (93). Percentages total across, not down.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases By Prior Adjudications
0 # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 6 26 16 11 9 4 1 % 26.1 28.0 30.2 26.2 32.1 57.1 20.0 # 9 29 8 17 2 0 3 1 % 39.1 31.2 15.1 40.5 7.1 0.0 60.0 # 6 20 6 9 3 0 1 2 % 26.1 21.5 11.3 21.4 10.7 0.0 20.0 # 2 9 11 3 5 1 0 3 % 8.7 9.7 20.8 7.1 17.9 14.3 0.0 # 0 5 4 2 4 0 0 62 1 1 37 0 3 7 16 142 4 % 0.0 5.4 7.5 4.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.9 2.0 9.6 0.0 8.6 6.1 9.3 6.4 # 0 3 7 0 2 1 0 31 0 0 12 2 3 2 11 74 5 % 0.0 3.2 13.2 0.0 7.1 14.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.8 8.6 1.8 6.4 3.3 # 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 0 6 30 6 % 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.3 # 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 12 7 % 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 # 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 9 8 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 14.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 # 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 9 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 10 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 11+ % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.2 Total # 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225
241 24.1 39 9 36.8 18.4
279 27.9 50 20 68 37 7 45 35 47.2 40.8 17.6 33.6 20.0 39.5 20.3
253 25.3 15 11 77 18 10 19 36 14.2 22.4 19.9 16.4 28.6 16.7 20.9
115 11.5 1 8 49 1 3 12 30 0.9 16.3 12.7 0.9 8.6 10.5 17.4
124 32.0 52 9 28 29 47.3 25.7 24.6 16.9
604 27.1
609 27.4
484 21.8
250 11.2
Under each number of prior adjudications (e.g., 2), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Coconino). In the example given, Coconino had 6 new cases with 2 prior adjudications; these 6 cases accounted for 11.3% of Coconino's total new cases for the year (53). Percentages total across, not down.
CONTACTS
SYNOPSIS
A.R.S. �8-353 and Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Section 6-302 stipulate the number of face-to-face contacts which must occur between the juvenile and the JIPS officers on a weekly basis. This number is dictated by the level of supervision, of which three exist. Level I requires four weekly contacts, Level II requires two contacts, and Level III requires one contact. The decreasing level of contact is proportionate to the program compliance behavior of the youth. Ancillary contacts with parents, school, employment and treatment providers are also required. This section contains a graph which shows when the contact with youth took place. Since youth are to be involved in structured activities during the day, surveillance during night hours is an important program component. For the year, 45.2% of the contacts with youth occurred after 6:00pm.
Page 37
Contacts with Juveniles by Time of Contact
Total of 278,143 face-to- face contacts with juveniles
Weekday 43.9% 122,105
Weekend Day 10.9% 30,270 Weekday Night 28.9% 80,349
Weekend Night 16.3% 45,419
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Contacts by Person Seen
Community Service 0.3% 1,240 Treatment 2.4% 10,349 School 4.2% 18,117
Juvenile 64.7% 278,143
Parent 27.1% 116,254
Employer 1.3% 5,511
Total number face-toface contacts: 429,614
JIPS Statewide Data - FY00 Contacts with Juveniles by Time of Contact
Weekday
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 732 6,642 2,429 4,358 2,045 1,078 380 40,391 9,649 3,658 20,811 10,819 2,536 6,345 10,232 122,105
Weekday Night Weekend Day Weekend Night
590 2,082 1,334 1,409 1,340 218 44 24,635 3,609 1,194 22,234 3,073 2,221 2,409 13,957 80,349 58 688 496 175 68 105 92 12,723 1,919 516 5,715 2,449 815 1266 3,185 30,270 529 1,473 819 1071 649 157 83 10,793 1086 1,093 13,591 4,181 609 831 8,454 45,419
Total
1,909 10,885 5,078 7,013 4,102 1,558 599 88,542 16,263 6,461 62,351 20,522 6,181 10,851 35,828 278,143
Weekday = Monday - Friday 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Weeknight = Monday - Thursday 6:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. Page 40
Weekend Day = Saturday - Sunday 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Weekend Night = Friday - Sunday 6:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Contacts Summary
Juvenile Office
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 125 3,881 734 1,768 575 345 142 8,083 644 1,645 7,691 1252 2,171 1,499 1,794 32,349
Comm. Field
1,784 7,004 4,344 5,245 3,527 1,213 457
Phone
37 764 462 386 1 5 231 29,526 213 866 1,706 1,621 1066 574 3,856 41,314
School
60 1,503 300 120 520 287 31 6,028 404 214 3,829 1,857 919 1,640 405 18,117
Employer
0 533 110 9 3 0 9 2,289 20 21 1,442 239 201 561 74 5,511
Treatment
21 316 144 211 53 9 41 4,737 55 125 1,594 552 1,202 693 596 10,349
Service
6 140 20 5 0 13 0 60 35 5 494 286 1 124 51 1,240
Parent
434 5,528 1,677 431 1,355 664 201 51,808 4,462 1,061 23,852 5,793 2,303 5,855 10,830 116,254
Total
2,467 19,669 7,791 8,175 6,034 2,536 1,112 182,990 21,452 8,753 95,268 30,870 11,873 20,298 51,640 470,928
80,459 15,619 4,816 54,660 19,270 4,010 9,352 34,034 245,794
ACTIVITY
SYNOPSIS
JIPS emphasizes highly structured activity and requires holding juveniles assigned to JIPS accountable for how they are spending their time. A.R.S. �8-352 requires youth in JIPS to be involved in 32 hours of structured activity per week. The data in this section quantify the hours which youths spent in structured activities. Community service is unpaid work at an approved work site in the community. School and employment are self explanatory, as is treatment. The `Other' category includes time spent in detention, activities approved by the probation officer, parental supervision time and other unique situations such as attending out of state funerals for family members. The purpose of the 32-hour requirement is (1) to structure acceptable activity for youth and (2) to hold youth accountable for how they spend their time. The emphasis in JIPS is on education, and over 37% of the reported hours fall into that category. National research indicates that education and completion of high school or a GED are positive indicators of a successful, law-abiding future. This section also contains data on drug tests. Again, the statutes and administrative order that provide the direction for JIPS are very strong on monitoring compliance with the terms of probation. A standard condition of JIPS is no illegal drug usage; the drug test is the compliance tool for this stipulation. Two types of drug testing are performed in JIPS: the urine test and the breathalyser test. Urine can be tested for a specific substance or for a wide spectrum of substances. The breathalyser test is strictly for alcohol.
Page 42
32-Hour Compliance Data by Type of Activity *
Other 29.1% 707,133
Employment 19.0% 460,467
Community Service 8.4% 204,792 School 37.3% 906,501 Treatment 6.1% 148,364
Total time that juveniles engaged in these structured activities:
Over 2.4 MILLION hours!!
The JIPS program includes a requirement that youth spend at least 32 hours per week in structured activities. These data track compliance with this requirement. *Reported hours are rounded up.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 32-Hour Compliance Data by Type of Activity
Community School Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 11,266.5 36,777.9 18,755.0 21,298.0 19,078.0 8,807.0 2,689.0 281,574.0 60,922.0 27,485.8 194,242.1 53,625.0 15,328.5 45,183.5 109,468.5 906,500.8 Employment 2,086.0 17,735.6 14,774.0 12,870.5 2,526.0 289.0 2,358.5 190,047.0 38,342.0 15,271.9 74,442.2 22,198.5 7,817.0 29,862.0 29,846.5 460,466.7 Treatment 2,481.0 7,506.0 1,540.0 7,628.0 3,293.0 429.0 297.0 59,326.0 8,983.0 5,115.8 19,590.9 5,573.0 5,132.5 7,158.5 14,310.5 148,364.2 Service 1,806.5 13,437.2 1,062.0 4,710.5 3,148.5 2,440.0 271.9 66,798.0 18,339.0 2,918.3 31,450.1 21,641.0 3,944.0 6,817.0 26,007.5 204,791.5 Other 7,269.5 23,904.0 24,334.0 9,634.0 10,392.0 2,842.0 487.0 311,031.0 44,468.0 14,424.7 91,222.0 33,607.0 18,391.0 43,635.5 71,491.2 707,132.9 Total Hours 24,909.5 99,360.7 60,465.0 56,141.0 38,437.5 14,807.0 6,103.4 908,776.0 171,054.0 65,216.5 410,947.3 136,644.5 50,613.0 132,656.5 251,124.2 2,427,256.1
Reported values are actual hours.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Drug Tests
# Administered
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 84 673 140 854 202 123 34 14,283 1,024 347 1,837 808 645 1,920 5,373 28,347
# Positive
47 242 38 92 0 0 5 2,398 125 18 341 97 114 102 159 3,778
# Negative
37 431 102 762 202 123 29 11,885 899 329 1,496 711 531 1,818 5,214 24,569
Drug Free Rate
44.0% 64.0% 72.9% 89.2% 100.0% 100.0% 85.3% 83.2% 87.8% 94.8% 81.4% 88.0% 82.3% 94.7% 97.0% 86.7%
FI N A N C I A L
SYNOPSIS
The graph on page 47 describes the cost per juvenile served for each of the 15 probation departments, as well as the cost per youth served for the state, based on actual expenditures. Variances among departments exist, both in number of youth served and, correspondingly, in cost per youth served. For example, cost per youth served is typically higher in small departments which do not serve a large number of youth. The term retained, on page 48, is defined as those dollars which are not disbursed to the individual departments, but are used for projects which benefit all the departments. JOLTS and officer training are two examples of such expenditures. The budget section reflects funds expended by each department in providing services to youth. Administrative funds are used by the Juvenile Justice Services Division to administer the JIPS program. Administrative costs accounted for 3.3% of the FY00 statewide expenditures for JIPS. JIPS Detention costs are not calculated in state totals. For discussion concerning JIPS detention please see page 59.
Page 46
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00
Cost per Juvenile
C o s t per Juvenile E x p e n d e d Funds J u v e n i l e s Served
4,686,492 214,224 533,695 426,617 224,903
86,962
71,376
61,652
5,356
3,421
4,587
2,710
1,739
4,758
5,605 1,681
2,788
156 40
93
83
50 15 11 LaPaz Maricopa
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
11,621,571 1,927,223 556,201 302,602 391,122 321,558 445,027 804,779
2,943
2,855 643
2,997
2,069
4,799
2,342 296
2,719
3,809
3,051
189
106
189
67
190
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Statewide
Cost per Juvenile based on number of Juveniles Served.
Statewide Expenditures include admin. & retained costs.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Increases (and Decreases) Over FY 99
EXPENDED FUNDS FY99 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham* Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa* Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal* Santa Cruz Yavapai* Yuma* Subtotal Retained** Admin. Statewide $150,263 $507,131 $422,131 $194,115 $88,594 $71,054 $67,908 $4,503,684 $571,728 $298,576 $2,016,219 $357,475 $320,104 $494,966 $822,781 $410,613 FY00 $214,224 $533,695 $426,617 $224,903 $86,962 $71,376 $61,652 $4,686,492 $556,201 $302,602 $1,927,223 $391,122 $321,558 $445,027 $804,779 $567,138 $ Increase (Decrease) $63,961 $26,564 $4,486 $30,788 ($1,632) $322 ($6,256) $182,808 ($15,527) $4,026 ($88,996) $33,647 $1,454 ($49,939) ($18,002) $167,704 $156,525 $20,510 $344,739 %Increase (Decrease) 42.6% 5.2% 1.1% 15.9% (1.8)% 0.5% (9.2)% 4.1% (2.7)% 1.3% (4.4)% 9.4% 0.5% (10.1)% (2.2)% 1.5% 38.1% 5.6% 3.0% 3,799 3,809 10 0.3% $3,071 $3,051 ($20) (0.6)% 29 146 97 101 47 19 16 1,719 181 132 626 168 61 162 295 3,799 40 156 93 83 50 15 11 1,681 189 106 643 189 67 190 296 3,809 FY99 JUVENILES SERVED FY00 # Increase (Decrease) 11 10 (4) (18) 3 (4) (5) (38) 8 (26) 17 21 6 28 1 10 %Increase (Decrease) 37.9% 6.8% (4.1)% (17.8)% 6.4% (21.1)% (31.3)% (2.2)% 4.4% (19.7)% 2.7% 12.5% 9.8% 17.3% 0.3% 0.3% $5,182 $3,474 $4,352 $1,922 $1,885 $3,740 $4,245 $2,620 $3,159 $2,262 $3,221 $2,128 $5,248 $3,056 $2,790 $2,866 $5,356 $3,421 $4,587 $2,710 $1,739 $4,758 $5,605 $2,788 $2,943 $2,855 $2,997 $2,069 $4,799 $2,342 $2,719 $2,902 FY99 COST PER YOUTH SERVED FY00 $ Increase (Decrease) $174 ($53) $235 $788 ($146) $1,018 $1,360 $168 ($216) $593 ($224) ($59) ($449) ($714) ($71) $36 %Increase (Decrease) 3.4% (1.5)% 5.4% 41.0% (7.7)% 27.2% 32.0% 6.4% (6.8)% 26.2% (6.9)% (2.8)% (8.5)% (23.4)% (2.6)% 1.3%
$10,886,729 $11,054,433 $367,290 $387,800 $11,664,632 $11,621,571
* For comparitive purposes, expended funds for FY 99 and FY 00 do not include JIPS detention costs. ** An additional $465,000 was transferred to JPSF
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES UBSEQUENT
SYNOPSIS
O f the 3,809 youth who were in the program during FY00, 2,112 were again referred to the court during the reporting period. The ratio of these two figures is called the recidivism rate, and for FY00 it was 55.4%. The majority of these subsequent offenses were for violations of probation. The proportion of offense severities among youth who enter the program for the first time are very different from those of juveniles already on JIPS who reoffend. For example, 51.7% of all subsequent offenses were for Obstruction, while this offense category accounted for only 31.8% % of all new cases (compare charts on pages 27 and 33). These observations are consistent with national trends regarding juvenile intensive probation programs. The reason for the shift in the proportion of offense severities is twofold. First, the more one sees an individual, the more one is likely to spot infractions. Second, and less obvious, the s e v e r i t y of severity infractions, by percentage, will decrease over time due to the increased vigilance. Another example often used to explain this shift is traffic violations. Most of us would be more likely to receive traffic citations if we were watched more closely each time we drove, especially if we were ticketed each time we drove one mile per hour over the speed limit. In the same way, youth on the JIPS program are more likely to be cited for small infractions, like Obstruction. In some departments, JIPS youth are referred to the court if they miss a day of school, if they are five minutes late getting home, or if they skip a day's work. Within the broader context, these activities are not as severe as criminal activities such as assaults or shoplifting. However, they all fall into the category of offenses and are captured by the JOLTS system as such. The top three offense categories for reoffenders were Obstruction (51.7%), Peace (14.0%) and Grand Theft (9.0%). These three categories account for 75% of all offenses committed by youth on JIPS during FY00. The terminology used in this section is the same as that used in the `New Cases' section. Please refer to page 25.
Page 49
Subsequent Offenses by Severity Type
Violence 3.3% 293
Citation 1.0% 87
Obstruction 51.7% 4,528
Fight 4.3% 379
Drugs 5.1% 448 Theft 5.3% 462
Status 6.3% 549
Grand Theft 9.0% 784 Peace 14.0% 1,227
Total number of subsequent offenses: 8,757
Subsequent Offenses by Severity Type
Total Subsequent Offenses: 8,757
5000
4,528
4000
3000
2000
1,227 784
1000
293
379
448
462
549 87
0 Grand Theft Fight Violence Obstruction Peace Drugs Theft Status Citation
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Subsequent Offenses By Severity Type
Violence # %
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 2 4 5 2 1 1 0 144 8 20 72 5 10 5 14 293 1.9 0.8 2.9 1.4 1.1 3.7 0.0 5.6 3.8 10.0 4.8 0.9 5.4 2.5 0.6 3.3
Grand Theft # %
25 21 6 6 7 1 2 353 10 5 255 30 22 19 22 784 23.6 4.0 3.5 4.1 8.0 3.7 14.3 13.8 4.7 2.5 16.9 5.5 12.0 9.5 1.0 9.0
Obstruction # %
61 327 64 68 36 13 6 960 97 62 333 387 52 73 1,989 4,528 57.5 62.9 37.6 46.9 40.9 48.1 42.9 37.4 46.0 30.8 22.0 70.4 28.3 36.3 87.9 51.7
Fight # %
2 25 4 8 1 2 0 121 16 12 104 10 14 8 52 379 1.9 4.8 2.4 5.5 1.1 7.4 0.0 4.7 7.6 6.0 6.9 1.8 7.6 4.0 2.3 4.3
Drugs # %
2 26 12 11 7 1 1 146 12 21 165 11 11 5 17 448 1.9 5.0 7.1 7.6 8.0 3.7 7.1 5.7 5.7 10.4 10.9 2.0 6.0 2.5 0.8 5.1
Peace # %
6 64 59 37 15 5 2 425 33 47 268 51 64 59 92 5.7 12.3 34.7 25.5 17.0 18.5 14.3 16.6 15.6 23.4 17.7 9.3 34.8 29.4 4.1
Theft # %
7 19 6 2 9 3 2 196 11 14 126 17 5 17 28 462 6.6 3.7 3.5 1.4 10.2 11.1 14.3 7.6 5.2 7.0 8.3 3.1 2.7 8.5 1.2 5.3
Status # %
1 30 14 10 12 1 1 176 21 13 188 28 6 15 33 549 0.9 5.8 8.2 6.9 13.6 3.7 7.1 6.9 10.0 6.5 12.4 5.1 3.3 7.5 1.5 6.3
Citation # %
0 4 0 1 0 0 0 45 3 7 0 11 0 0 16 87 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.4 3.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0
Total #
106 520 170 145 88 27 14 2,566 211 201 1,511 550 184 201 2,263 8,757
1 , 2 2 7 14.0
Under each offense category (e.g., Grand Theft), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Gila). In the example given, Gila had 6 subsequent grand theft offenses, which accounted for 4.1% of Gila's total subsequent offenses for the year (145). Percentages total across, not down.
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Recidivism Data for Youth Served
TOTAL SERVED #
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 40 156 93 83 50 15 11 1,681 189 106 643 189 67 190 296 3,809
SUBSEQUENT NON-OFFENDERS # %
12 65 40 38 24 11 6 692 105 60 327 84 30 111 92 1,697 30.0% 41.7% 43.0% 45.8% 48.0% 73.3% 54.5% 41.2% 55.6% 56.6% 50.9% 44.4% 44.8% 58.4% 31.1% 44.6%
# 28 91 53 45 26 4 5 989 84 46 316 105 37 79 204 2,112
SUBSEQUENT OFFENDERS % # Subsequent (Recidivism Rate) Offenses
70.0% 58.3% 57.0% 54.2% 52.0% 26.7% 45.5% 58.8% 44.4% 43.4% 49.1% 55.6% 55.2% 41.6% 68.9% 55.4% 106 520 170 145 88 27 14 2,566 211 201 1,511 550 184 201 2,263 8,757
CASES CLOSED ASES
SYNOPSIS
When a youth is released from the program, their case under JIPS, is considered closed. A juvenile can be released from JIPS for seven reasons. The phrases used to identify these reasons are: R e l e a s e d from Probation, Turned 18, Committed to Arizona Department of Juvenile C o r r e c t i o n s (ADJC), Transferred to Adult Court, Released to Regular Probation, Transferred to Another Jurisdiction and Other Closures. Transferred Closures Closures from the program are viewed as successful or unsuccessful. Two categories are considered unsuccessful closures: C o m m i t t e d to ADJC and T r a n s f e r r e d to Adult Court. Committed Transferred Court Youth in these categories were terminated from JIPS due to a subsequent offense. A main focus of JIPS is to prevent future criminal activity, so such cases are viewed as unsuccessful closures. Note that the majority of youth who reoffend remain in JIPS because their infractions are not severe enough to merit being sent to ADJC or to adult court. Successful closures are defined as youth who are released from the program because they have no charges pending against them, and because they are exhibiting law abiding behavior. These categories are considered successful closures: R e l e a s e d to Regular Probation, Turned 18, Released and Released from Probation. Probation Just because a JIPS case is closed does not necessarily mean that the individual is released from court jurisdiction. R e l e a s e d to Regular Probation is considered a successful closure because Released the juvenile earned release from JIPS to standard probation. Upon their 18th birthday, according to Arizona law, an individual reaches the "age of majority" and becomes an adult. Consequently, that individual is no longer considered a juvenile, and is not legally under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. T u r n e d 18 is included in the successful Turned category because the youth refrained from committing any subsequent offenses prior to turning 18. If the youth had reoffended prior to turning 18, he or she would be listed under a different closure category. R e l e a s e d from Probation means the juvenile met all the requirements of the program and was released from court jurisdiction. Graphs depicting both the percentage and number of positive case outcomes for the last ten years of the program can be found on pages 5 and 6 of this report.
Page 54
Outcomes of Cases Closed
568 560 528
600
Total Cases Closed: 2,170
500
400
262
300
200
83
123
100
46
0
Turned 18 ADJC Released from Probation Regular Probation
Other Jurisdiction Adult Court Other Closures
Page 55
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Outcomes of Cases Closed
Released From Probation # % Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 5 22 30 17 12 3 2 143 46 23 122 15 8 39 81 568 20.0 25.0 50.0 37.0 42.9 37.5 28.6 15.0 46.0 32.4 33.5 14.9 20.0 36.1 47.6 26.2 Turned 18 # % 3 9 6 7 0 1 0 123 7 12 20 18 10 22 24 262 12.0 10.2 10.0 15.2 0.0 12.5 0.0 12.9 7.0 16.9 5.5 17.8 25.0 20.4 14.1 12.1 Released to Regular Probation # % 4 29 15 10 7 3 2 390 12 12 0 12 6 27 31 560 16.0 33.0 25.0 21.7 25.0 37.5 28.6 40.9 12.0 16.9 0.0 11.9 15.0 25.0 18.2 25.8 Committed to ADJC # % 6 16 7 8 4 0 1 225 31 9 134 37 8 12 30 528 24.0 18.2 11.7 17.4 14.3 0.0 14.3 23.6 31.0 12.7 36.8 36.6 20.0 11.1 17.6 24.3 Transferred to Adult Court # % 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 50 2 2 13 7 1 0 0 83 0.0 1.1 1.7 4.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 5.2 2.0 2.8 3.6 6.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.8 Transferred to Another Jurisdiction # % 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 6 2 5 2 10 7 4 3 46 8.0 2.3 1.7 0.0 3.6 12.5 0.0 0.6 2.0 7.0 0.5 9.9 17.5 3.7 1.8 2.1 Other Closures # % 5 9 0 2 0 0 2 17 0 8 73 2 0 4 1 123 20.0 10.2 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 28.6 1.8 0.0 11.3 20.1 2.0 0.0 3.7 0.6 5.7 Total # 25 88 60 46 28 8 7 954 100 71 364 101 40 108 170 2,170
Under each closure type (e.g., Committed to ADJC), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Graham). In the example given, Graham had 4 cases closed by being committed to ADJC. These 4 cases accounted for 14.3% of Graham's total closures for the year (28).
JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Cases Closed - Positive Outcome
Total Terminations #
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 25 88 60 46 28 8 7 954 100 71 364 101 40 108 170 2,170
Released From Probation #
5 22 30 17 12 3 2 143 46 23 122 15 8 39 81 568
Released to Standard Probation #
4 29 15 10 7 3 2 390 12 12 0 12 6 27 31 560
Turned 18 #
3 9 6 7 0 1 0 123 7 12 20 18 10 22 24 262
#
12 60 51 34 19 7 4 656 65 47 142 45 24 88 136
Successful Release
%
48.00% 68.18% 85.00% 73.91% 67.86% 87.50% 57.14% 68.76% 65.00% 66.20% 39.01% 44.55% 60.00% 81.48% 80.00% 64.06%
1,390
JIPS DETENTION P ROGRAM ETENTION
SYNOPSIS
Detention funding for FY00 had two components. The first component was the JIPS detention program. The legislature provided funding to the JIPS program to detain JIPS probation violators. Programs from Maricopa, Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma were selected to be funded. A total of $680,000 of the allocated $955,000 was disbursed to these departments. For comparison purposes, the JIPS program costs listed on pages 47 and 48 of this report are not inclusive of the JIPS detention awards. On the following pages, charts detail the juveniles served in each department as well as statewide totals. For FY00, a total population of 819 juveniles spent 15,071 days in detention for an average cost of $830.28 per juvenile. The second component of JIPS Detention funding was utilized as part of the Statewide New Detention Construction program. $275,000 was allocated to Graham county for the new Regional Graham/Greenlee Juvenile Detention Center.
Page 58
The following tables reflect program population information Number of Number J u v e n i l e s Served Juveniles 422 50 70 277 819
Department Maricopa Pinal Yavapai Yuma Statewide
F Y 0 0 Allocation $417,000 $417,000 $96,800 $96,800 $93,700 $93,700 $72,500 $72,500 $680,000 $680,000
% Utilized 94% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 96%
C o s t Per Juvenile $988.15 $1,936.00 $1,338.57 $261.73 $830.28
Department Maricopa Pinal Yavapai Yuma Statewide
N u m b e r of juveniles N u m b e r of juveniles N u m b e r of Juvenile in N u m b e r of days w h o completed w h o did not complete Program j u v e n i l e were detained program program 422 50 70 277 819 1 2 , 6 6 0 days 6 0 0 days 9 8 0 days 8 3 1 days 1 5 , 0 7 1 days 388 39 70 252 749 34 11` 0 25 70
Successful Successful c o m p l e t i o n rate completion 92% 78% 100% 91% 91%
Page 59
FY 1 9 9 9 - FY 2 0 0 0 1999 FY 2000 STATEWIDE COMPARISON TATEWIDE
SYNOPSIS
The FY00 Annual Report is the fifth annual report based on the data elements captured on the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS). Previous to FY98, management was challenged by the availability of the data to decide what elements were more useful in achieving the desired program outcomes. The FY00 report challenges management again to determine which elements achieve the desired results and to compare program performance from one year to the next. In determining program performance, some data elements are subject to interpretation. An increase in cost per juvenile could be viewed negatively, however, with the increase of successful outcomes and the decreased numbers of juveniles committed to ADJC, the increased costs could be viewed positively as an indicator of the program. Other elements such as time, location and person contacted by JIPS officers or percentage of drug tests showing no illegal substance usage by the probationer seem more objective.
Category Total Youth Served Youth with New Offenses In Program Recidivism Rate Including Violations of Probation New Offenses Including Violations of Probation Offenses Per Offender Including Violations of Probation Successful Closure Rate Number of Successful Closures Page 60
FY99 3,794 2,219 55.3% 8,008 3.82 68.99% 1,315
FY00 3,809 2,112 55.4% 8,757 4.14 64.06% 1,390
FY 1999 - FY 2000 Statewide Comparison Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision
Percentage of Change
4.52% 0.40% 13.85% 3.65% 12.15% 4.80% (1.53)% 16.74% 13.28% 5.77% (7.05)% (2.42)% 3.51% 116.67% (19.16)% 4.80% 11.41% 10.33% 13.98% 0.73% (8.05)% 5.95% (13.95)% 5.44% 37.89% 35.29% (4.00)% 4.13% 4.80%
Category Population
Total Youth Placed in Program Total Youth Served Total Closures
FY 1999
2,123 3,794 1,906 1,835 288 2,123 131 448 625 104 227 207 114 6 261 2,123 149 184 186 273 261 252 215 147 95 68 75 218 2,123
FY 2000
2,219 3,809 2,170 1,902 323 2,225 129 523 708 110 211 202 118 13 211 2,225 166 203 212 275 240 267 185 155 131 92 72 227 2,225
Change
96 15 264 67 35 102 (2) 75 83 6 (16) (5) 4 7 (50) 102 17 19 26 2 (21) 15 (30) 8 36 24 (3) 9 102
Gender
Males Females Total Juveniles
New Cases by Severity Type
Felonies Against Person Felonies Against Property Obstruction of Justice: Fel & Misd Misdemeanors Against Person Drugs: Fel & Misd Public Peace: Fel & Misd Misdemeanors Against Property Status Offenses Citations/Administrative Total New Cases
New Cases by Prior Referrals
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ Total New Cases
Page 61
FY 1999 - FY 2000 Statewide Comparison
Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (Cont.)
Category New Cases by Prior Adjudications
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ Total New Cases 587 616 460 261 95 54 27 10 6 0 2 5 2,123 114,887 78,859 29,265 42,654 265,665 29,126 236,539 32,791 17,120 5,089 13,678 1,314 129,056 464,713 911,978.4 486,269.6 172,117.5 189,487.4 647,808.6 2,407,661.5 492 573 451 320 166 94 44 27 23 11 5 13 2,219 122,105 80,349 30,270 45,419 278,143 32,349 245,794 41,314 18,117 5,511 10,349 1,240 116,254 470,928 906,501 460,467 148,364 204,792 707,133 2,427,256 (95) (43) (9) 59 71 40 17 17 17 11 3 8 96 7,218 1,490 1,005 2,765 12,478 3,223 9,255 8,523 997 422 (3,329) (74) (12,802) 6,215 (5,478) (25,803) (23,753) 15,304 59,324 19,595 (16.18)% (6.98)% (1.96)% 22.61% 74.74% 74.07% 62.96% 170.00% 283.33% #DIV/0! 150.00% 160.00% 4.52% 6.28% 1.89% 3.43% 6.48% 4.70% 11.07% 3.91% 25.99% 5.82% 8.29% (24.34)% (5.63)% (9.92)% 1.34% (0.60)% (5.31)% (13.80)% 8.08% 9.16% 0.81%
FY 1999
FY 2000
Change
Percentage of Change
Contacts w/Juveniles by Time of Contact
Weekday Weekday Night Weekend Weekend Night Total Contacts
Contacts Summary
Juvenile in Office Juvenile in Field Phone School Employer Treatment Community Service Parent Total Contacts
32-Hour Compliance Data by Type of Activity
School Employment Treatment Community Service Other Total Compliance Hours
Page 62
FY 1999 - FY 2000 Statewide Comparison
Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (Cont.)
Category Drug Tests
Number Administered Number Positive Number Negative Drug Free Rate 27,406 3,631 23,775 86.75% 251 752 3,702 354 481 1,225 512 673 58 8,008 3,794 1,695 2,099 8,008 44.68% 447 265 603 445 8 54 84 1,906 1,315 68.99% 28,347 3,778 24,569 86.67% 293 784 4,528 379 448 1,227 462 549 87 8,757 3,809 1,697 2,112 8,738 44.55% 568 262 560 528 83 46 123 2,170 1,390 64.06% 941 147 794 (0.08)% 42 32 826 25 (33) 2 (50) (124) 29 749 15 2 13 730 (0.12)% 121 (3) (43) 83 75 (8) 39 264 75 (4.94)% 3.43% 4.05% 3.34% (0.09)% 16.73% 4.26% 22.31% 7.06% (6.86)% 0.16% (9.77)% (18.42)% 50.00% 9.35% 0.40% 0.12% 0.62% 9.12% (0.28)% 27.07% (1.13)% (7.13)% 18.65% 937.50% (14.81)% 46.43% 13.85% 5.70% (7.16)%
FY 1999
FY 2000
Change
Percentage of Change
Subsequent Offenses by Severity Type
Violence Grand Theft Obstruction Fight Drugs Peace Theft Status Citation Total Subsequent Offenses
Recidivism Data for Youth Served
Total Served Subsequent Non-Offenders Subsequent Offenders Subsequent Offenses Crime Free Rate
Outcomes of Cases Closed
Released from Probation Turned 18 Released to Regular Probation Committed to ADJC Transferred to Adult Court Transferred to Another Jurisdiction Other Closures Total Closures Successful Closures Successful Closure Rate
Page 63
LONGITUDINAL C OMPARISONS
SYNOPSIS
One measure of good programs is the ability to consistently produce positive outcomes over time. Some programs can generate initial success which fades as the program becomes institutionalized and the initial enthusiasm for the program has waned. A longitudinal comparison will point to the generalized direction of the program in terms of key indicators. Is the direction of the program in sync with the manager's intended goals for the program? Or are the program goals being accomplished? Are the desired results being achieved? A longitudinal comparison provides the macro view needed to address programmatic concerns relating to performance. The intent of this section is to examine JIPS over time against key program measures. By presenting hard data it can be determined if the edge still remains with the program. Several tables and graphs throughout this report speak to this issue. The graph on page 7 entitled "positive outcome - percentages" and the companion graph on page 6 "Positive outcome - numbers" speak to one such outcome measure. The following ten key indicators have been selected to measure the direction of the JIPS program. Taken in the aggregate, these indicators will prove to be representative of program performance over time. Three other indicators, percentage of juveniles attending school, restitution amount collected and probation fees collected will be included in future reports. Data to quantify these three measure were not available for the fiscal years included in this comparison. Each of the measures selected are listed below. Along with the measure is a brief explanation of the measure and an interpretation of a positive direction. ~ Y o u t h Served The total number of juveniles who participated in the program by itself, is a neutral measure. It is utilized as a baseline measure and is to be taken in the context of other measures such as cost per juvenile served, successful completion rate and such. C o s t per Youth Served Total program expenditures divided by total youth served, is a good financial barometer. Financial responsibility for public funds would dictate this number not escalate unnecessarily and, wherever possible, economies of scale be utilized.
~
Page 64
~
C r i m e Free: Juveniles/Rate An increase in the number of juveniles who were referral free while in the program during the time period being measured. An increase in the rate is a positive indicator.
~
O f f e n s e Rate- All Offenses (Inclusive of technical violations) This measure looks at only those youth who committed an offense while in the program. Included here are all referrals including technical and new criminal offense. Please refer to page 35 for a more detailed explanation. The rate is achieved by dividing the number of offenses by the number of juveniles who committed an offense as shown in the table. Since a crime free life style is a goal of JIPS, a decrease in the rate is desired.
~
O f f e n s e Rate - New Criminal Offenses (Exclusive of technical, status and peace) A measure of the youth who committed new criminal offenses while in the program looks at new criminal offenses and excludes technical and status violations. The rate is achieved by dividing the number of offenses by the number of juveniles who committed an offense as shown in the table. A decrease in the rate is the desired outcome.
~
A v e r a g e Annual Contacts per Juvenile/Frequency of Contacts A measure of the average number of contacts with juveniles during the time period. Frequency speaks to the time between contact. Only contact with juveniles, exclusive of parental and ancillary contact are reported. An increase in the number of contacts with a corresponding decrease in frequency is desired. Percentage of Night Contact Percentage A measure of when juveniles are being seen is important. A program goal is that a minimum of 30% of contacts are to occur during night hours. Night contacts are important because that is proven as the time when most juveniles engage in criminal activity.
~
~
C o m m u n i t y Service Hours: Total Hours/Monetary Value A measure of juveniles paying back to the community for the cost of supervision is important. The monetary value is achieved by multiplying the total number of community service hours by the current minimum wage of $5.50.
~
S u c c e s s f u l Outcomes - Total Juveniles Successful outcomes refer to juveniles who left the program crime free. The closure categories of "release from JIPS", "release from probation" and "turned 18" are the basis for this measure. The raw number may increase as an indicator of program growth.
~
S u c c e s s f u l Outcomes - Percentage A s a companion to the previous measure, this is the relational side of successful outcomes and speaks to the percentage of successful outcomes against all case closures. An increase in the percentage is a desired outcome. Nationally, intensive probation programs have a 50% successful outcome rate. Page 65
These ten program components have been selected due to their relationship with program performance. Taken in the aggregate, these indicators best speak to the performance of JIPS over the last three fiscal years. The comparison table which follows incorporates these elements by fiscal year beginning with FY97. Measure Youth Served Cost per Youth Served Crime Free - Juveniles Rate Offense Rate All Offenses Offense Rate New Criminal Offenses Average Annual Contacts per Juvenile Frequency of Contacts Percent of Night Contact Community Service Hours: Total Hours Monetary Value Successful Outcomes Total Juveniles Successful Outcomes Percent 61.0% 60.1% 69.0% 64.1% 1,140 1,197 1,315 1,390 150,418 $774,652.70 164,491 $847,128.65 191,473 $1,054,586.50* 204,792 $1,126,356.00 72.50 46% 73.05 44.50% 70.02 45.74% 73.10 45.22% Every 5.0 days Every 4.9 days Every 4.9 days Every 4.9 days FY97 3,301 $2,826 1,220 36.9% 8,533 / 2,081 4.10% 2,582 / 2,081 1.24% FY98 3,854 $2,793 1,403 36.4% 9,800 / 2,451 3.99% 2,586 / 2,451 1.05% FY99 3,794 $3,084 3,794 45.0% 8,008 / 2,099 3.82% 2,350 / 2,099 1.12% FY00 3,809 $3,051 1,697 44.55% 8,471 / 2,166 3.91 2,509 / 2,166 1.15
*Minimum wage was increased in FY99 from $5.15 to $5.50.
Page 66
Cases Closed - Historical Comparison
Cases Closed - History FY90-FY99
Other Closures 2.8% 383
Cases Closed FY00
Other Closures 5.7% 123 Released from Probation 26.2% 568
Released from Probation 19.5% 2,669 Other Jurisdiction 3.1% 420
Regular Probation 31.2% 4,280
Regular Probation 25.8% 560
Other Jurisdiction 2.1% 46 Adult Court 1.5% 212 Adult Court 3.8% 83 Turned 18 12.1% 262 ADJC 29.2% 3,999 ADJC 24.3% 528
Turned 18 12.8% 1,750
Total Cases Closed FY 90 -FY99: 13,641
Total Cases Closed FY 00: 2,170
JIPS Statewide Data Cases Closed by Fiscal Year
FY90
Released from Probation Turned 18 Released to Regular Probation Committed to ADJC Transferred to Adult Court Transferred to Another Jurisdiction Other Closures TOTAL CASES CLOSED 201 26.5% 112 14.8% 177 23.3% 225 29.6% 7 0.9% 16 2.1% 21 2.8% 759
FY91
238 23.5% 155 15.3% 270 26.7% 291 28.8% 8 0.8% 29 2.9% 21 2.1% 1,012
FY92
162 13.4% 140 11.5% 491 40.5% 345 28.4% 19 1.6% 35 2.9% 21 1.7% 1,213
FY93
156 12.7% 145 11.8% 456 37.3% 362 29.6% 23 1.9% 38 3.1% 44 3.6% 1,224
FY94
193 14.0% 159 11.5% 557 40.3% 403 29.2% 23 1.7% 30 2.2% 17 1.2% 1,382
FY95
243 17.4% 188 13.4% 492 35.2% 381 27.3% 26 1.9% 29 2.1% 39 2.8% 1,398
FY96
295 21.4% 130 9.4% 507 36.8% 334 24.3% 47 3.4% 53 3.9% 10 0.7% 1,376
FY97
364 19.5% 210 11.2% 566 30.3% 584 31.2% 42 2.2% 69 3.7% 36 1.9% 1,871
FY98
370 18.6% 246 12.3% 581 29.2% 629 31.6% 9 0.5% 67 3.4% 90 4.5% 1,992
FY99
447 23.5% 265 14.1% 603 31.4% 445 23.1% 8 0.4% 54 2.7% 84 4.3% 1,906
FY00
568 26.2% 262 12.1% 560 25.8% 528 24.3% 83 3.8% 46 2.1% 123 5.7% 2,170
Historical Age Placed on JIPS FY96 - FY00*
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Unknown 8 9 10 11 12 Juvenile Age 13 14 15 16 17
Legend
FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00
JIPS Statewide Data - FY00 Age When Placed on JIPS by Fiscal Year
FY96
Age
Unknown 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Totals 0 0 0 0 11 34 134 341 537 590 507 2,154 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51% 1.58% 6.22% 15.83% 24.93% 27.39% 23.54% 100% 2 0 1 21 14 47 120 374 545 738 565 2,427
FY97
0.08% 0.00% 0.04% 0.87% 0.58% 1.94% 4.94% 15.41% 22.46% 30.41% 23.28% 100% 3 0 2 3 14 56
FY98
0.11% 0.00% 0.07% 0.11% 0.52% 2.06% 6.48% 12.62% 23.14% 28.29% 26.60% 100% 2 0 0 5 13 36
FY99
0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.51% 1.40% 5.56% 13.49% 23.33% 27.80% 27.64% 100% 4 1 1 3 9 45 174 379 555 687 694 2,552
FY00
Percent
0.16% 0.04% 0.04% 0.12% 0.35% 1.76% 6.82% 14.85% 21.75% 26.92% 27.19% 100%
Juveniles Percent Juveniles Percent Juveniles Percent Juveniles Percent Juveniles
176 343 629 769 723 2,718
143 347 600 715 711 2,572
Information from "Juveniles Processed in The Arizona Court System FY96, FY97, FY98, FY99, FY00"
Page 70
GLOSSARY
ADJUDICATION CITATIONS/ ADMIN. COMMITMENT DELINQUENCY COMPLAINT DELINQUENT DELINQUENT OFFENSE DETENTION A formal finding of guilt; the equivalent of a conviction in adult court. Suicide attempt, court hold, courtesy hold, dependency, immigration, material witness, sovereignty, traffic, or warrant. The action of a judicial officer ordering an adjudicated delinquent youth into the custody of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). A report prepared by a law enforcement agency and submitted to the court alleging that a juvenile has violated a criminal law. A juvenile who has been adjudicated by a judicial officer as having committed a delinquent offense. An act which would be considered a criminal offense if committed by an adult. The legally authorized temporary holding in confinement of a juvenile until the point of release or commitment to a correctional facility. This includes custody while awaiting further court action. Detention may also be ordered by the court as a condition of probation. (1) The formal resolution of a case by a court; (2) the action, by a criminal or juvenile justice agency, which signifies that a portion of the justice process is complete and jurisdiction is relinquished or transferred to another agency. Possession, use, sale, smuggling, or manufacturing any illegal drug (dangerous, narcotic, toxic substance, hallucinogen, or prescription), sniffing, drug paraphernalia, involving minor in drug offense, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. (Crimes against persons, in most cases, misdemeanors) - Assault, simple assault, domestic violence, endangerment, threatening intimidation, lewd and lascivious acts, unlawful imprisonment, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. Crimes against property, in most cases, felonies - Aggravated criminal damage, criminal damage, shoplifting, arson of unoccupied structure, armed burglary, burglary, computer fraud, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, unauthorized use of vehicle, organized crime, failure to return rental property, trafficking, possession of stolen property, stolen vehicle, theft, or the conspiracy of or attempted commission of any of these offenses.
DISPOSITION
DRUGS
FIGHT
GRAND THEFT
Page 71
INCORRIGIBLE CHILD
A child adjudicated as one who refuses to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of his parent, guardian or custodian, and who is beyond the control of such persons. Any child who is habitually truant from school, or who is a runaway from his home or parent, guardian or custodian, or who habitually so deports himself or others, or who commits any act constituting an offense which can only be committed by a minor, or who violates the A.R.S., �4-244 paragraph 9, or who fails to obey any lawful orders of the juvenile court given in a noncriminal action. A person between the ages of 8 and 17, inclusive. A child adjudicated as one who refuses to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of his parent, guardian or custodian, and who is beyond the control of such persons. Any child who is habitually truant from school, or who is a runaway from his home or parent, guardian or custodian, or who habitually so deports himself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of himself or others, or who commits any act constituting an offense which can only be committed by a minor, or who violates A.R.S. �4-244, paragraph 9, or who fails to obey any lawful order of the juvenile court given in a noncriminal action. (Disturbing the peace, etc.) - Abortion, aggravated DUI, carry concealed weapon, child neglect, commercial sex, contributing to delinquency of a minor, crime against nature, cruelty to animals disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, drunkenness, eavesdropping, false reporting, failure to stop, failure to appear, firework violation, gambling/gaming, harassment, indecent exposure, obscenity, prostitution, reckless burning, reckless driving, riot, public sexual indecency, speeding, traffic offenses, trespassing, criminal trespassing, unlawful assembly, weapons offenses, discharge firearm, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. A document filed by the county attorney in juvenile court alleging that a juvenile has committed an offense, and asking that the court proceed to a finding of guilt. A court-ordered disposition placing an adjudicated youth under the control, supervision and care of the court, and under the supervision of a probation officer. The youth is further ordered to abide by specific terms and conditions. The incidence of subsequent referrals by juveniles already on probation. A document that lists the offense (or offenses) that a juvenile is accused of committing. This document is furthermore a request by police, parents, school or other authorities that the juvenile court take appropriate action concerning a youth alleged to have committed a delinquent or incorrigible act. A giving back to the rightful owner of something that has been lost or taken away; restoration. Specifically, an amend, usually financial, made by a juvenile offender to his/her victim, as ordered by the court.
JUVENILE OBSTRUCTION
PEACE
PETITION PROBATION
RECIDIVISM REFERRAL
RESTITUTION
Page 72
REVOCATION
In this report, revocation refers to an official action by the juvenile court resulting in a juvenile's removal from JIPS and commitment to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. In other contexts, revocation may include official action resulting in a juvenile's reinstatement to probation, transfer to adult court, or other disposition. (Incorrigible, runaway, etc.) - Curfew, consuming alcohol, incorrigible, liquor possession, runaway, tobacco possession, truancy, or minor consuming. An act or conduct which is declared by statute to be an offense, but only when committed or engaged in by a juvenile. Typical status offenses include running away from home, truancy, possession of an alcoholic beverage, and being incorrigible. Technical violation refers to an act by a probationer contrary to his or her conditions or terms of probation, e.g. curfew violation, failure to attend school, failure to perform community service, and/or failure to advise probation officer of change of residence. A petition to revoke probation or a request to modify probation may be filed due to technical violation(s). A probation officer may mete out specific consequences, short of filing a petition to revoke, for technical violations. Termination refers to an official act by the juvenile court resulting in a juvenile's outright release or discharge from court jurisdiction Crimes against persons, in most cases, misdemeanors - Criminal damage, issue bad check, theft, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. A probationer's failure to conform to the terms and conditions of his/her probation. Violation of probation refers to acts committed by a probationer resulting in the filing of a petition and in an adjudication. Adjudication for violation of probation may result in a juvenile being committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) or in other disposition available to the juvenile court, e.g. placement in residential treatment, placement in detention, reinstatement to probation, and/or reinstatement with modifications of probation conditions. (Felony against person) - Aggravated assault, arson of occupied structure, child molesting, child prostitution, child abuse, criminal syndicate, custodial interference, drive-by shooting, kidnaping, endangerment, homicide, incest, leaving accident, manslaughter, murder, robbery, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual conduct with minor, or the conspiracy of or attempted commission of any of these offenses.
STATUS STATUS OFFENSE TECHNICAL VIOLATION
TERMINATION THEFT VIOLATION OF PROBATION
VIOLENCE
Page 73
Object Description
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Annual report / Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision |
| CREATOR | Arizona. Administrative Office of the Courts |
| SUBJECT | Juvenile courts--Arizona--Statistics; Judicial statistics--Arizona; Juvenile probation--Arizona--Statistics; |
| Browse Topic |
Crime and violence Government and politics |
| DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Arizona. Office of the Courts. Juvenile Justice Services Division. |
| TYPE |
Text |
| Material Collection |
Annual Reports State Documents |
| Acquisition Note | http://www.supreme.state.az.us/jjsd/JIPS/jips_reports.htm |
| Source Identifier | SC 1.3:J 88 |
| Location | 30912507 |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
| TITLE | Juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS) annual report fiscal year 2000 |
| DESCRIPTION | 78 pages (PDF version). File size: 1058.427 KB. April 2001. |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2001-04 |
| Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born digital |
| Source Identifier | SC 1.3:J 88/4/ 1999/2000 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | FY2000_JIPSAnnual.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
| Full Text | Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) Annual Report Fiscal Year 2000 Arizona Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Services Division April 2001 ARIZONA SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS David K. Byers, Director THIS REPORT PUBLISHED BY The Juvenile Justice Services Division Frank Carmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Division Director Fred Santesteban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Manager Brett Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Specialist For additional information about the Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision Program, or for clarification of any information contained in this report, please contact the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice Services Division at (602) 542-9443. To assist persons with disabilities, this publication can be provided in an alternative format upon request. � 2001 Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts. All or any part of this document may be reproduced and distributed for government or nonprofit educational purposes, with attribution to the owner. About the report: This annual report covers the time period from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000, inclusive. The program information is divided into 9 components: New Cases, Contacts, Activity, Financial, Subsequent Offenses, Cases Closed, JIPS Detention, Fiscal Year 1998 - Fiscal Year 1999- Fiscal Year 2000 Statewide Comparisons and Longitudinal Comparisons. Introducing each section is a synopsis that describes how the information presented relates to the program. Data are shown in graph format. Should the reader like more detailed information, the data tables which are the source of the graphed information are also included. These tables contain department-specific as well as statewide data. The data in the annual report are drawn from the Juvenile On Line Tracking System (JOLTS). Each Department is responsible for entering the information that makes this report possible. The information is entered by either probation officers or support staff. This task is an extremely important link in creating this annual report as well as many other reports published by this office. JOLTS, however, is much more than a data collection and reporting system. JOLTS is a necessary and effective tool utilized daily by juvenile probation personnel statewide to more efficiently and appropriately manage probation caseloads. JJSD appreciates the effort necessary to ensure the data are correctly entered in a timely manner. The breakdown of data into each of the 15 departments might tempt some to compare figures among departments. The only relevant criteria, however - the only true gauge of performance - is the degree to which the JIPS mission is being fulfilled. The County Descriptors following the Executive Summary expand on the data presented by explaining how each department approaches accomplishing the mission of JIPS by tailoring the program to meet the particular needs of their community. Please contact the Juvenile Justice Services Division at (602) 542-9443 with any questions about this report. TABLE ABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Charts & Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 County Descriptors Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Apache County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Cochise County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Coconino County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Gila County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Graham County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Greenlee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 La Paz County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Mohave County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Navajo County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Pima County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Pinal County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Santa Cruz County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Yavapai County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Yuma County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 New Cases Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Applicable Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pie Chart & Bar Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25 27 32 Contacts Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Pie Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Activity Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Pie Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Financial Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Supporting Data Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Subsequent Offenses Synopsis & Definition of Applicable Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Pie Chart & Bar Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Cases Closed Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Charts & Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Supporting Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 JIPS Detention Program Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 FY 1998 - FY 1999 Statewide Comparison Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Data Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Longitudinal Comparisons Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Pie Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Data Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XECUTIVE The mission of JIPS is to effect positive change in a high risk juvenile population through a highly structured, community-based probation program committed to the prevention of further juvenile offenses and the protection of the community. Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) is a sentencing consequence used by juvenile court judges for those youth who are in need of increased levels of supervision and a highly structured and accountable program. JIPS is administered by the Juvenile Justice Services Division (JJSD) of the Administrative Office of the Courts and is locally managed by the Juvenile Probation Department of the Superior Court in each of Arizona's 15 counties. JIPS is not a "one size fits all" program. As previously noted, each department has tailored their program within the parameters established by Statute and Administrative Orders to meet the unique needs of their county. Arizona Revised Statute �8-351 to �8-358 and Supreme Court Administrative Order 2000-83 specify definite procedural guidelines for the JIPS program. The comprehensive intent of legislation and the administrative order is to allow juvenile delinquents to remain at home in the community, under supervision of a probation officer, rather than be removed from the home and placed in either a residential treatment facility or the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). JIPS has proven, and continues to prove, to be a less costly alternative to ADJC or residential treatment. Specific terms of probation apply to youth on JIPS. They are required by statute to be involved in at least 32 hours of constructive activity per week. They are seen several times a week and cannot leave home unless they have authorization from their JIPS officer. JIPS differs from regular probation in the increased frequency of contact, the requirement to actively participate in 32 hours of structured programs per week, the liberty restrictions concerning unsupervised time away from home, the frequency of drug testing and the lower officer to probationer ratio. For FY00, the state legislature appropriated $13,705,600, to fund JIPS statewide and program expenses for the year were $13,390,657. The population data indicate that 2,225 youth were placed into the program with 3,809 youth receiving JIPS services and 2,170 youth were released from JIPS during the year. The annual cost per youth served, including administrative costs, was approximately $3,051 or about $8.36 per day per youth served. JIPS youth completed 2,427,256 hours of structured activity toward compliance with the 32 hours of structured weekly activity required for each youth on JIPS. More than 204,000 of these hours were unpaid community service hours. On the following page, the reader can gain an understanding of a typical JIPS day in FY00. Page 1 On Any Given Day in FY00... , 1636 YOUTH WERE ON JIPS. 1630 JUVENILES WERE FOLLOWING THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF JIPS; 6 WERE NOT. , 762 JIPS PROBATIONERS HAD FACE TO FACE CONTACT WITH THEIR JIPS OFFICER. 45% OF THESE CONTACTS TOOK PLACE AFTER 6:00PM. , 6650 COMPLIANCE HOURS WERE PERFORMED BY JIPS PROBATIONERS. , 78 DRUG TESTS WERE CONDUCTED ON JIPS YOUTH. 68 OF THE TESTS SHOWED NO USE OF DRUGS AND 10 TESTS INDICATED USE OF ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. , 1290 INDIVIDUALS WERE CONTACTED BY JIPS OFFICERS. Page 2 By Gender JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Profile of New JIPS Cases Total New Cases: 2,225 By Offense Violence 5.8% Grand Theft 23.5% Citation 9.5% Theft 5.3% Obstruction 31.8% Female 14.5% Fight 4.9% Drugs 9.5% Peace 9.1% Male 85.5% Status 0.6% Number of Prior Referrals 299 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ 166 203 212 275 240 185 155 131 92 267 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1 604 Number of Prior Adjudications 609 484 250 142 74 30 12 7 8+ 20 2 3 4 5 6 Page 3 JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 Juvenile Offenders Placed on JIPS By Fiscal Year 2,466 2500 2,060 2000 1,462 1500 1,023 1000 704 1,289 1,550 1,643 1,880 2,219 2,225 500 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Trends of Positive Case Outcomes By Fiscal Year (Numbers*) Total Positive Outcomes Released from Probation 1400 1,197 JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 Released to Regular Probation Turned 18 1,390 1,321 1200 1,140 1000 793 909 923 932 800 663 757 600 557 490 491 456 492 507 566 581 596 568 560 457 400 270 201 295 243 162 140 155 145 156 193 159 188 364 370 246 268 262 200 238 177 112 210 130 0 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY2000 JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 Trends of Positive Case Outcomes By Fiscal Year (Percent*) Total Positive Outcomes Released from Probation Released to Regular Probation Turned 18 65.8% 61.8% 66.0% 67.6% 61.0% 60.1% 69.5% 64.1% 70.0% 64.6% 65.5% 65.4% 60.0% 50.0% 40.5% 40.3% 37.3% 35.2% 36.8% 30.3% 29.2% 31.4% 25.8% 24% 23.3% 26.2% 40.0% 30.0% 26.5% 26.7% 20.0% 14.8% 23.5% 13.4% 15.3% 11.5% 11.8% 11.5% 12.7% 14.0% 17.4% 19.5% 21.4% 18.6% 14.1% 12.3% 12.1% 10.0% 13.4% 9.4% 11.2% 0.0% FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 COUNTY DESCRIPTORS OUNTY SYNOPSIS This section provides the reader with an increased awareness of how each county, while pursuing the same goals, and in the manner prescribed by statute and the appropriate codes, approaches the day-to-day management of their JIPS program. As is evident, each County's Juvenile Probation Department is faced with unique circumstances based on many factors. In addition to the variances in the sizes and populations of the counties; other factors including scattered population clusters, local availability of treatment resources and the presence of tribal lands and jurisdictions, all contribute to the individual approach each Department must develop and implement to accomplish the mission of JIPS. Page 7 Page 8 A P A C H E COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team coverage: St. Johns 11,127 1 11,127 sq. miles A pache County JIPS, utilizes a two person team which covers all of Apache County. The JIPS team also supervises youth on high risk status, if the Intensive Probation caseload is below capacity. The JIPS team has been supervising youth on the Navajo Indian Reservation for three years. For FY2000, approximately one third of the juveniles on the JIPS caseload resided on the reservation. In FY2000, Apache JIPS instituted a study hall program for juveniles placed on intensive probation. Each juvenile on intensive probation must attend the study hall for one hour a week, regardless of their grades. The study hall was continued throughout the summer, helping juveniles with life skills and job skills. Although the program has only been running one year, the response from the juveniles and parents has been positive. The JIPS team also supports the Apache County Search and Rescue Team, which was started by the Apache County Juvenile Probation Department. As a condition of intensive probation, juveniles that reside in the Springerville, Eagar or St. Johns area are ordered to complete 60 hours of basic training with the rescue team. The training includes; first aid, CPR, wilderness survival, map and compass skills, Global Positioning System (GPS) training, repelling and teamwork with peers and instructors. Since 1997, the Apache Search and Rescue Team has been an essential part of the Summer Search and Rescue units at the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Parks; as well as providing assistance in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico when needed. Page 9 C O C H I S E COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Bisbee 6,000 6 1000 sq. miles per team C ochise County Juvenile Court Services provides JIPS in all communities within the County. Offices are located in Bisbee, Douglas, Sierra Vista, Benson and Wilcox. The same standard of supervision and services are applied throughout the county, including remote rural locations. Cochise JIPS meets the programmatic criteria as defined by statute. Cochise JIPS also provides supportive summer programming which integrates a cognitive behavioral theoretical approach. Treatment plans are developed to identify specific goals and desired behaviors in an identified time frame. The JIPS program conducts an end of the summer incentive each year. For FY2000, the summer incentive activity was a camping trip to the White Mountains near Alpine, Arizona. Juveniles must have achieved specific goals in order to participate in the activity, which included fireside chats, archery, community work service, fishing, hiking and education. Another educational program adopted this year for intensive probationers was partly funded through a grant by the U.S. Forest Service. During the summer, probationers designed a nature walk that will be a living exhibition of the San Pedro River. While this project is not yet complete (target end date is April 2001), it includes many educational and creative components - most, if not all, of which the juveniles have never confronted before. The planning process included education in masonry, landscape design, carpentry, design, biology, botany, plumbing, city codes and risk management regulations. The juveniles who participate in this activity are also preparing an individual resume that includes all of their experiences on this project. Page 10 C O C O N I N O COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Flagstaff 18,806 3 6,268 sq. miles per team C oconino County is the largest county in the state. The JIPS program has 3 teams which are tasked to provide supervision for the entire county. Research based principals are applied in carrying out supervision of juveniles in the JIPS program. The first principal concerns a change in the way JIPS is considered intensive. Based on the research suggesting a correlation between participation in the treatment programs and recidivism reduction, a more effective strategy is the provision of intensive services and treatment. This is not to the exclusion of intensive surveillance and consequences, it is in addition to them. Coconino County Juvenile Court provides a Day Reporting Program which includes Keys to Innervision, an intensive outpatient substance abuse program, parent meetings and educational tutoring. In selected cases, a youth placed on JIPS would be assigned a probation officer, a surveillance officer and a masters level therapist. The objective is to merge probation and treatment goals utilizing in-home therapy and weekly staffings. The second principal in JIPS, exercises a balanced approach to the supervision of offenders. Although a focus and emphasis on treatment and services is advocated, JIPS must provide the full range of probation activities to include community protection, victim reparation and competency development. Page 11 G I L A COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Globe 4,7520 2 2,376 sq. miles per team G ila County Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (JIPS) is a house arrest program for juveniles who qualify for commitment to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, if it were not for the JIPS program. The program allows the juvenile the opportunity to remain at home and continue to be with their family while affording them the opportunity to change their delinquent behavior. Each juvenile is expected and held accountable to pay back society by completing community work service, paying court ordered fees, and being a law abiding citizen. In addition to the levels of supervision, as mandated by the Arizona Revised Statute and the Supreme Court Administrative Order for JIPS, Gila County JIPS utilizes a program called "Windows". Instead of traditional curfew requirements, juveniles earn`Windows' or blocks of time, which a juvenile can utilize at the discretion of their probation officer. The Windows can be used as free time. Thus, by abiding by court orders and the law, the probationer can earn more free time. The Windows can be earned or revoked based upon the compliance or lack of compliance with court orders and the law. Page 12 G R A H A M COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Average coverage: Safford 5,128 1 5,128 sq. miles G raham County has a two person team that services the entire county. The philosophy of the Graham County JIPS program is to hold the juveniles accountable for their actions. This is accomplished through diligent surveillance in conjunction with the youth's schedule. The officers work closely with the schools and the Safe Schools Program Officer. With the assistance of the Safe Schools Officer, the JIPS juveniles are held to a higher standard of accountability. The JIPS program emphasizes treatment and education. Graham JIPS is motivated to stimulate this as the stepping stone to success and the positive outcomes within the program that are reflected by the efforts of officers to keep juveniles in school. The JIPS team is determined to help the probationer succeed and does everything possible to help the juvenile achieve their goal. Page 13 G R E E N L E E COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Clifton 1,876 1 1,876 sq. miles G reenlee County Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision combines a solid mixture of accountability and rehabilitation. The rural setting provided by this small county allows for maximum supervision of juvenile offenders. The JIPS team can closely monitor every move of the juvenile, thus insuring swift positive reinforcement for positive behavior and quick consequences for negative behavior. A combination of local resources and the utilization of the JAWS program in Yuma county, directs a strong tone of accountability in Greenlee County. Rehabilitation of the youth is achieved through the use of local resources. The JIPS team is dedicated to work hand in hand with the community to monitor the juveniles on a daily basis. This team of probation professionals has a combined 22 years of experience working with at risk juveniles. Other highly qualified counselors, teachers, police officers, local dignitaries and civic groups work closely with the juvenile probation department to assist the youth with their journey to reestablishing positive behaviors in order to become a productive citizen of society. Page 14 L A PAZ COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Parker 4,500 1 4,500 sq. miles L a Paz County has a two person team that services both adult and juvenile probationers. They began providing adult services to both La Paz and southern Mohave County in 1985, and added juvenile services to La Paz County in 1987. In 1990, Mohave County assumed supervision of it's entire county. La Paz County Probation services an area of 4,518 square miles out of a single office in the county seat of Parker. A round trip visit to a single probationer in the farthest portion of the county can take up to 4 hours. The Department must be innovative in servicing the youth on Intensive Probation. With just two high schools in the county, which are 60 miles apart, the resources are limited when a child is suspended from the public education system. The dedication of recently acquired service providers has allowed youth to receive counseling in their home communities rather than having to travel as much as an hour or more to the county seat. The three other probation officers and one supervisor assist in providing the necessary 24 hours per day, 7 days per week supervision and on call responses for the JIPS team. The "wearing of many hats" and cooperation among employees, public agencies and service providers are key components in this successful JIPS program. Page 15 M A R I C O P A COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Phoenix 9,226 28 330 sq. miles per team M aricopa County Juvenile Court Center (MCJCC) operates a JIPS program, that, as mandated by Arizona Statutes and the Administrative Office of the Courts, has very clear objectives to which juveniles must adhere. A juvenile ordered to intensive probation must review and sign a contract outlining the three levels of the program. By successfully completing each level, the child may be rewarded with less supervision, more trust, and more privileges. The terms of this contract emphasize surveillance, home detention, education, drug testing, counseling, and community service work. By providing effective monitoring, behavioral training, and educational skill interventions to offenders, MCJCC is achieving what the community values most: safety, accountability, and prevention. JIPS is designed as a highly structured, closely supervised program that focuses on short and long-term behavioral changes. The division consists of teams of probation and surveillance officers assigned to specific geographic regions. By staffing officers throughout neighborhoods, the officers can assess community strengths and resources, thereby enhancing a juvenile's ability to become successful on probation and in the future. Maricopa JIPS has two integral programs, JIPS Community Outreach Program (JCOP) and Violators of Intensive Probation Services (VIPS). JCOP is designed to provide juveniles with a wide variety of services, programs, resources and supervised community service projects. VIPS is a designed 28-day, highly structured program, located within the juvenile detention facility featuring educational components, family support groups, and community service projects and is primarily used for JIPS probationers pending court on a technical violation of probation and is used to help reestablish the correct course of rehabilitation for the probationer. Page 16 M O H A V E COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Kingman 13,479 3 4,493 sq. miles per team M ohave County JIPS Supervision Program consists of two, three person teams and one two person team. These officers travel many miles in their duties. The officers are responsible for supervision of juvenile offenders covering a vast geographical area in this rural county. Much of this area is rural and creates interesting situations when locating homes. It is not unusual for the officers to receive a map with no discernable addresses or paved roads when a juvenile is placed on JIPS. The JIPS program for Mohave County is proud of the relationship developed with the Mohave County Sheriff's Office in supporting the boot camp style, SHOCK Incarceration Program, boasting a success rate of 87% of the graduates not re-offending. JIPS juveniles were the first to enter the program, creating a strong, stable base for expansion of the program to include standard supervision juveniles. Mohave County is considered a rural county and faces limitation in the amount of services available for juveniles. However, with these limitations the JIPS officers are able to keep juveniles in appropriate counseling and assist in developing stable environments for the juveniles they supervise. Page 17 N A V A J O COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Holbrook 9,949 5 1,990 sq. miles per team N avajo County Juvenile Probation has a capacity to supervise 60 juveniles on intensive probation. JIPS officers are also adult Intensive Officers in this combined department. Probation offices are located in the communities of Holbrook, Winslow, Snowflake, Show Low, Heber and Pinetop. Logistical problems are frequently at the forefront of issues confronting intensive probation. Time and distance to resident locations can be challenging factors in making mandated contacts. Navajo County is home to one of the largest Native American Reservations in the country. Thus, the probation department continues to work towards cooperative measures to ensure services are also provided to reservation residents. Creating a working relationship with the reservation government is an ongoing process that demands continual readjusting to meet the needs of both communities. Treatment options in this rural county are limited. A recently initiated intensive outpatient treatment model, provided by a Show Low service provider, has helped ease the challenges to offering rehabilitative services and has eased the strain on the existing outpatient treatment programs in the county. Any residential treatment however, requires an out of county placement. As the population of the county grows, a local inpatient substance abuse program becomes not only more necessary, but also more feasible. Page 18 P I M A COUNTY C o u n t y seat: Tucson Tucson S q u a r e miles: Square 9,240 9,240 J I P S teams: JIPS 11 T e a m Avg. coverage: 8 4 0 sq. miles per team P ima County JIPS is one of the charter programs in the Arizona IPS system. The program started approximately 12 years ago with four, two-person teams and has evolved into 26 officers comprising 11 teams. Two of the teams supervise exclusive JIPS sex offenders in the county. Because of the vast area of coverage, and the serious nature of the offenders, each sex offender team supervises a maximum of 15 cases. Contact requirements for the specialized caseloads are also more intense. Nighttime contacts have been a highlight of Pima County JIPS since the inception of the program. The average monthly percentage of nighttime contacts, after 6:00pm and before 6:00am, is over 65%. Studies have indicated that the times juveniles are most likely to get into trouble is during the night. Thus, by increased nighttime contacts, Pima JIPS is ensuring juveniles remain crime free. The JIPS Quest Program, unique to Pima county, started in 1996. The program provides educational services to JIPS youngsters in a highly structured, controlled setting. In addition, the CREW program, which is operated by the court, provides a method of repaying the community. Daily work crews provide graffiti abatement, park and roadway cleanup and labor for other community projects. Page 19 P I N A L COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Florence 5,386 3 1,795 sq. miles per team P inal County Department of Juvenile Court Services operates a JIPS program with two 3-person teams and one 2-person team. Team coverages include Casa Grande, Eloy, Apache Junction, Florence and the surrounding communities. The department operates a specialized caseload for Juvenile Sexual Offenders under the direct supervision of the JIPS program. The department was awarded funding through the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant specifically for the program. Initially, there were 5 juveniles under court ordered Intensive Probation Sex Offenders terms and approximately 10 alleged juvenile sex offenders in the pre/post adjudication phase of the program. The JIPS detention program, entitled H.O.P.E. (Helping Others Prosper through Encouragement), has moved from a paramilitary approach to an educational approach. Juveniles are assigned to this weekend program at the request of the probation officer and approval of a program supervisor. The H.O.P.E. program operates for six consecutive weekends, overnight, and is designed to supplement supervision and enhance the life skills of the juvenile offender. Probation officers have the ability to refer juveniles into the program prior to the program start. The department has also provided a summer alternative for probation youth (JIPS and Standard). In conjunction with Homeboyz program, the department operated a summer youth program involving physical fitness, education, recreation and community service work. There were two - four week programs for juvenile male offenders, with a maximum number of 20 youth per program. The program had profound success for the first summer, and is being considered for use during the school year. Page 20 S A N T A CRUZ COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Nogales 1,246 1 1,246 sq. miles S � � � anta Cruz County is the smallest county, per square mile, in the state. However, like the quote, "one can't judge a book by its cover" neither can this county be judged by its size. Nogales is the county seat of Santa Cruz county, based on U.S. Border Patrol statistics, the Point of Entry at the Nogales, Sonora Mexico site is one of the busiest crossings in the country. This creates many challenges for the probation officers of our county. With a dominant population of Spanish speaking clientele, our officers must understand, not only the language, but also the wide diversity of cultural differences the youth of this county represents. The JIPS Community Service Work Crew is supervised by officers assigned to the JIPS team. The reasoning for such is three fold. First, Santa Cruz JIPS wants to ensure that probationers are closely monitored, as well as on task, while the juveniles provide a much needed service to the community. Second, the team strives to build a strong work ethic. For instance, the team asserts the need for punctuality or showing up on time and quality of work to create a creditable end product. Thirdly, because this is `community service', it is crucial that the JIPS team ensures that the quality of the service to the citizens and the community surpasses their expectations. The community has come to expect nothing but the finest quality from the work crews. The crews are constantly being requested by the county parks, schools, law enforcement, churches, senior citizens, and hospitals. Santa Cruz County JIPS is proud to provide quality service back to the community that supports the goals for rehabilitation of the youth of Santa Cruz County. Page 21 Y A V A P A I COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Prescott 8,091 7 1,156 sq. miles per team Y avapai County began it's Juvenile Intensive Probation Program in 1987 with two officers and an average of 8 probationers. One officer was assigned to the Prescott area or the western areas of Yavapai County and the other officer was assigned in the Verde Valley area, or eastern areas of Yavapai County. In the past 13 years a number of JIPS officers have been added to the program to cope with the population increase of Yavapai County. Currently, there are seven JIPS officers in the program; 3 in the eastern area and 4 in the western area. The maximum capacity of the program is 105 probationers. The average caseload is approximately 13 probationers. The most unique design of Yavapai County's JIPS program is that the officers provide all case management and supervision (contacts) of probationers. Many other counties have surveillance officers as part of the JIPS team. In Yavapai JIPS, surveillance officers are not used. Yavapai County Juvenile Court has a JIPS Violators program. Essentially, if a JIPS probationer is on the "edge" of non-compliance with the terms and conditions of probation, the officers may request that the court detain the juveniles for up to 15 days. During that 15 day period the juveniles are provided various "programming" alternatives; substance abuse, life skills/choices, anger management, and community service involvement. Once the juveniles completed the program the officers use the programming offered in the program as a focal point for continued rehabilitative services. Page 22 Y U M A COUNTY County seat: Square miles: JIPS teams: Team Avg. coverage: Yuma 5,522 6 920 sq. miles per team Y uma County JIPS prides itself on its collaborative approach to quality case supervision. Officers not only execute the mission of JIPS, but also invest in the community. By giving back to the community that supports the program, officers have created high levels of trust with the public and other agencies. During 1999 and into the year 2000, JIPS Officers have dedicated themselves to assisting and educating the community. Officers have presented topics such as careers in probation, dangers of illegal drug use, gang education, and probation services available to juveniles, families, schools, and other community members. The JIPS program has partnered with local law enforcement and collaboratively worked on numerous projects to reduce juvenile crime. These projects include, "Operation Safe Crossing", which is designed to divert juveniles from crossing the Mexico border on graduation night; providing officers to work the Yuma County Fair; and the Law Enforcement Halloween program sponsored by Yuma County Adult Probation to promote a safe Halloween. JIPS utilizes the JAWS (Juvenile All Weekend Supervision) program. JIPS officers work with military volunteers to provide a weekend of discipline and structure. Over the course of a weekend, juveniles are able to become CPR certified, learn basic military procedures, adhere to a code of conduct, and provide valuable work to the community. The weekend closes with a graduation ceremony for juveniles and their families. Yuma JIPS is often times the leader in bringing agencies together to determine better alternatives for rehabilitating youth. JIPS, however, is not only a leader in rehabilitation, but also strives to create programs that prevent youth from becoming high risk. Page 23 NEW CASES EW SYNOPSIS According to statute, only a youth who has been adjudicated delinquent may be ordered into the program. During FY00, 2,225 youth were placed on JIPS. These youth are classified by number of prior referrals and number of prior adjudications. A referral is simply a piece of paper that lists the offense (or offenses) that a juvenile is accused of committing. It is called a referral because it is the official document that directs an individual to juvenile court. A wide range of infractions, from `5 Minutes Late on Curfew' to `Assaults Against Person,' may be specified on this paper. No formal finding of guilt is included on a referral. Adjudications, on the other hand, are a formal finding of guilt; they are the equivalent of a conviction in adult court. The offense for which a youth is placed on JIPS is commonly called the "instant offense." Nine categories are utilized by the Juvenile On-line Tracking System (JOLTS) to capture these data. These categories are consistent with the information contained in the Juveniles Processed data books published by the Juvenile Justice Services Division. Please note, for aesthetic reasons, the titles in some of the graphs have been abbreviated (See page 5 for detailed information). The top four categories for instant offenses were Obstruction (31.8%), Felonies Against Property (23.5%) and Drugs and Citations (9.5%). Page 24 NEW CASES Definition of Applicable Terms C i t a t i o n s / A d m i n i s t r a t i v e - Court hold, courtesy hold, dependency, immigration, material witness, sovereignty, traffic, or warrant. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Citations" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. D r u g s : Felonies & Misdemeanors - Possession, use, sale, smuggling, or manufacturing any illegal drug (dangerous, narcotic, toxic substance, hallucinogen, or prescription), sniffing, drug paraphernalia, involving minor in drug offense, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Drugs" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. M i s d e m e a n o r s Against Person (formerly Fight) - Assault, simple assault, domestic violence, endangerment, threatening intimidation, lewd and lascivious acts, unlawful imprisonment, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Fight" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. F e l o n i e s Against Property (formerly Grand Theft) - Aggravated criminal damage, criminal damage, shoplifting, arson of unoccupied structure, armed burglary, burglary, computer fraud, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, unauthorized use of vehicle, organized crime, failure to return rental property, trafficking, possession of stolen property, stolen vehicle, theft, or the conspiracy of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Grand Theft" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. O b s t r u c t i o n of Justice: Felonies & Misdemeanors - Contempt of court, DUI, DWI, escape, unlawful or felony flight, failure to appear, hindering prosecution, influence witness, obstruction, perjury, parole or probation violation, resisting arrest, tampering, solicitation, or conspiracy or attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Obstruction" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. P u b l i c Peace: Felonies & Misdemeanors - Aggravated DUI, carry concealed weapon, child neglect, commercial sex, contributing to delinquency of a minor, crime against nature, cruelty to animals, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, drunkenness, eavesdropping, false reporting, failure to stop, failure to appear, firework violation, gambling/gaming, harassment, indecent exposure, obscenity, prostitution, reckless burning, reckless driving, riot, public sexual indecency, speeding, traffic offenses, trespassing, criminal trespassing, unlawful assembly, weapons offenses, discharge firearm, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Peace" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. S t a t u s Offenses (incorrigible, runaway, etc.) - Curfew, consuming alcohol, incorrigible, liquor possession, runaway, tobacco possession, truancy, or minor consuming. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Status" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. Page 25 M i s d e m e a n o r s Against Property (formerly Theft) - Criminal damage, issue bad check, theft, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Theft" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. F e l o n i e s Against a Person (formerly Violence) - Aggravated assault, arson of occupied structure, child molesting, child prostitution, child abuse, criminal syndicate, custodial interference, drive-by shooting, kidnaping, endangerment, homicide, incest, leaving accident, manslaughter, murder, robbery, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual conduct with minor, or the conspiracy of or attempted commission of any of these offenses. NOTE: For aesthetic intents "Violence" may be used for identifying purposes in charts and tables. Page 26 JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 New Cases by Severity Type Grand Theft 23.5% 523 Citation 9.5% 211 Violence 5.8% 129 Status 0.6% 13 Theft 5.3% 118 Fight 4.9% 110 Peace 9.1% 202 Obstruction 31.8% 708 Drugs 9.5% 211 Total New Cases 2,225 New Cases by Severity Type 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 129 523 708 Total New Cases: 2,225 211 110 202 118 211 13 Grand Theft Fight Violence Obstruction Peace Drugs Theft Status Citation JIPS Statewide Data-FY 00 New Cases Added 2nd Felony 10.9% 243 From Standard 32.9% 733 Other 56.1% 1,249 Total New Cases Added: 2,225 New Cases by Prior Referrals Total New Cases: 2,225 267 240 300 275 250 203 212 185 166 155 200 150 131 92 100 72 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Prior Referrals 227 youth had 11 or more referrals. New Cases by Prior Adjudications 700 604 609 Total New Cases: 2,225 600 484 500 400 300 250 200 142 74 100 30 12 0 0 1 2 3 4 Prior Adjudications 5 6 7 JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases by Gender Male # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 21 81 44 34 22 3 5 878 83 36 346 94 29 97 129 1,902 % 91.3% 87.1% 83.0% 81.0% 78.6% 42.9% 100.0% 87.7% 78.3% 73.5% 89.4% 85.5% 82.9% 85.1% 75.0% 85.5% # 2 12 9 8 6 4 0 123 23 13 41 16 6 17 43 323 Female % 8.7% 12.9% 17.0% 19.0% 21.4% 57.1% 0.0% 12.3% 21.7% 26.5% 10.6% 14.5% 17.1% 14.9% 25.0% 14.5% 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225 Total JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases by Severity Type Felonies Against Person # % Felonies Against Property # % Obstruction of Justice: Misdemeanors Drugs: Fel & Misd. Against Person Fel & Misd # % # % # % Public Peace: Fel & Misd # % Misdemeanors Against Property # % Status Offenses # % Citation/ Administrative # % Total New Cases # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 1 5 0 1 4 0 1 47 16 1 16 14 1 13 9 129 4.3 5.4 0.0 2.4 14.3 0.0 20.0 4.7 15.1 2.0 4.1 12.7 2.9 11.4 5.2 5.8 6 22 8 11 7 3 1 254 35 10 71 26 7 35 27 523 26.1 23.7 15.1 26.2 25.0 42.9 20.0 25.4 33.0 20.4 18.3 23.6 20.0 30.7 15.7 23.5 6 29 14 5 13 0 1 325 40 15 94 27 10 36 93 708 26.1 31.2 26.4 11.9 46.4 0.0 20.0 32.5 37.7 30.6 24.3 24.5 28.6 31.6 54.1 31.8 1 8 1 8 1 1 0 41 3 2 14 14 1 6 9 110 4.3 8.6 1.9 19.0 3.6 14.3 0.0 4.1 2.8 4.1 3.6 12.7 2.9 5.3 5.2 4.9 2 10 6 12 0 3 1 97 1 7 34 5 8 12 13 211 8.7 10.8 11.3 28.6 0.0 42.9 20.0 9.7 0.9 14.3 8.8 4.5 22.9 10.5 7.6 9.5 0 15 14 3 1 0 0 105 2 2 32 8 3 5 12 202 0.0 16.1 26.4 7.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 10.5 1.9 4.1 8.3 7.3 8.6 4.4 7.0 9.1 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 84 0 1 16 2 3 2 4 118 4.3 1.1 5.7 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 2.0 4.1 1.8 8.6 1.8 2.3 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 6 3 7 2 1 0 1 37 9 11 110 13 2 5 4 211 26.1 3.2 13.2 4.8 3.6 0.0 20.0 3.7 8.5 22.4 28.4 11.8 5.7 4.4 2.3 9.5 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225 Under each offense category (e.g., Grand Theft), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Apache). In the example given, Apache had 6 new cases with felonies against property, which accounted for 26.1% of Apache's total new cases for the year (23). Percentages total across, not down. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases Added Total New Cases Added % 34.8 68.8 50.9 42.9 75.0 100.0 60.0 40.5 37.7 38.8 99.5 93.6 85.7 43.9 40.1 56.1 2nd Felony # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 5 2 1 9 4 0 0 142 23 13 0 6 3 32 3 243 From Standard % # 10 27 25 15 3 0 2 454 43 17 2 1 2 32 100 733 Other # 8 64 27 18 21 7 3 405 40 19 385 103 30 50 69 1,249 % 43.5 29.0 47.2 35.7 10.7 0.0 40.0 45.4 40.6 34.7 0.5 0.9 5.7 28.1 58.1 32.9 # 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1,001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225 21.7 2.2 1.9 21.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.2 21.7 26.5 0.0 5.5 8.6 28.1 1.7 10.9 Other includes juveniles transferred from another jurisdiction and those not previously on standard probation. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases by Prior Referrals 0 # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 1 4 6 4 7 2 1 56 15 4 28 12 4 12 10 166 % 4.3 4.3 11.3 9.5 25.0 28.6 20.0 5.6 14.2 8.2 7.2 10.9 11.4 10.5 5.8 7.5 # 2 10 4 3 2 0 1 91 20 1 27 16 1 14 11 203 1 % 8.7 10.8 7.5 7.1 7.1 0.0 20.0 9.1 18.9 2.0 7.0 14.5 2.9 12.3 6.4 9.1 # 0 4 1 2 1 1 2 11 1 33 12 4 13 11 212 2 % 0.0 4.3 1.9 4.8 3.6 14.3 40.0 10.4 2.0 8.5 10.9 11.4 11.4 6.4 9.5 # 0 4 5 2 1 0 0 13 3 42 17 2 10 17 3 % 0.0 4.3 9.4 4.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 12.3 6.1 10.9 15.5 5.7 8.8 9.9 # 5 8 1 3 0 1 0 8 6 31 13 6 10 19 4 % 21.7 8.6 1.9 7.1 0.0 14.3 0.0 7.5 12.2 8.0 11.8 17.1 8.8 11.0 # 2 4 2 5 1 0 0 13 8 43 12 2 16 18 5 % 8.7 4.3 3.8 11.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 12.3 16.3 11.1 10.9 5.7 14.0 10.5 # 2 8 3 5 2 1 0 82 5 6 34 8 7 12 10 185 6 % 8.7 8.6 5.7 11.9 7.1 14.3 0.0 8.2 4.7 12.2 8.8 7.3 20.0 10.5 5.8 8.3 # 3 8 4 2 3 0 1 74 5 8 19 6 2 6 14 155 7 % 13.0 8.6 7.5 4.8 10.7 0.0 20.0 7.4 4.7 16.3 4.9 5.5 5.7 5.3 8.1 7.0 # 1 5 5 6 0 0 0 52 6 5 34 2 2 3 10 131 8 % 4.3 5.4 9.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.7 10.2 8.8 1.8 5.7 2.6 5.8 5.9 # 5 7 2 2 0 0 0 33 5 1 22 2 1 4 8 92 9 % 21.7 7.5 3.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 4.7 2.0 5.7 1.8 2.9 3.5 4.7 4.1 # 0 4 5 1 3 2 0 25 1 2 17 1 1 1 9 72 10 % 0.0 4.3 9.4 2.4 10.7 28.6 0.0 2.5 0.9 4.1 4.4 0.9 2.9 0.9 5.2 3.2 # 2 27 15 7 8 0 0 43 4 4 57 9 3 13 35 11+ % 8.7 29.0 28.3 16.7 28.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 3.8 8.2 14.7 8.2 8.6 11.4 20.3 Total # 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225 116 11.6 159 15.9 129 12.9 141 14.1 275 12.4 240 10.8 267 12.0 227 10.2 Under each number of prior referrals (e.g., 2), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Cochise). In the example given, Cochise had 4 new cases with 2 prior referrals; these 4 cases accounted for 4.3% of Cochise's total new cases for the year (93). Percentages total across, not down. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 New Cases By Prior Adjudications 0 # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 6 26 16 11 9 4 1 % 26.1 28.0 30.2 26.2 32.1 57.1 20.0 # 9 29 8 17 2 0 3 1 % 39.1 31.2 15.1 40.5 7.1 0.0 60.0 # 6 20 6 9 3 0 1 2 % 26.1 21.5 11.3 21.4 10.7 0.0 20.0 # 2 9 11 3 5 1 0 3 % 8.7 9.7 20.8 7.1 17.9 14.3 0.0 # 0 5 4 2 4 0 0 62 1 1 37 0 3 7 16 142 4 % 0.0 5.4 7.5 4.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.9 2.0 9.6 0.0 8.6 6.1 9.3 6.4 # 0 3 7 0 2 1 0 31 0 0 12 2 3 2 11 74 5 % 0.0 3.2 13.2 0.0 7.1 14.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.8 8.6 1.8 6.4 3.3 # 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 0 6 30 6 % 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.3 # 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 12 7 % 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 # 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 9 8 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 14.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 # 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 9 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 10 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 11+ % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.2 Total # 23 93 53 42 28 7 5 1001 106 49 387 110 35 114 172 2,225 241 24.1 39 9 36.8 18.4 279 27.9 50 20 68 37 7 45 35 47.2 40.8 17.6 33.6 20.0 39.5 20.3 253 25.3 15 11 77 18 10 19 36 14.2 22.4 19.9 16.4 28.6 16.7 20.9 115 11.5 1 8 49 1 3 12 30 0.9 16.3 12.7 0.9 8.6 10.5 17.4 124 32.0 52 9 28 29 47.3 25.7 24.6 16.9 604 27.1 609 27.4 484 21.8 250 11.2 Under each number of prior adjudications (e.g., 2), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Coconino). In the example given, Coconino had 6 new cases with 2 prior adjudications; these 6 cases accounted for 11.3% of Coconino's total new cases for the year (53). Percentages total across, not down. CONTACTS SYNOPSIS A.R.S. �8-353 and Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Section 6-302 stipulate the number of face-to-face contacts which must occur between the juvenile and the JIPS officers on a weekly basis. This number is dictated by the level of supervision, of which three exist. Level I requires four weekly contacts, Level II requires two contacts, and Level III requires one contact. The decreasing level of contact is proportionate to the program compliance behavior of the youth. Ancillary contacts with parents, school, employment and treatment providers are also required. This section contains a graph which shows when the contact with youth took place. Since youth are to be involved in structured activities during the day, surveillance during night hours is an important program component. For the year, 45.2% of the contacts with youth occurred after 6:00pm. Page 37 Contacts with Juveniles by Time of Contact Total of 278,143 face-to- face contacts with juveniles Weekday 43.9% 122,105 Weekend Day 10.9% 30,270 Weekday Night 28.9% 80,349 Weekend Night 16.3% 45,419 JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Contacts by Person Seen Community Service 0.3% 1,240 Treatment 2.4% 10,349 School 4.2% 18,117 Juvenile 64.7% 278,143 Parent 27.1% 116,254 Employer 1.3% 5,511 Total number face-toface contacts: 429,614 JIPS Statewide Data - FY00 Contacts with Juveniles by Time of Contact Weekday Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 732 6,642 2,429 4,358 2,045 1,078 380 40,391 9,649 3,658 20,811 10,819 2,536 6,345 10,232 122,105 Weekday Night Weekend Day Weekend Night 590 2,082 1,334 1,409 1,340 218 44 24,635 3,609 1,194 22,234 3,073 2,221 2,409 13,957 80,349 58 688 496 175 68 105 92 12,723 1,919 516 5,715 2,449 815 1266 3,185 30,270 529 1,473 819 1071 649 157 83 10,793 1086 1,093 13,591 4,181 609 831 8,454 45,419 Total 1,909 10,885 5,078 7,013 4,102 1,558 599 88,542 16,263 6,461 62,351 20,522 6,181 10,851 35,828 278,143 Weekday = Monday - Friday 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Weeknight = Monday - Thursday 6:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. Page 40 Weekend Day = Saturday - Sunday 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Weekend Night = Friday - Sunday 6:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Contacts Summary Juvenile Office Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 125 3,881 734 1,768 575 345 142 8,083 644 1,645 7,691 1252 2,171 1,499 1,794 32,349 Comm. Field 1,784 7,004 4,344 5,245 3,527 1,213 457 Phone 37 764 462 386 1 5 231 29,526 213 866 1,706 1,621 1066 574 3,856 41,314 School 60 1,503 300 120 520 287 31 6,028 404 214 3,829 1,857 919 1,640 405 18,117 Employer 0 533 110 9 3 0 9 2,289 20 21 1,442 239 201 561 74 5,511 Treatment 21 316 144 211 53 9 41 4,737 55 125 1,594 552 1,202 693 596 10,349 Service 6 140 20 5 0 13 0 60 35 5 494 286 1 124 51 1,240 Parent 434 5,528 1,677 431 1,355 664 201 51,808 4,462 1,061 23,852 5,793 2,303 5,855 10,830 116,254 Total 2,467 19,669 7,791 8,175 6,034 2,536 1,112 182,990 21,452 8,753 95,268 30,870 11,873 20,298 51,640 470,928 80,459 15,619 4,816 54,660 19,270 4,010 9,352 34,034 245,794 ACTIVITY SYNOPSIS JIPS emphasizes highly structured activity and requires holding juveniles assigned to JIPS accountable for how they are spending their time. A.R.S. �8-352 requires youth in JIPS to be involved in 32 hours of structured activity per week. The data in this section quantify the hours which youths spent in structured activities. Community service is unpaid work at an approved work site in the community. School and employment are self explanatory, as is treatment. The `Other' category includes time spent in detention, activities approved by the probation officer, parental supervision time and other unique situations such as attending out of state funerals for family members. The purpose of the 32-hour requirement is (1) to structure acceptable activity for youth and (2) to hold youth accountable for how they spend their time. The emphasis in JIPS is on education, and over 37% of the reported hours fall into that category. National research indicates that education and completion of high school or a GED are positive indicators of a successful, law-abiding future. This section also contains data on drug tests. Again, the statutes and administrative order that provide the direction for JIPS are very strong on monitoring compliance with the terms of probation. A standard condition of JIPS is no illegal drug usage; the drug test is the compliance tool for this stipulation. Two types of drug testing are performed in JIPS: the urine test and the breathalyser test. Urine can be tested for a specific substance or for a wide spectrum of substances. The breathalyser test is strictly for alcohol. Page 42 32-Hour Compliance Data by Type of Activity * Other 29.1% 707,133 Employment 19.0% 460,467 Community Service 8.4% 204,792 School 37.3% 906,501 Treatment 6.1% 148,364 Total time that juveniles engaged in these structured activities: Over 2.4 MILLION hours!! The JIPS program includes a requirement that youth spend at least 32 hours per week in structured activities. These data track compliance with this requirement. *Reported hours are rounded up. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 32-Hour Compliance Data by Type of Activity Community School Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 11,266.5 36,777.9 18,755.0 21,298.0 19,078.0 8,807.0 2,689.0 281,574.0 60,922.0 27,485.8 194,242.1 53,625.0 15,328.5 45,183.5 109,468.5 906,500.8 Employment 2,086.0 17,735.6 14,774.0 12,870.5 2,526.0 289.0 2,358.5 190,047.0 38,342.0 15,271.9 74,442.2 22,198.5 7,817.0 29,862.0 29,846.5 460,466.7 Treatment 2,481.0 7,506.0 1,540.0 7,628.0 3,293.0 429.0 297.0 59,326.0 8,983.0 5,115.8 19,590.9 5,573.0 5,132.5 7,158.5 14,310.5 148,364.2 Service 1,806.5 13,437.2 1,062.0 4,710.5 3,148.5 2,440.0 271.9 66,798.0 18,339.0 2,918.3 31,450.1 21,641.0 3,944.0 6,817.0 26,007.5 204,791.5 Other 7,269.5 23,904.0 24,334.0 9,634.0 10,392.0 2,842.0 487.0 311,031.0 44,468.0 14,424.7 91,222.0 33,607.0 18,391.0 43,635.5 71,491.2 707,132.9 Total Hours 24,909.5 99,360.7 60,465.0 56,141.0 38,437.5 14,807.0 6,103.4 908,776.0 171,054.0 65,216.5 410,947.3 136,644.5 50,613.0 132,656.5 251,124.2 2,427,256.1 Reported values are actual hours. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Drug Tests # Administered Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 84 673 140 854 202 123 34 14,283 1,024 347 1,837 808 645 1,920 5,373 28,347 # Positive 47 242 38 92 0 0 5 2,398 125 18 341 97 114 102 159 3,778 # Negative 37 431 102 762 202 123 29 11,885 899 329 1,496 711 531 1,818 5,214 24,569 Drug Free Rate 44.0% 64.0% 72.9% 89.2% 100.0% 100.0% 85.3% 83.2% 87.8% 94.8% 81.4% 88.0% 82.3% 94.7% 97.0% 86.7% FI N A N C I A L SYNOPSIS The graph on page 47 describes the cost per juvenile served for each of the 15 probation departments, as well as the cost per youth served for the state, based on actual expenditures. Variances among departments exist, both in number of youth served and, correspondingly, in cost per youth served. For example, cost per youth served is typically higher in small departments which do not serve a large number of youth. The term retained, on page 48, is defined as those dollars which are not disbursed to the individual departments, but are used for projects which benefit all the departments. JOLTS and officer training are two examples of such expenditures. The budget section reflects funds expended by each department in providing services to youth. Administrative funds are used by the Juvenile Justice Services Division to administer the JIPS program. Administrative costs accounted for 3.3% of the FY00 statewide expenditures for JIPS. JIPS Detention costs are not calculated in state totals. For discussion concerning JIPS detention please see page 59. Page 46 JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Cost per Juvenile C o s t per Juvenile E x p e n d e d Funds J u v e n i l e s Served 4,686,492 214,224 533,695 426,617 224,903 86,962 71,376 61,652 5,356 3,421 4,587 2,710 1,739 4,758 5,605 1,681 2,788 156 40 93 83 50 15 11 LaPaz Maricopa Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee 11,621,571 1,927,223 556,201 302,602 391,122 321,558 445,027 804,779 2,943 2,855 643 2,997 2,069 4,799 2,342 296 2,719 3,809 3,051 189 106 189 67 190 Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide Cost per Juvenile based on number of Juveniles Served. Statewide Expenditures include admin. & retained costs. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Increases (and Decreases) Over FY 99 EXPENDED FUNDS FY99 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham* Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa* Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal* Santa Cruz Yavapai* Yuma* Subtotal Retained** Admin. Statewide $150,263 $507,131 $422,131 $194,115 $88,594 $71,054 $67,908 $4,503,684 $571,728 $298,576 $2,016,219 $357,475 $320,104 $494,966 $822,781 $410,613 FY00 $214,224 $533,695 $426,617 $224,903 $86,962 $71,376 $61,652 $4,686,492 $556,201 $302,602 $1,927,223 $391,122 $321,558 $445,027 $804,779 $567,138 $ Increase (Decrease) $63,961 $26,564 $4,486 $30,788 ($1,632) $322 ($6,256) $182,808 ($15,527) $4,026 ($88,996) $33,647 $1,454 ($49,939) ($18,002) $167,704 $156,525 $20,510 $344,739 %Increase (Decrease) 42.6% 5.2% 1.1% 15.9% (1.8)% 0.5% (9.2)% 4.1% (2.7)% 1.3% (4.4)% 9.4% 0.5% (10.1)% (2.2)% 1.5% 38.1% 5.6% 3.0% 3,799 3,809 10 0.3% $3,071 $3,051 ($20) (0.6)% 29 146 97 101 47 19 16 1,719 181 132 626 168 61 162 295 3,799 40 156 93 83 50 15 11 1,681 189 106 643 189 67 190 296 3,809 FY99 JUVENILES SERVED FY00 # Increase (Decrease) 11 10 (4) (18) 3 (4) (5) (38) 8 (26) 17 21 6 28 1 10 %Increase (Decrease) 37.9% 6.8% (4.1)% (17.8)% 6.4% (21.1)% (31.3)% (2.2)% 4.4% (19.7)% 2.7% 12.5% 9.8% 17.3% 0.3% 0.3% $5,182 $3,474 $4,352 $1,922 $1,885 $3,740 $4,245 $2,620 $3,159 $2,262 $3,221 $2,128 $5,248 $3,056 $2,790 $2,866 $5,356 $3,421 $4,587 $2,710 $1,739 $4,758 $5,605 $2,788 $2,943 $2,855 $2,997 $2,069 $4,799 $2,342 $2,719 $2,902 FY99 COST PER YOUTH SERVED FY00 $ Increase (Decrease) $174 ($53) $235 $788 ($146) $1,018 $1,360 $168 ($216) $593 ($224) ($59) ($449) ($714) ($71) $36 %Increase (Decrease) 3.4% (1.5)% 5.4% 41.0% (7.7)% 27.2% 32.0% 6.4% (6.8)% 26.2% (6.9)% (2.8)% (8.5)% (23.4)% (2.6)% 1.3% $10,886,729 $11,054,433 $367,290 $387,800 $11,664,632 $11,621,571 * For comparitive purposes, expended funds for FY 99 and FY 00 do not include JIPS detention costs. ** An additional $465,000 was transferred to JPSF SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES UBSEQUENT SYNOPSIS O f the 3,809 youth who were in the program during FY00, 2,112 were again referred to the court during the reporting period. The ratio of these two figures is called the recidivism rate, and for FY00 it was 55.4%. The majority of these subsequent offenses were for violations of probation. The proportion of offense severities among youth who enter the program for the first time are very different from those of juveniles already on JIPS who reoffend. For example, 51.7% of all subsequent offenses were for Obstruction, while this offense category accounted for only 31.8% % of all new cases (compare charts on pages 27 and 33). These observations are consistent with national trends regarding juvenile intensive probation programs. The reason for the shift in the proportion of offense severities is twofold. First, the more one sees an individual, the more one is likely to spot infractions. Second, and less obvious, the s e v e r i t y of severity infractions, by percentage, will decrease over time due to the increased vigilance. Another example often used to explain this shift is traffic violations. Most of us would be more likely to receive traffic citations if we were watched more closely each time we drove, especially if we were ticketed each time we drove one mile per hour over the speed limit. In the same way, youth on the JIPS program are more likely to be cited for small infractions, like Obstruction. In some departments, JIPS youth are referred to the court if they miss a day of school, if they are five minutes late getting home, or if they skip a day's work. Within the broader context, these activities are not as severe as criminal activities such as assaults or shoplifting. However, they all fall into the category of offenses and are captured by the JOLTS system as such. The top three offense categories for reoffenders were Obstruction (51.7%), Peace (14.0%) and Grand Theft (9.0%). These three categories account for 75% of all offenses committed by youth on JIPS during FY00. The terminology used in this section is the same as that used in the `New Cases' section. Please refer to page 25. Page 49 Subsequent Offenses by Severity Type Violence 3.3% 293 Citation 1.0% 87 Obstruction 51.7% 4,528 Fight 4.3% 379 Drugs 5.1% 448 Theft 5.3% 462 Status 6.3% 549 Grand Theft 9.0% 784 Peace 14.0% 1,227 Total number of subsequent offenses: 8,757 Subsequent Offenses by Severity Type Total Subsequent Offenses: 8,757 5000 4,528 4000 3000 2000 1,227 784 1000 293 379 448 462 549 87 0 Grand Theft Fight Violence Obstruction Peace Drugs Theft Status Citation JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Subsequent Offenses By Severity Type Violence # % Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 2 4 5 2 1 1 0 144 8 20 72 5 10 5 14 293 1.9 0.8 2.9 1.4 1.1 3.7 0.0 5.6 3.8 10.0 4.8 0.9 5.4 2.5 0.6 3.3 Grand Theft # % 25 21 6 6 7 1 2 353 10 5 255 30 22 19 22 784 23.6 4.0 3.5 4.1 8.0 3.7 14.3 13.8 4.7 2.5 16.9 5.5 12.0 9.5 1.0 9.0 Obstruction # % 61 327 64 68 36 13 6 960 97 62 333 387 52 73 1,989 4,528 57.5 62.9 37.6 46.9 40.9 48.1 42.9 37.4 46.0 30.8 22.0 70.4 28.3 36.3 87.9 51.7 Fight # % 2 25 4 8 1 2 0 121 16 12 104 10 14 8 52 379 1.9 4.8 2.4 5.5 1.1 7.4 0.0 4.7 7.6 6.0 6.9 1.8 7.6 4.0 2.3 4.3 Drugs # % 2 26 12 11 7 1 1 146 12 21 165 11 11 5 17 448 1.9 5.0 7.1 7.6 8.0 3.7 7.1 5.7 5.7 10.4 10.9 2.0 6.0 2.5 0.8 5.1 Peace # % 6 64 59 37 15 5 2 425 33 47 268 51 64 59 92 5.7 12.3 34.7 25.5 17.0 18.5 14.3 16.6 15.6 23.4 17.7 9.3 34.8 29.4 4.1 Theft # % 7 19 6 2 9 3 2 196 11 14 126 17 5 17 28 462 6.6 3.7 3.5 1.4 10.2 11.1 14.3 7.6 5.2 7.0 8.3 3.1 2.7 8.5 1.2 5.3 Status # % 1 30 14 10 12 1 1 176 21 13 188 28 6 15 33 549 0.9 5.8 8.2 6.9 13.6 3.7 7.1 6.9 10.0 6.5 12.4 5.1 3.3 7.5 1.5 6.3 Citation # % 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 45 3 7 0 11 0 0 16 87 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.4 3.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 Total # 106 520 170 145 88 27 14 2,566 211 201 1,511 550 184 201 2,263 8,757 1 , 2 2 7 14.0 Under each offense category (e.g., Grand Theft), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Gila). In the example given, Gila had 6 subsequent grand theft offenses, which accounted for 4.1% of Gila's total subsequent offenses for the year (145). Percentages total across, not down. JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Recidivism Data for Youth Served TOTAL SERVED # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 40 156 93 83 50 15 11 1,681 189 106 643 189 67 190 296 3,809 SUBSEQUENT NON-OFFENDERS # % 12 65 40 38 24 11 6 692 105 60 327 84 30 111 92 1,697 30.0% 41.7% 43.0% 45.8% 48.0% 73.3% 54.5% 41.2% 55.6% 56.6% 50.9% 44.4% 44.8% 58.4% 31.1% 44.6% # 28 91 53 45 26 4 5 989 84 46 316 105 37 79 204 2,112 SUBSEQUENT OFFENDERS % # Subsequent (Recidivism Rate) Offenses 70.0% 58.3% 57.0% 54.2% 52.0% 26.7% 45.5% 58.8% 44.4% 43.4% 49.1% 55.6% 55.2% 41.6% 68.9% 55.4% 106 520 170 145 88 27 14 2,566 211 201 1,511 550 184 201 2,263 8,757 CASES CLOSED ASES SYNOPSIS When a youth is released from the program, their case under JIPS, is considered closed. A juvenile can be released from JIPS for seven reasons. The phrases used to identify these reasons are: R e l e a s e d from Probation, Turned 18, Committed to Arizona Department of Juvenile C o r r e c t i o n s (ADJC), Transferred to Adult Court, Released to Regular Probation, Transferred to Another Jurisdiction and Other Closures. Transferred Closures Closures from the program are viewed as successful or unsuccessful. Two categories are considered unsuccessful closures: C o m m i t t e d to ADJC and T r a n s f e r r e d to Adult Court. Committed Transferred Court Youth in these categories were terminated from JIPS due to a subsequent offense. A main focus of JIPS is to prevent future criminal activity, so such cases are viewed as unsuccessful closures. Note that the majority of youth who reoffend remain in JIPS because their infractions are not severe enough to merit being sent to ADJC or to adult court. Successful closures are defined as youth who are released from the program because they have no charges pending against them, and because they are exhibiting law abiding behavior. These categories are considered successful closures: R e l e a s e d to Regular Probation, Turned 18, Released and Released from Probation. Probation Just because a JIPS case is closed does not necessarily mean that the individual is released from court jurisdiction. R e l e a s e d to Regular Probation is considered a successful closure because Released the juvenile earned release from JIPS to standard probation. Upon their 18th birthday, according to Arizona law, an individual reaches the "age of majority" and becomes an adult. Consequently, that individual is no longer considered a juvenile, and is not legally under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. T u r n e d 18 is included in the successful Turned category because the youth refrained from committing any subsequent offenses prior to turning 18. If the youth had reoffended prior to turning 18, he or she would be listed under a different closure category. R e l e a s e d from Probation means the juvenile met all the requirements of the program and was released from court jurisdiction. Graphs depicting both the percentage and number of positive case outcomes for the last ten years of the program can be found on pages 5 and 6 of this report. Page 54 Outcomes of Cases Closed 568 560 528 600 Total Cases Closed: 2,170 500 400 262 300 200 83 123 100 46 0 Turned 18 ADJC Released from Probation Regular Probation Other Jurisdiction Adult Court Other Closures Page 55 JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Outcomes of Cases Closed Released From Probation # % Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 5 22 30 17 12 3 2 143 46 23 122 15 8 39 81 568 20.0 25.0 50.0 37.0 42.9 37.5 28.6 15.0 46.0 32.4 33.5 14.9 20.0 36.1 47.6 26.2 Turned 18 # % 3 9 6 7 0 1 0 123 7 12 20 18 10 22 24 262 12.0 10.2 10.0 15.2 0.0 12.5 0.0 12.9 7.0 16.9 5.5 17.8 25.0 20.4 14.1 12.1 Released to Regular Probation # % 4 29 15 10 7 3 2 390 12 12 0 12 6 27 31 560 16.0 33.0 25.0 21.7 25.0 37.5 28.6 40.9 12.0 16.9 0.0 11.9 15.0 25.0 18.2 25.8 Committed to ADJC # % 6 16 7 8 4 0 1 225 31 9 134 37 8 12 30 528 24.0 18.2 11.7 17.4 14.3 0.0 14.3 23.6 31.0 12.7 36.8 36.6 20.0 11.1 17.6 24.3 Transferred to Adult Court # % 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 50 2 2 13 7 1 0 0 83 0.0 1.1 1.7 4.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 5.2 2.0 2.8 3.6 6.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.8 Transferred to Another Jurisdiction # % 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 6 2 5 2 10 7 4 3 46 8.0 2.3 1.7 0.0 3.6 12.5 0.0 0.6 2.0 7.0 0.5 9.9 17.5 3.7 1.8 2.1 Other Closures # % 5 9 0 2 0 0 2 17 0 8 73 2 0 4 1 123 20.0 10.2 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 28.6 1.8 0.0 11.3 20.1 2.0 0.0 3.7 0.6 5.7 Total # 25 88 60 46 28 8 7 954 100 71 364 101 40 108 170 2,170 Under each closure type (e.g., Committed to ADJC), a number and a percentage are listed for each department (e.g., Graham). In the example given, Graham had 4 cases closed by being committed to ADJC. These 4 cases accounted for 14.3% of Graham's total closures for the year (28). JIPS Statewide Data - FY 00 Cases Closed - Positive Outcome Total Terminations # Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee LaPaz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Statewide 25 88 60 46 28 8 7 954 100 71 364 101 40 108 170 2,170 Released From Probation # 5 22 30 17 12 3 2 143 46 23 122 15 8 39 81 568 Released to Standard Probation # 4 29 15 10 7 3 2 390 12 12 0 12 6 27 31 560 Turned 18 # 3 9 6 7 0 1 0 123 7 12 20 18 10 22 24 262 # 12 60 51 34 19 7 4 656 65 47 142 45 24 88 136 Successful Release % 48.00% 68.18% 85.00% 73.91% 67.86% 87.50% 57.14% 68.76% 65.00% 66.20% 39.01% 44.55% 60.00% 81.48% 80.00% 64.06% 1,390 JIPS DETENTION P ROGRAM ETENTION SYNOPSIS Detention funding for FY00 had two components. The first component was the JIPS detention program. The legislature provided funding to the JIPS program to detain JIPS probation violators. Programs from Maricopa, Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma were selected to be funded. A total of $680,000 of the allocated $955,000 was disbursed to these departments. For comparison purposes, the JIPS program costs listed on pages 47 and 48 of this report are not inclusive of the JIPS detention awards. On the following pages, charts detail the juveniles served in each department as well as statewide totals. For FY00, a total population of 819 juveniles spent 15,071 days in detention for an average cost of $830.28 per juvenile. The second component of JIPS Detention funding was utilized as part of the Statewide New Detention Construction program. $275,000 was allocated to Graham county for the new Regional Graham/Greenlee Juvenile Detention Center. Page 58 The following tables reflect program population information Number of Number J u v e n i l e s Served Juveniles 422 50 70 277 819 Department Maricopa Pinal Yavapai Yuma Statewide F Y 0 0 Allocation $417,000 $417,000 $96,800 $96,800 $93,700 $93,700 $72,500 $72,500 $680,000 $680,000 % Utilized 94% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 96% C o s t Per Juvenile $988.15 $1,936.00 $1,338.57 $261.73 $830.28 Department Maricopa Pinal Yavapai Yuma Statewide N u m b e r of juveniles N u m b e r of juveniles N u m b e r of Juvenile in N u m b e r of days w h o completed w h o did not complete Program j u v e n i l e were detained program program 422 50 70 277 819 1 2 , 6 6 0 days 6 0 0 days 9 8 0 days 8 3 1 days 1 5 , 0 7 1 days 388 39 70 252 749 34 11` 0 25 70 Successful Successful c o m p l e t i o n rate completion 92% 78% 100% 91% 91% Page 59 FY 1 9 9 9 - FY 2 0 0 0 1999 FY 2000 STATEWIDE COMPARISON TATEWIDE SYNOPSIS The FY00 Annual Report is the fifth annual report based on the data elements captured on the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS). Previous to FY98, management was challenged by the availability of the data to decide what elements were more useful in achieving the desired program outcomes. The FY00 report challenges management again to determine which elements achieve the desired results and to compare program performance from one year to the next. In determining program performance, some data elements are subject to interpretation. An increase in cost per juvenile could be viewed negatively, however, with the increase of successful outcomes and the decreased numbers of juveniles committed to ADJC, the increased costs could be viewed positively as an indicator of the program. Other elements such as time, location and person contacted by JIPS officers or percentage of drug tests showing no illegal substance usage by the probationer seem more objective. Category Total Youth Served Youth with New Offenses In Program Recidivism Rate Including Violations of Probation New Offenses Including Violations of Probation Offenses Per Offender Including Violations of Probation Successful Closure Rate Number of Successful Closures Page 60 FY99 3,794 2,219 55.3% 8,008 3.82 68.99% 1,315 FY00 3,809 2,112 55.4% 8,757 4.14 64.06% 1,390 FY 1999 - FY 2000 Statewide Comparison Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision Percentage of Change 4.52% 0.40% 13.85% 3.65% 12.15% 4.80% (1.53)% 16.74% 13.28% 5.77% (7.05)% (2.42)% 3.51% 116.67% (19.16)% 4.80% 11.41% 10.33% 13.98% 0.73% (8.05)% 5.95% (13.95)% 5.44% 37.89% 35.29% (4.00)% 4.13% 4.80% Category Population Total Youth Placed in Program Total Youth Served Total Closures FY 1999 2,123 3,794 1,906 1,835 288 2,123 131 448 625 104 227 207 114 6 261 2,123 149 184 186 273 261 252 215 147 95 68 75 218 2,123 FY 2000 2,219 3,809 2,170 1,902 323 2,225 129 523 708 110 211 202 118 13 211 2,225 166 203 212 275 240 267 185 155 131 92 72 227 2,225 Change 96 15 264 67 35 102 (2) 75 83 6 (16) (5) 4 7 (50) 102 17 19 26 2 (21) 15 (30) 8 36 24 (3) 9 102 Gender Males Females Total Juveniles New Cases by Severity Type Felonies Against Person Felonies Against Property Obstruction of Justice: Fel & Misd Misdemeanors Against Person Drugs: Fel & Misd Public Peace: Fel & Misd Misdemeanors Against Property Status Offenses Citations/Administrative Total New Cases New Cases by Prior Referrals 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ Total New Cases Page 61 FY 1999 - FY 2000 Statewide Comparison Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (Cont.) Category New Cases by Prior Adjudications 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+ Total New Cases 587 616 460 261 95 54 27 10 6 0 2 5 2,123 114,887 78,859 29,265 42,654 265,665 29,126 236,539 32,791 17,120 5,089 13,678 1,314 129,056 464,713 911,978.4 486,269.6 172,117.5 189,487.4 647,808.6 2,407,661.5 492 573 451 320 166 94 44 27 23 11 5 13 2,219 122,105 80,349 30,270 45,419 278,143 32,349 245,794 41,314 18,117 5,511 10,349 1,240 116,254 470,928 906,501 460,467 148,364 204,792 707,133 2,427,256 (95) (43) (9) 59 71 40 17 17 17 11 3 8 96 7,218 1,490 1,005 2,765 12,478 3,223 9,255 8,523 997 422 (3,329) (74) (12,802) 6,215 (5,478) (25,803) (23,753) 15,304 59,324 19,595 (16.18)% (6.98)% (1.96)% 22.61% 74.74% 74.07% 62.96% 170.00% 283.33% #DIV/0! 150.00% 160.00% 4.52% 6.28% 1.89% 3.43% 6.48% 4.70% 11.07% 3.91% 25.99% 5.82% 8.29% (24.34)% (5.63)% (9.92)% 1.34% (0.60)% (5.31)% (13.80)% 8.08% 9.16% 0.81% FY 1999 FY 2000 Change Percentage of Change Contacts w/Juveniles by Time of Contact Weekday Weekday Night Weekend Weekend Night Total Contacts Contacts Summary Juvenile in Office Juvenile in Field Phone School Employer Treatment Community Service Parent Total Contacts 32-Hour Compliance Data by Type of Activity School Employment Treatment Community Service Other Total Compliance Hours Page 62 FY 1999 - FY 2000 Statewide Comparison Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision (Cont.) Category Drug Tests Number Administered Number Positive Number Negative Drug Free Rate 27,406 3,631 23,775 86.75% 251 752 3,702 354 481 1,225 512 673 58 8,008 3,794 1,695 2,099 8,008 44.68% 447 265 603 445 8 54 84 1,906 1,315 68.99% 28,347 3,778 24,569 86.67% 293 784 4,528 379 448 1,227 462 549 87 8,757 3,809 1,697 2,112 8,738 44.55% 568 262 560 528 83 46 123 2,170 1,390 64.06% 941 147 794 (0.08)% 42 32 826 25 (33) 2 (50) (124) 29 749 15 2 13 730 (0.12)% 121 (3) (43) 83 75 (8) 39 264 75 (4.94)% 3.43% 4.05% 3.34% (0.09)% 16.73% 4.26% 22.31% 7.06% (6.86)% 0.16% (9.77)% (18.42)% 50.00% 9.35% 0.40% 0.12% 0.62% 9.12% (0.28)% 27.07% (1.13)% (7.13)% 18.65% 937.50% (14.81)% 46.43% 13.85% 5.70% (7.16)% FY 1999 FY 2000 Change Percentage of Change Subsequent Offenses by Severity Type Violence Grand Theft Obstruction Fight Drugs Peace Theft Status Citation Total Subsequent Offenses Recidivism Data for Youth Served Total Served Subsequent Non-Offenders Subsequent Offenders Subsequent Offenses Crime Free Rate Outcomes of Cases Closed Released from Probation Turned 18 Released to Regular Probation Committed to ADJC Transferred to Adult Court Transferred to Another Jurisdiction Other Closures Total Closures Successful Closures Successful Closure Rate Page 63 LONGITUDINAL C OMPARISONS SYNOPSIS One measure of good programs is the ability to consistently produce positive outcomes over time. Some programs can generate initial success which fades as the program becomes institutionalized and the initial enthusiasm for the program has waned. A longitudinal comparison will point to the generalized direction of the program in terms of key indicators. Is the direction of the program in sync with the manager's intended goals for the program? Or are the program goals being accomplished? Are the desired results being achieved? A longitudinal comparison provides the macro view needed to address programmatic concerns relating to performance. The intent of this section is to examine JIPS over time against key program measures. By presenting hard data it can be determined if the edge still remains with the program. Several tables and graphs throughout this report speak to this issue. The graph on page 7 entitled "positive outcome - percentages" and the companion graph on page 6 "Positive outcome - numbers" speak to one such outcome measure. The following ten key indicators have been selected to measure the direction of the JIPS program. Taken in the aggregate, these indicators will prove to be representative of program performance over time. Three other indicators, percentage of juveniles attending school, restitution amount collected and probation fees collected will be included in future reports. Data to quantify these three measure were not available for the fiscal years included in this comparison. Each of the measures selected are listed below. Along with the measure is a brief explanation of the measure and an interpretation of a positive direction. ~ Y o u t h Served The total number of juveniles who participated in the program by itself, is a neutral measure. It is utilized as a baseline measure and is to be taken in the context of other measures such as cost per juvenile served, successful completion rate and such. C o s t per Youth Served Total program expenditures divided by total youth served, is a good financial barometer. Financial responsibility for public funds would dictate this number not escalate unnecessarily and, wherever possible, economies of scale be utilized. ~ Page 64 ~ C r i m e Free: Juveniles/Rate An increase in the number of juveniles who were referral free while in the program during the time period being measured. An increase in the rate is a positive indicator. ~ O f f e n s e Rate- All Offenses (Inclusive of technical violations) This measure looks at only those youth who committed an offense while in the program. Included here are all referrals including technical and new criminal offense. Please refer to page 35 for a more detailed explanation. The rate is achieved by dividing the number of offenses by the number of juveniles who committed an offense as shown in the table. Since a crime free life style is a goal of JIPS, a decrease in the rate is desired. ~ O f f e n s e Rate - New Criminal Offenses (Exclusive of technical, status and peace) A measure of the youth who committed new criminal offenses while in the program looks at new criminal offenses and excludes technical and status violations. The rate is achieved by dividing the number of offenses by the number of juveniles who committed an offense as shown in the table. A decrease in the rate is the desired outcome. ~ A v e r a g e Annual Contacts per Juvenile/Frequency of Contacts A measure of the average number of contacts with juveniles during the time period. Frequency speaks to the time between contact. Only contact with juveniles, exclusive of parental and ancillary contact are reported. An increase in the number of contacts with a corresponding decrease in frequency is desired. Percentage of Night Contact Percentage A measure of when juveniles are being seen is important. A program goal is that a minimum of 30% of contacts are to occur during night hours. Night contacts are important because that is proven as the time when most juveniles engage in criminal activity. ~ ~ C o m m u n i t y Service Hours: Total Hours/Monetary Value A measure of juveniles paying back to the community for the cost of supervision is important. The monetary value is achieved by multiplying the total number of community service hours by the current minimum wage of $5.50. ~ S u c c e s s f u l Outcomes - Total Juveniles Successful outcomes refer to juveniles who left the program crime free. The closure categories of "release from JIPS", "release from probation" and "turned 18" are the basis for this measure. The raw number may increase as an indicator of program growth. ~ S u c c e s s f u l Outcomes - Percentage A s a companion to the previous measure, this is the relational side of successful outcomes and speaks to the percentage of successful outcomes against all case closures. An increase in the percentage is a desired outcome. Nationally, intensive probation programs have a 50% successful outcome rate. Page 65 These ten program components have been selected due to their relationship with program performance. Taken in the aggregate, these indicators best speak to the performance of JIPS over the last three fiscal years. The comparison table which follows incorporates these elements by fiscal year beginning with FY97. Measure Youth Served Cost per Youth Served Crime Free - Juveniles Rate Offense Rate All Offenses Offense Rate New Criminal Offenses Average Annual Contacts per Juvenile Frequency of Contacts Percent of Night Contact Community Service Hours: Total Hours Monetary Value Successful Outcomes Total Juveniles Successful Outcomes Percent 61.0% 60.1% 69.0% 64.1% 1,140 1,197 1,315 1,390 150,418 $774,652.70 164,491 $847,128.65 191,473 $1,054,586.50* 204,792 $1,126,356.00 72.50 46% 73.05 44.50% 70.02 45.74% 73.10 45.22% Every 5.0 days Every 4.9 days Every 4.9 days Every 4.9 days FY97 3,301 $2,826 1,220 36.9% 8,533 / 2,081 4.10% 2,582 / 2,081 1.24% FY98 3,854 $2,793 1,403 36.4% 9,800 / 2,451 3.99% 2,586 / 2,451 1.05% FY99 3,794 $3,084 3,794 45.0% 8,008 / 2,099 3.82% 2,350 / 2,099 1.12% FY00 3,809 $3,051 1,697 44.55% 8,471 / 2,166 3.91 2,509 / 2,166 1.15 *Minimum wage was increased in FY99 from $5.15 to $5.50. Page 66 Cases Closed - Historical Comparison Cases Closed - History FY90-FY99 Other Closures 2.8% 383 Cases Closed FY00 Other Closures 5.7% 123 Released from Probation 26.2% 568 Released from Probation 19.5% 2,669 Other Jurisdiction 3.1% 420 Regular Probation 31.2% 4,280 Regular Probation 25.8% 560 Other Jurisdiction 2.1% 46 Adult Court 1.5% 212 Adult Court 3.8% 83 Turned 18 12.1% 262 ADJC 29.2% 3,999 ADJC 24.3% 528 Turned 18 12.8% 1,750 Total Cases Closed FY 90 -FY99: 13,641 Total Cases Closed FY 00: 2,170 JIPS Statewide Data Cases Closed by Fiscal Year FY90 Released from Probation Turned 18 Released to Regular Probation Committed to ADJC Transferred to Adult Court Transferred to Another Jurisdiction Other Closures TOTAL CASES CLOSED 201 26.5% 112 14.8% 177 23.3% 225 29.6% 7 0.9% 16 2.1% 21 2.8% 759 FY91 238 23.5% 155 15.3% 270 26.7% 291 28.8% 8 0.8% 29 2.9% 21 2.1% 1,012 FY92 162 13.4% 140 11.5% 491 40.5% 345 28.4% 19 1.6% 35 2.9% 21 1.7% 1,213 FY93 156 12.7% 145 11.8% 456 37.3% 362 29.6% 23 1.9% 38 3.1% 44 3.6% 1,224 FY94 193 14.0% 159 11.5% 557 40.3% 403 29.2% 23 1.7% 30 2.2% 17 1.2% 1,382 FY95 243 17.4% 188 13.4% 492 35.2% 381 27.3% 26 1.9% 29 2.1% 39 2.8% 1,398 FY96 295 21.4% 130 9.4% 507 36.8% 334 24.3% 47 3.4% 53 3.9% 10 0.7% 1,376 FY97 364 19.5% 210 11.2% 566 30.3% 584 31.2% 42 2.2% 69 3.7% 36 1.9% 1,871 FY98 370 18.6% 246 12.3% 581 29.2% 629 31.6% 9 0.5% 67 3.4% 90 4.5% 1,992 FY99 447 23.5% 265 14.1% 603 31.4% 445 23.1% 8 0.4% 54 2.7% 84 4.3% 1,906 FY00 568 26.2% 262 12.1% 560 25.8% 528 24.3% 83 3.8% 46 2.1% 123 5.7% 2,170 Historical Age Placed on JIPS FY96 - FY00* 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Unknown 8 9 10 11 12 Juvenile Age 13 14 15 16 17 Legend FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 JIPS Statewide Data - FY00 Age When Placed on JIPS by Fiscal Year FY96 Age Unknown 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Totals 0 0 0 0 11 34 134 341 537 590 507 2,154 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51% 1.58% 6.22% 15.83% 24.93% 27.39% 23.54% 100% 2 0 1 21 14 47 120 374 545 738 565 2,427 FY97 0.08% 0.00% 0.04% 0.87% 0.58% 1.94% 4.94% 15.41% 22.46% 30.41% 23.28% 100% 3 0 2 3 14 56 FY98 0.11% 0.00% 0.07% 0.11% 0.52% 2.06% 6.48% 12.62% 23.14% 28.29% 26.60% 100% 2 0 0 5 13 36 FY99 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.51% 1.40% 5.56% 13.49% 23.33% 27.80% 27.64% 100% 4 1 1 3 9 45 174 379 555 687 694 2,552 FY00 Percent 0.16% 0.04% 0.04% 0.12% 0.35% 1.76% 6.82% 14.85% 21.75% 26.92% 27.19% 100% Juveniles Percent Juveniles Percent Juveniles Percent Juveniles Percent Juveniles 176 343 629 769 723 2,718 143 347 600 715 711 2,572 Information from "Juveniles Processed in The Arizona Court System FY96, FY97, FY98, FY99, FY00" Page 70 GLOSSARY ADJUDICATION CITATIONS/ ADMIN. COMMITMENT DELINQUENCY COMPLAINT DELINQUENT DELINQUENT OFFENSE DETENTION A formal finding of guilt; the equivalent of a conviction in adult court. Suicide attempt, court hold, courtesy hold, dependency, immigration, material witness, sovereignty, traffic, or warrant. The action of a judicial officer ordering an adjudicated delinquent youth into the custody of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). A report prepared by a law enforcement agency and submitted to the court alleging that a juvenile has violated a criminal law. A juvenile who has been adjudicated by a judicial officer as having committed a delinquent offense. An act which would be considered a criminal offense if committed by an adult. The legally authorized temporary holding in confinement of a juvenile until the point of release or commitment to a correctional facility. This includes custody while awaiting further court action. Detention may also be ordered by the court as a condition of probation. (1) The formal resolution of a case by a court; (2) the action, by a criminal or juvenile justice agency, which signifies that a portion of the justice process is complete and jurisdiction is relinquished or transferred to another agency. Possession, use, sale, smuggling, or manufacturing any illegal drug (dangerous, narcotic, toxic substance, hallucinogen, or prescription), sniffing, drug paraphernalia, involving minor in drug offense, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. (Crimes against persons, in most cases, misdemeanors) - Assault, simple assault, domestic violence, endangerment, threatening intimidation, lewd and lascivious acts, unlawful imprisonment, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. Crimes against property, in most cases, felonies - Aggravated criminal damage, criminal damage, shoplifting, arson of unoccupied structure, armed burglary, burglary, computer fraud, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, unauthorized use of vehicle, organized crime, failure to return rental property, trafficking, possession of stolen property, stolen vehicle, theft, or the conspiracy of or attempted commission of any of these offenses. DISPOSITION DRUGS FIGHT GRAND THEFT Page 71 INCORRIGIBLE CHILD A child adjudicated as one who refuses to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of his parent, guardian or custodian, and who is beyond the control of such persons. Any child who is habitually truant from school, or who is a runaway from his home or parent, guardian or custodian, or who habitually so deports himself or others, or who commits any act constituting an offense which can only be committed by a minor, or who violates the A.R.S., �4-244 paragraph 9, or who fails to obey any lawful orders of the juvenile court given in a noncriminal action. A person between the ages of 8 and 17, inclusive. A child adjudicated as one who refuses to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of his parent, guardian or custodian, and who is beyond the control of such persons. Any child who is habitually truant from school, or who is a runaway from his home or parent, guardian or custodian, or who habitually so deports himself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of himself or others, or who commits any act constituting an offense which can only be committed by a minor, or who violates A.R.S. �4-244, paragraph 9, or who fails to obey any lawful order of the juvenile court given in a noncriminal action. (Disturbing the peace, etc.) - Abortion, aggravated DUI, carry concealed weapon, child neglect, commercial sex, contributing to delinquency of a minor, crime against nature, cruelty to animals disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, drunkenness, eavesdropping, false reporting, failure to stop, failure to appear, firework violation, gambling/gaming, harassment, indecent exposure, obscenity, prostitution, reckless burning, reckless driving, riot, public sexual indecency, speeding, traffic offenses, trespassing, criminal trespassing, unlawful assembly, weapons offenses, discharge firearm, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. A document filed by the county attorney in juvenile court alleging that a juvenile has committed an offense, and asking that the court proceed to a finding of guilt. A court-ordered disposition placing an adjudicated youth under the control, supervision and care of the court, and under the supervision of a probation officer. The youth is further ordered to abide by specific terms and conditions. The incidence of subsequent referrals by juveniles already on probation. A document that lists the offense (or offenses) that a juvenile is accused of committing. This document is furthermore a request by police, parents, school or other authorities that the juvenile court take appropriate action concerning a youth alleged to have committed a delinquent or incorrigible act. A giving back to the rightful owner of something that has been lost or taken away; restoration. Specifically, an amend, usually financial, made by a juvenile offender to his/her victim, as ordered by the court. JUVENILE OBSTRUCTION PEACE PETITION PROBATION RECIDIVISM REFERRAL RESTITUTION Page 72 REVOCATION In this report, revocation refers to an official action by the juvenile court resulting in a juvenile's removal from JIPS and commitment to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. In other contexts, revocation may include official action resulting in a juvenile's reinstatement to probation, transfer to adult court, or other disposition. (Incorrigible, runaway, etc.) - Curfew, consuming alcohol, incorrigible, liquor possession, runaway, tobacco possession, truancy, or minor consuming. An act or conduct which is declared by statute to be an offense, but only when committed or engaged in by a juvenile. Typical status offenses include running away from home, truancy, possession of an alcoholic beverage, and being incorrigible. Technical violation refers to an act by a probationer contrary to his or her conditions or terms of probation, e.g. curfew violation, failure to attend school, failure to perform community service, and/or failure to advise probation officer of change of residence. A petition to revoke probation or a request to modify probation may be filed due to technical violation(s). A probation officer may mete out specific consequences, short of filing a petition to revoke, for technical violations. Termination refers to an official act by the juvenile court resulting in a juvenile's outright release or discharge from court jurisdiction Crimes against persons, in most cases, misdemeanors - Criminal damage, issue bad check, theft, or the attempted commission of any of these offenses. A probationer's failure to conform to the terms and conditions of his/her probation. Violation of probation refers to acts committed by a probationer resulting in the filing of a petition and in an adjudication. Adjudication for violation of probation may result in a juvenile being committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) or in other disposition available to the juvenile court, e.g. placement in residential treatment, placement in detention, reinstatement to probation, and/or reinstatement with modifications of probation conditions. (Felony against person) - Aggravated assault, arson of occupied structure, child molesting, child prostitution, child abuse, criminal syndicate, custodial interference, drive-by shooting, kidnaping, endangerment, homicide, incest, leaving accident, manslaughter, murder, robbery, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual conduct with minor, or the conspiracy of or attempted commission of any of these offenses. STATUS STATUS OFFENSE TECHNICAL VIOLATION TERMINATION THEFT VIOLATION OF PROBATION VIOLENCE Page 73 |
