Arizona crime trends a system review

              Arizona Crime
Trends : A
System R e v i ew
2005 July
Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Statistical Analysis Center Publication
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
Chairperson
J.T. McCANN
Flagstaff Police Department
Chief
Vice-Chairperson
ROBERT CARTER OLSON
Pinal County Attorney
JOSEPH ARPAIO
Maricopa County Sheriff
DUANE BELCHER
Board of Executive Clemency
Chairperson
JIM BOLES
City of Winslow Mayor
DAVID K. BYERS
Administrative Office of the
Courts Director
CLARENCE DUPNIK
Pima County Sheriff
TONY ESTRADA
Santa Cruz County Sheriff
TERRY GODDARD
Attorney General
BARBARA LAWALL
Pima County Attorney
ROD MARQUARDT
Mohave County Chief Probation
Officer
TOMMIE CLINE MARTIN
Gila County Supervisor
RICHARD MIRANDA
Tucson Police Department
Chief
RALPH OGDEN
Yuma County Sheriff
DORA SCHRIRO
Department of Corrections
Director
LINDA SCOTT
Former Judge
ANDREW P. THOMAS
Maricopa County Attorney
ROGER VANDERPOOL
Department of Public Safety
Director
RICHARD YOST
El Mirage Police Department
Chief
JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR.
Executive Director
STEVE BALLANCE
Statistical Analysis Center
Director
MITCH HALFPENNY
Senior Research Analyst
JOY LITZENBERGER
Research Analyst
JANICE SIMPSON
Research Analyst
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank
the law enforcement, probation, correctional agencies and court services personnel who
contributed to this report.
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
Michelle Anderson, Arizona Supreme Court
Lynn Allmann, Department of Public Safety
Bobbie Chinsky, Arizona Supreme Court
Elizabeth Eells, Ph.D., Arizona Supreme Court
Joyce Dehnert, Department of Public Safety
Daryl Fischer, Ph.D., Department of Corrections
Steve Gendler, Department of Public Safety
Mark J. McDermott, Arizona Supreme Court
John Vivian, Ph.D., Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
Introduction 1
Research Purpose 3
Research Methods 3
Population 4
National Crime Victimization Survey 5
Arizona Department of Public Safety 7
UCR Submissions 8
Part I Crimes - Crime Distribution 9
Crime Index – Rates 12
Violent Crime 14
Murder 15
Forcible Rape 16
Robbery 17
Aggravated Assault 18
Property Crime 19
Burglary 20
Larceny-Theft 21
Motor Vehicle Theft 22
Firearm Use in Violent Crime 23
Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Services 30
Superior Court 30
Justice courts 33
Municipal courts 35
Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Probation Services Division 37
Juvenile Justice System 41
Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Services Justice Division 41
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections 45
Department of Corrections 51
Special Topics 60
Gender in the Juvenile Justice System 61
Gender in the Adult Prison Population 63
AIBRS/NIBRS 65
Fill the Gap 67
Findings 69
Conclusion 73
Bibliography 76
Appendix A 77
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past 10 years, Arizona has had a considerably higher crime rate than the rest
of the nation. Between 1993 and 2003, Part I crime rates decreased 17.3 percent in
Arizona. During this same time period crime rates nationally decreased 24.9 percent.
Part I crime rates indicate the
frequency of Part I crimes per
100,000 residents. While
crime rates in Arizona have
also decreased, the workload
for the criminal justice system
has not decreased. The
population in Arizona
increased 41.8 percent
between 1993 and 2003,
compared to a 12.8 percent
increase during the same time
period nationwide.
The population increase has
caused an increase in reported Part I crimes in Arizona even though the crime rate was
falling. Population increases also fuel higher levels of traffic violations and
misdemeanors that, while not taken into account in Part I crime rates, increase the
workload of police, prosecutors, the courts, and jails. Criminal justice agencies in
Arizona have seen an increase in workloads tied to the 41.8 percent increase in
population over the last decade. However, there has not been a corresponding increase
in funding or positions. This strain is seen throughout the criminal justice system
through overcrowded prisons, overloaded courts and a lack of an adequate number of
police officers for patrol and other functions.
The continuing increase in the prison population and the accompanying increases in
costs per inmate and agency expenditures highlight the need for a solid data
infrastructure in Arizona from which to analyze trends and provide information to
policymakers. Additional research on recidivism rates for violent and non-violent
offenders should be conducted in order to determine the likelihood of reoffending. The
current sentencing structure in relation to individual statutes could then be evaluated
based on risk and recidivism information for offenders of various crime types. The
rising prisoner population, while an urgent issue currently, is only one example of a
place where an improved data infrastructure can assist researchers in providing data
based recommendations to policymakers in order to improve the criminal justice
system. Based upon the findings of this research, effective policies could be
implemented with an appropriate balance between lowering administrative costs while
assuring for community safety.
Index Crime Rate
1993-2003
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Number of Crimes Reported
National
Arizona
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review ii
Ending Adult Committed Population
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Inmate Population
In 2003, Arizona had the highest crime rate in the nation, fueled largely by the high
property crime rate. In addition, Arizona was ranked 13th in violent crimes. The total
violent crime rate is fueled by the property crime rate because the vast majority of Part
I crimes reported are property crimes. Arizona has the highest motor vehicle theft rate
in the nation, and the second highest larceny-theft rate. Proximity to the border, a high
percentage of youth in Arizona’s population, and drug-related crimes are reasons that
are often cited for the high property crime rate in Arizona.
The increase in crimes committed in Arizona has caused an increase in the number of
suspects arrested and a related increase in prosecution and court workloads. The
number of felony cases filed has increased by almost 26,000 over the last 10 years with
28,522 in FY1994 compared to 54,420 in FY2004, a 90.8 percent increase. When all
criminal case filings are considered, there was a statewide increase of 81.8 percent
during this time period. In the last year that information was available, FY2004, nearly
2.4 million cases were filed in Arizona courts. Increases in felony filings,
misdemeanors, traffic violations and civil filings have increased the burden on
prosecutors and the courts. This increase fuels an increase in prisoners both at the
state and county level, and increases the number of probationers as well.
The prison population increased 74.0 percent between 1993 and 2003. Changes in
sentencing structure, as well as an increase in the population in Arizona have
contributed to this increase. In
1994, Truth in Sentencing laws
were implemented. These laws
mandated that prisoners serve a
larger portion of their sentence
than was previously being
served. In FY1994, the average
prisoner was incarcerated for 25
months. In FY2004, the average
prisoner served 33 months. The
increase in prisoner sentences,
combined with the longer time
prisoners are serving, has caused
significant overcrowding in the prisons. New prison space has not kept pace with
prisoner population growth.
The only area in the criminal justice system that has not seen a significant increase in
actual numbers is the juvenile justice system. Between FY1996 and FY2004, referrals
into the juvenile justice system decreased 1.9 percent. This is despite soaring numbers
of juveniles in Arizona. The total number of youth held in the Arizona Department of
Juvenile Corrections has decreased, although the number of girls has increased. This
increase in females in the juvenile justice system is considered significant, as it follows
a nationwide trend of female youth being more involved in criminal activity.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review iii
This third edition of the Crime Trends in Arizona report was the result of the
collaborative efforts of researchers from several agencies within the criminal justice
system in Arizona. Information sharing among criminal justice agencies and an
increased focus on the further development of the current data infrastructure will allow
criminal justice policy and decision makers in Arizona to have the information necessary
for evaluating policy and program decisions. Scarce resources and increased workloads
have created an environment where it is more important than ever to improve data
sharing directed toward evaluating effectiveness. Policymakers at every point in the
system must be given accurate data so that they understand the total picture of crime
in Arizona and the problems that criminal justice stakeholders are facing.
Although crime rates in Arizona have, for the most part, decreased in the past ten
years, the dramatic rise in population has led to a greater number of people entering
the system. Increased workloads resulting from the population increase have affected
the criminal justice system at all stages: police, prosecution, courts, probation, and
prison. The need to expand capacities, coupled with limited resources, means that
changes in the system must be efficient and effective. An enhanced data infrastructure
will allow research strategies and recommendations that can provide direction for policy
changes where they will have the most impact, without compromising justice or public
safety.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 1
INTRODUCTION
Along with the population growth in Arizona has come an increased number of crimes
and more arrests. This higher number of arrests creates a domino effect throughout
the criminal justice system, increasing workloads. This has created a strain on the
criminal justice system because the increases in total crime and caseloads have not
been accompanied by a similar increase in funding. Coupled with higher operating
costs, strained city, county, and state budgets, and increased demands due to the
ongoing threat of terrorism, the criminal justice system is tasked with doing more with
less. At the same time that the criminal justice system in Arizona is facing increased
workloads, federal funding to states for criminal justice activities has decreased
nationwide.
Agencies throughout the criminal justice system are being tasked with demonstrating
effectiveness, or risk losing state and federal funding. While an important goal, proving
effectiveness requires that data be collected and disseminated, further increasing the
burden on already strained resources. Federal funding has increasingly required
performance based strategies with built-in performance measures to gauge
effectiveness, a trend that seems to be increasing. A data infrastructure throughout the
criminal justice system to collect the information needed to measure performance of
new and current systems will allow the criminal justice system and policymakers to
evaluate efficiency and effectiveness. Gauging how well criminal justice systems meet
preset performance measures will allow agencies and policymakers to replicate best
practices and improve struggling systems.
Arizona has followed a nationwide trend over the past 10 years in which the overall
crime rate has decreased. However, the rate of decrease has slowed over the past few
years, with some index crimes increasing in Arizona. During this decrease in overall
crime rate (rate of crime per 100,000 residents), the population in Arizona grew 41.8
percent between 1993 and 2003. As the population increased, the number of crimes
reported to police rose. The crime rate indicates the likelihood for state residents to be
the victim of a crime, while the number of crimes committed and cases processed
indicate workload levels. Trends in violent and property crime rates over the past 10
years show that Arizona is a safer place to live for the average resident compared to
previous years. Many factors played into the decreasing crime rate including a growing
economy in the 1990s, tough crime laws, and a growing intolerance for crime among
the general public. Information from Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data will show the
trends over the past 10 years, and Arizona’s crime ranking for each Part I crime as
compared to other states.
As more cases were processed through the courts, the number of inmates housed by
the Department of Corrections increased to the point that there was a deficit of nearly
2,000 beds. The juvenile justice system saw a decrease at all stages of the juvenile
justice system. Despite a surging juvenile population in the state, the number of
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2
referrals into the system, as well as the number of youths held in secure facilities
decreased. However, while there was a decrease of males entering secure facilities,
there was an increase of females.
A new section on special topics has been added to this report over previous editions.
The special topics section will focus on issues facing the criminal justice system today.
Of particular focus will be gender in the juvenile and adult correctional populations.
Males make up the vast majority of inmates in both the juvenile and adult systems.
However, at both levels, the proportion of females in the justice system is increasing.
This trend mirrors what is being seen at the national level. Also covered in this report is
the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) that will eventually be used for
data analysis along with the UCR system because it collects more detailed information
regarding crime. The Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) has been
implemented and is currently being tested in three agencies in Arizona.
A broad spectrum of criminal justice professionals in Arizona worked together to
produce this report. Through this partnership, a larger overview of the criminal justice
system is presented from various perspectives throughout the system. The Arizona
Department of Public Safety, the Department of Corrections and the Department of
Juvenile Corrections contributed sections to this report. Several units within the Arizona
Administrative Office of the Courts provided sections regarding their activities including
Court Services, Adult Probation Services Division and Juvenile Services Justice Division.
The criminal justice system in Arizona is a very large and complex system with more
than 480 agencies and related organizations. Available resources, the size and
complexity of the criminal justice system and the legacy nature of data sources have
influenced the scope of this report. This report is an update to the 2003 Crime Trends
in Arizona: A System Review. It is not intended to be a comprehensive source, but
rather an overview of the criminal justice system in Arizona. We invite interpretation
and anticipate the data and information will elicit questions and discussion among key
stakeholders. It is our belief the dialogue generated by questions and discussion may
provide a foundation by which Arizona can develop responses to crime trend issues.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 3
RESEARCH PURPOSE
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review publication was created to accomplish three
primary objectives. The first objective was to provide an overview of crime trends in
Arizona and an update to the 2003 Arizona Crime Trends report. The second was to
provide the Governor, criminal justice stakeholders and the citizens of Arizona with a
review of the criminal justice system in Arizona in accordance with Arizona Revised
Statute §41-2405. Specifically, ARS §41-2405 mandates that the Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission “facilitate information and data exchange among criminal justice
agencies, establish and maintain criminal justice system information archives and
prepare for the governor an annual criminal justice system review report.” The third
objective was to provide the criminal justice system with a presentation of selected
topics of particular relevance to the criminal justice system in Arizona today.
RESEARCH METHODS
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and Uniform Crime Report (UCR)
information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation database were used to present
information about criminal activity in Arizona over the past 10 years to set a foundation
for this report. Crime data included in this report were compiled from information
reported to police and collected through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program
by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) for submission to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI). In order to create a system wide review, the Statistical Analysis
Center solicited the participation of key criminal justice stakeholders in a collaborative
partnership. The partnership included the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Arizona
Supreme Court including Court, Adult and Juvenile Services, Arizona Department of
Juvenile Corrections and Arizona Department of Corrections. The information included
in the 2005 Crime Trends was based upon the most recent data that was available by
that agency. Information on selected topics was solicited from various agencies and
resources in order to present an overview of those topics.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 4
POPULATION
Table 1
Arizona’s population grew more than three
times faster than the rest of the nation from
1993 to 2003, growing at a rate of 41.8
percent, compared to a 12.8 percent growth
in the national population. From 2002 to
2003, Arizona’s population increased by 2.3
percent. Table 1 displays past and current
population rates for Arizona and the United
States over the last 10 years. (Crime in the
United States reports 1993-2003) Between
2000 and 2004, Arizona was the second
fastest growing state, behind Nevada
(http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank02.
html).
The smallest population increase in the past
10 years in Arizona was approximately 2.3 percent in 2003. During the same time
period, the smallest growth in the national population was 0.8 percent. The greatest
increase for both Arizona and national populations was in 2000. Arizona experienced a
7.4 percent increase compared to the 3.2 percent increase nationally from 1999 to
2000. The continuous population growth in Arizona results in a strain on law
enforcement resources, even at a time when crime rates are falling.
Figure 1
Percent Change in Population from Previous Year
1993 - 2003
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Source: Crime in the United States, 2003
POPULATION
Year Arizona
Population
National
Population
1993 3,936,000 257,908,000
1994 4,075,000 260,341,000
1995 4,218,000 262,755,000
1996 4,428,000 265,284,000
1997 4,555,000 267,637,000
1998 4,669,000 270,296,000
1999 4,778,000 272,691,000
2000 5,130,632 281,421,906
2001 5,307,331 284,796,887
2002 5,456,453 288,368,698
2003 5,580,811 290,809,777
% Change
1993-2003 41.8% 12.8%
Source: Crime in the United States, 2003
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 5
NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY
The most recent National Crime Victimization Survey revealed that there were 24.2
million criminal victimizations in 2003. These criminal victimizations included an
estimated 18.6 million property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft), 5.4
million violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault), and 185,000 personal thefts (pocket picking and purse snatching). This is a
decrease from the 25.9 million reported in 2000 and comparable to the 24.2 million
criminal victimizations in 2002. This is also the lowest reported number since 1973 (44
million victimizations) when the NCVS was first initiated (Criminal Victimization, 2003,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv03.txt).
Table 2 provides data about the rate of criminal victimization per 100,000 for six
offense areas. The data covers 1993 to 2003 and provides a percentage difference view
by offense group for the 2002-2003 periods. Rape/sexual assault and simple assault
were the only offenses that decreased. The largest decline was for rape with a 27.3
percent decline from 2002-2003.
Table 2
RATE OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION per 100,000 INHABITANTS
Rape/Sexual
Assault
Robbery Aggravated
Assault
Simple
Assault
Motor Vehicle
Theft
Theft
1993 230 620 1,220 3,080 1,970 24,270
1994 200 610 1,160 3,110 1,750 23,570
1995 170 540 950 2,990 1,690 22,430
1996 140 520 880 2,660 1,350 20,570
1997 140 430 860 2,490 1,380 18,990
1998 150 400 750 2,350 1,080 16,810
1999 170 360 670 2,080 1,000 15,390
2000 120 320 570 1,780 860 13,770
2001 110 280 530 1,590 920 12,900
2002 110 220 430 1550 900 12,230
2003 80 250 460 1460 900 12,440
% Change
2002-2003 -27.3% 13.6% 7.0% -5.8% 0.0% 1.7%
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey Reports, 1993-2003
Among the 5.4 million violent
victimizations in 2003, most male
victims were victimized by
strangers, while most females
were victimized by someone they
knew. Table 3 outlines the type of
victim-offender relationship by
gender as reported in the 2003
NCVS. Females were much more
likely to have an intimate relationship with their assailant (19 percent) than were males
Table 3
VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP for
VIOLENT CRIMES 2003
Male Female
Victims 3,056,160 2,345,550
Intimate 3% 19%
Other Relative 5% 10%
Friend/Acquaintance 35% 38%
Stranger 54% 32%
Source: National Crime Victimization Survey Report, 2003
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 6
(three percent). At the same time, males were much more likely not to know their
assailant (54 percent) than were females (32 percent).
The 2003 NCVS study results indicated
that less than 50 percent of all violent
crime is reported to the police. In 1993,
only 35 percent of the crimes described
by victims were reported to law
enforcement authorities. Table 4
summarizes the reporting patterns by
gender and ethnicity for violent crimes in
2003. During 2003, male victims reported
violent crimes (45.9 percent) less often
than female victims (53.3 percent). By
contrast, in 1993 male victims reported
violent crimes 39 percent of the time,
while females reported violent crimes
47.9 percent of the time.
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the
National Criminal Victimization Survey
(NCVS) are conducted for different
purposes and their differences are
important. Each report uses different collection methods. The UCR gathers data from
monthly reports transmitted to the FBI from law enforcement agencies. The NCVS is a
victimization survey conducted with a large sample of U.S. households. They have some
overlapping data, but not identical offense categories and they cover different
population sets. Because of the differences between the two reports, the reader is
reminded that a smaller percentage of crimes is actually reported to law enforcement
officials and as such is reflected in the UCR reported crime data.
Table 4
VIOLENT CRIMES REPORTED TO
POLICE BY GENDER AND RACE, 2003
Male 45.9%
Race
White 44.8%
Black 53.2%
Other 43.2%
Hispanic Origin
Hispanic 55.2%
Non-Hispanic 44.1%
Female 53.3%
Race
White 52.7%
Black 58.0%
Other 39.6%
Hispanic Origin
Hispanic 52.9%
Non-Hispanic 53.3%
Source: Criminal Victimization 2003
(percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding and
reporting methods)
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 7
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
The Arizona Department of Public Safety was created in 1969 as a consolidation of
three state law enforcement agencies. This newly formed agency took over the
functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway Patrol, the Law Enforcement
Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and the Narcotics Division of
the State Department of Law. The Department of Public Safety’s mission is to enforce
state laws, deter criminal activity, assure highway and public safety, and provide vital
scientific, technical and operational support to other criminal justice agencies in
furtherance of the protection of human life and property.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety is a multi-faceted organization dedicated to
protecting and providing state-level law enforcement services to the public. During the
nearly 35 years it has existed, the agency has worked to develop and maintain close
partnerships with other agencies sharing similar missions. The Department of Public
Safety consists of four divisions: Highway Patrol; Criminal Investigations; Agency
Support and Criminal Justice Support. These four divisions work together to provide a
wide range of scientific, technical, operational and regulatory services to Arizona
residents and to the state's criminal justice community. One of these services is the
collection and compilation of Uniform Crime Report data.
In 1992, ARS §41-1750 subsection D was amended to read, “The chief officers of law
enforcement agencies of this state or its political subdivisions shall provide to the
central state repository such information as necessary to operate the statewide uniform
crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime
reporting program.” Since that time the number of law enforcement agencies
participating in the UCR data project Crime in Arizona has increased, resulting in more
accurate and thorough reporting.
There are differing methods of reporting crime data between the Crime in Arizona
report produced by the Department of Public Safety and the Crime in the United States
report published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). FBI data was used in
order to make the data comparable with other states for analyses. The data used for
both agencies is the same, but the FBI uses estimates to account for non-responding
agencies, providing a slight variation in reporting. This primarily pertains to estimates
made at the national level by extrapolating data from agencies that contribute
incomplete or partial data. Additionally, there are differences in population estimates
used by the FBI and the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Therefore, the reader
should be cognizant of the fact there will be subtle differences between the numbers
contained within these two reports.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 8
UCR SUBMISSIONS
Similar to the findings of the last
Crime Trends in Arizona report,
agency submissions increased over
the ten-year period between 1994
and 2003. As shown in Table 5, 89.7
percent of monthly uniform crime
reports were received from agencies
and 76.0 percent of agencies
submitted all 12 monthly reports in
1994. In 2003, submissions
increased to 91.8 percent of monthly
uniform crime reports and 81.6
percent of agencies submitting all
monthly reports. However, this was
a decrease from 2001, the highest
participation year, where 94.9 percent of monthly uniform crime reports were submitted
and 89.2 percent of agencies submitted all 12 monthly reports. The fact that the
submissions were so high in 2001 shows that the data infrastructure has improved since
the original implementation of UCR.
As this data is used both at the state
and national level for many
purposes, including federal grant
funding, this decrease is cause for
concern. Several issues can affect
failure to report including
technological problems and changes
in how data is collected internally.
While there has been an overall
increase in UCR submissions, there
has been a decrease in reporting
over the past two years. (See
Appendix A for more information
regarding UCR submissions.)
Table 5
UCR Agency Submissions
1999 – 2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003*
Agencies 100 100 100 100 102 102 102 102 102 103
Percent Months
Returned 89.7% 87.9% 84.4% 87.3% 89.9% 93.9% 93.9% 94.9% 89.0% 91.8%
Agencies Submitting 76.0% 74.0% 68.0% 66.0% 68.6% 87.3% 85.3% 89.2% 78.4% 81.6%
all Reports 76 74 68 66 70 89 87 91 80 84
*Two agencies submitted data with another agency for six months each.
Source: FBI Database
Figure 3
Figure 2
Arizona UCR Submissions
Percent of Agencies Submitting All Monthly Reports 1994 - 2003
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Percent Submitting All Reports
Source: FBI Database
Arizona UCR Submissions
Percent Months Returned 1994 - 2003
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Percent
Source: FBI Database
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 9
It is important to note that the vast majority of agencies filed all monthly reports (81.6
percent in 2003), including all large agencies. Three agencies are state certified and
submitting Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) data. As the AIBRS data
collection strategy is expanded with more agencies being certified, its usefulness at the
local level, as well as the state and national level will increase. This system gives
criminal justice and law enforcement professionals the tools necessary to better identify
and study crime trends. This gives the criminal justice system and policymakers greater
ability to identify when, where, and how crime is taking place, as well as identifying
victim characteristics. For a more detailed description of AIBRS/NIBRS, please see the
AIBRS/NIBRS section starting on page 65.
The difference in the level of detail collected by UCR and NIBRS is evident by the type
of information collected. Uniform Crime Reports collect limited offense and arrest
information about the most serious offenses and general characteristics of persons
arrested. In addition to collecting the type of information collected by UCR, NIBRS
collects more detailed offense and arrest information and victim information about each
count. NIBRS allows for accurate information to be collected on victim based crimes
such as domestic violence. Similar to the UCR program, the Arizona Department of
Public Safety (DPS) collects data for the FBI NIBRS program in the Arizona Incident
Based Reporting System (AIBRS) repository. This repository is designed to collect data
on each crime occurrence as well as each incident and arrest within that occurrence
and will allow the state to report information to the FBI for NIBRS.
PART I CRIMES
CRIME DISTRIBUTION
Nationally, larceny-theft (59.4 percent) represented the largest reported UCR crime in
2003, followed by burglary (18.2 percent), motor vehicle theft (10.7 percent),
aggravated assault (7.3 percent), robbery (3.5 percent), forcible rape (0.8 percent) and
murder (0.1 percent).
Figure 4 Figure 5
Arizona Crime Index Offenses
Percent Distribution for 2003
Murder, 0.1%
Forcible Rape, 0.5%
Robbery, 2.2%
Aggravated Assault,
5.5%
Burglary, 17.1%
Larceny-Theft, 57.9%
Motor Vehicle Theft,
16.6%
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
National Crime Index Offenses
Percent Distribution for 2003
Murder, 0.1%
Forcible Rape, 0.8%
Robbery, 3.5%
Aggravated Assault,
7.3%
Burglary, 18.2%
Larceny-Theft, 59.4%
Motor Vehicle Theft,
10.7%
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 10
In Arizona, larceny-theft (57.9 percent) also represented the largest reported UCR
crime in 2003, followed by burglary (17.1 percent), motor vehicle theft (16.6 percent),
aggravated assault (5.5 percent), robbery (2.2 percent), forcible rape (sexual assault in
Arizona, 0.5 percent) and murder (0.1 percent).
When comparing national and Arizona UCR patterns for 2003 several similarities exist.
Larceny-theft represented the largest category of offenses for both national and state
trends, followed by burglary and motor vehicle theft. As seen in figures 4 and 5, the
percent distribution for murder was identical at the state and national levels. These
figures also illustrate that the percent distribution for forcible rape, robbery and
aggravated assault was lower for Arizona than at the national level.
Figure 6
Violent and Property Crime
Distribution in 2003
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Property Crimes Violent Crimes
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Figure 6 provides a comparison of the national and Arizona proportion of violent and
property crimes for 2003. A closer look at that comparison shows that for property
crimes, Arizona is slightly higher than the national level. The opposite is true for the
proportion of violent crime, where Arizona is slightly below national levels. Property
crime represented 88.3 percent of the total crime reported nationally in 2003 and 91.3
percent of Arizona’s total crime rate. Arizona has the highest overall crime rate in the
nation even though Arizona has the thirteenth highest violent crime rate in the nation.
When the property crime rate and the violent crime rate are added together, the total
crime rate in Arizona is higher than any other state.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 11
There was an overall decrease of 24.9 percent in the total crime rate in the United
States from 1993 to 2003. During that period, there was a decrease in every index
crime. After more than a decade, 2003 continued this trend with a one percent
decrease in the total crime rate.
Table 6
NATIONAL CRIME INDEX (RATES)
Year Murder Forcible
Rape Robbery Aggravated
Assault Burglary Larceny-
Theft
Auto
Theft
Total
Crime
1993 9.5 41.1 256.0 440.5 1,099.7 3,033.9 606.3 5,487.1
1994 9.0 39.3 237.8 427.6 1,042.1 3,026.9 591.3 5,373.8
1995 8.2 37.1 220.9 418.3 987.0 3,043.2 560.3 5,274.9
1996 7.4 36.3 201.9 391.0 945.0 2,980.3 525.7 5,087.6
1997 6.8 35.9 186.2 382.1 918.8 2,891.8 505.7 4,927.3
1998 6.3 34.5 165.5 361.4 863.2 2,729.5 459.9 4,620.1
1999 5.7 32.8 150.1 334.3 770.4 2,550.7 422.5 4,266.5
2000 5.5 32.0 145.0 324.0 728.8 2,477.3 412.2 4,124.8
2001 5.6 31.8 148.5 318.5 740.8 2,484.6 430.6 4,160.5
2002 5.6 33.1 146.1 309.5 747.0 2,450.7 432.9 4,160.5
2003 5.7 32.1 142.2 295.0 740.5 2,414.5 433.4 4,118.8
Source: Crime in the United States, 2003
Compared to 2002, there was a decrease
in crime rates for most of the Uniform
Crime Report Part I offenses in 2003.
Murder increased 1.8 percent, changing
from a rate of 5.6 to 5.7 per 100,000
inhabitants. All property crimes and rates
except motor vehicle theft decreased
from 2002 to 2003 with burglary rates
down 0.8 percent, larceny-theft down 1.3
percent, and motor vehicle theft
increasing 0.3 percent.
The following tables and figures illustrate how Arizona compares to the rest of the
nation in each of the index crime categories. As crime rates are calculated by the
number of crimes per 100,000 residents, rates present a clearer picture of whether
crime has increased or decreased than do number of crimes reported. In Arizona, the
number of actual crimes has gone up due to the growing population. However, the
crime rate has decreased over the past 10 years. Arizona moved up in ranking for
murder and rape, while moving down in ranking in robbery and aggravated assault,
with the other index crimes remaining at the same rank during 2002 and 2003. Arizona
has the highest rate in the nation for motor vehicle theft, which contributes to the
state’s number one ranking in property crime.
Table 7
NATIONAL
PART I CRIME
2002
RATE
2003
RATE
PERCENT
CHANGE
Crime Index 4,118.8 4,063.4 -1.4%
Violent Crime 494.6 475.0 -4.0%
Murder 5.6 5.7 1.8%
Rape 33.0 32.1 -2.7%
Robbery 145.9 142.2 -2.5%
Aggravated Assault 310.1 295.0 -4.9%
Property Crime 3,624.1 3,588.4 -1.0%
Burglary 746.2 740.5 -0.8%
Larceny-Theft 2,445.8 2,414.5 -1.3%
Motor Vehicle Theft 432.1 433.4 0.3%
Source: Crime in the United States, 2002 and 2003
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 12
Table 8
Part I Crime
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
2002-2003
1 Arizona 6,145.6 1 6,386.3 -3.8%
2 Hawaii 5,507.9 2 6,043.7 -8.9%
3 South Carolina 5,270.6 4 5,297.3 -0.5%
4 Florida 5,182.2 3 5,420.6 -4.4%
5 Texas 5,147.8 5 5,189.6 -0.8%
6 Washington 5,101.9 6 5,106.8 -0.1%
7 Oregon 5,077.8 10 4,868.4 4.3%
8 Tennessee 5,067.2 9 5,018.9 1.0%
9 Louisiana 4,995.8 7 5,098.1 -2.0%
10 Nevada 4,902.6 16 4,497.5 9.0%
National Rate 4,063.4 4,118.8 -1.4%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
CRIME INDEX – RATES
Table 9 provides an overview of Arizona Part I crimes from 2002-2003 and summarizes
the offense specific tables which follow. It is important to note from this table that
Arizona is highest in the nation in total Crime Index, property crime and motor vehicle
theft. Arizona ranks high in all property crimes, especially motor vehicle theft and
larceny-theft. In addition, Arizona ranks number four in the country in burglaries. As
property crime makes up 91.3 percent of all Part I crimes reported in Arizona, Arizona
also has the highest overall crime rate. Hawaii, with the second highest crime rate,
likewise has a very high property crime rate when compared to the rest of the nation.
The property crime rate is
a major factor in
determining the overall
crime rate because it
contains the highest
incidences (91.6 percent)
of crime as reflected by
the 5632.4 rate in 2003. In
turn, Arizona was also
ranked number four in
burglary, number two in
larceny-theft and first in
motor vehicle theft, which
accounts for Arizona
having the highest
property crime rate per
Table 9
ARIZONA PART I CRIMES
FROM 2002-2003 RATE PER 100,000
2003 Rank 2002 Rank Percent
Change
Crime Index 6,145.6 1 6,386.3 1 -3.8%
Violent Crime 513.2 13 552.9 13 -7.2%
Murder 7.9 5 7.1 9 11.3%
Rape 33.3 24 29.5 30 12.9%
Robbery 136.5 17 146.6 14 -6.9%
Aggravated
Assault 335.5 14 369.8 12 -9.3%
Property
Crime 5,632.4 1 5,833.4 1 -3.5%
Burglary 1,050.3 4 1,082.9 2 -3.0%
Larceny-Theft 3,560.9 2 3,693.6 2 -3.6%
Motor Vehicle
Theft 1,021.3 1 1,056.9 1 -3.4%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 13
100,000 residents. Motor vehicle theft has a substantial impact on Arizona’s property
crime rate because the state was not only number one in motor vehicle theft, but it was
number one by a large margin over other states.
Table 10
ARIZONA CRIME INDEX (RATES)
Year Murder Forcible
Rape Robbery Aggravated
Assault Burglary Larceny-
Theft
Auto
Theft
Total
Crime
1993 8.6 37.8 162.9 505.7 1,465.5 4,387.4 863.8 7,431.7
1994 10.5 36.0 162.0 494.7 1,476.2 4,678.5 1,066.7 7,924.6
1995 10.4 33.6 173.8 495.7 1,416.8 4,925.6 1,157.7 8,213.6
1996 8.5 31.2 167.8 424.0 1,256.3 4,252.5 926.7 7,067.0
1997 8.2 32.8 165.7 417.1 1,318.9 4,282.0 970.4 7,195.1
1998 8.1 31.1 165.2 373.6 1,209.5 3,922.4 865.1 6,575.0
1999 8.0 28.9 152.5 361.6 1,034.4 3,510.5 800.5 5,896.4
2000 7.0 30.7 146.3 347.7 1,011.6 3,444.1 842.1 5,829.5
2001 7.5 28.6 167.1 337.1 1,032.9 3,520.6 983.6 6,077.4
2002 7.1 29.5 146.6 369.8 1,082.9 3,693.6 1,056.9 6,386.4
2003 7.9 33.3 136.5 335.5 1,050.3 3,560.9 1,021.3 6,145.6
Sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
Arizona’s index crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson) remained substantially higher than the
national rate between 1993 through 2003. This rate includes both property and violent
crimes, although the majority of crimes included are property crimes. The total index
crime rate in Arizona fell 17.3 percent from 7431.7 to 6145.6 between 1993 and 2003.
While this represented a large drop in crime, the national index crime rate decreased
from 5487.1 in 1993 to 4118.8 in 2003, a decline of 24.9 percent.
Figure 7
Index Crime Rate
1993-2003
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Number of Crimes Reported
National
Arizona
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 14
VIOLENT CRIME
According to the Uniform Crime Reporting definitions, violent crime is composed of four
offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery and
aggravated assault. All violent crimes involve force or threat of force. Both the national
and state violent crime rates have decreased over the past 10 years. However, the
national violent crime rate has decreased at a slightly higher rate than that of Arizona.
As reflected in Table 11, Arizona’s rate of total violent crime decreased by 7.2 percent
from 2002 to 2003. In both 2002 and 2003 Arizona ranked 13th for violent crime in the
nation. Most states in the top 10 rankings for violent crime had at least a slight
decrease in the rate of violent crime from 2002 to 2003. However, Arizona’s rate of
violent crime decreased at a higher rate than most other top 10 ranked states.
Table 11
Violent Crime
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 South Carolina 793.5 1 822.0 -3.5%
2 Florida 730.2 2 770.2 -5.2%
3 Maryland 703.9 3 769.8 -8.6%
4 Tennessee 687.8 5 716.9 -4.1%
5 New Mexico 665.2 4 739.5 -10.0%
6 Delaware 658.0 9 599.0 9.9%
7 Louisiana 646.3 6 662.3 -2.4%
8 Nevada 614.2 7 637.5 -3.7%
9 Alaska 593.4 12 563.4 5.3%
10 California 579.3 10 593.4 -2.4%
13 Arizona 513.2 13 552.9 -7.2%
National Rate 475.0 494.6 -4.0%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 8
Violent Crime Rate
1993-2003
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Calendar Year
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 15
MURDER
As defined by the UCR program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, is “the willful
(nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.” (Crime in the United States,
2003, p.15). The murder rate in Arizona increased by 11.3 percent from the year 2002
to 2003. In 2002, Arizona was ranked 9th in the nation for its murder rate per 100,000
residents. In 2003, Arizona rose from ranking of 9 in 2002 to a ranking 5 in 2003.
Table 12
Murder
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 Louisiana 13.0 1 13.2 -1.5%
2 Maryland 9.5 2 9.4 1.1%
3 Mississippi 9.3 3 9.2 1.1%
4 Nevada 8.8 4 8.3 6.0%
5 Arizona 7.9 9 7.1 11.3%
6 Georgia 7.6 9 7.1 7.0%
7 South Carolina 7.2 7 7.3 -1.4%
8 Illinois 7.1 6 7.5 -5.3%
9 California 6.8 11 6.8 0.0%
9 Tennessee 6.8 8 7.2 -5.6%
National Rate 5.7 5.6 1.8%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 9
On a national level, the
murder rate has gradually
declined from 1993 to 2003.
As reflected in Figure 9, the
murder rate in Arizona
increased from 1993 to
1994, and then experienced
a steady decline until 2000.
The murder rate increased
overall in Arizona between
2000 and 2003 rising from
7.0 to 7.9 murders per
100,000 residents. While
both Arizona and the nation
experienced an overall
decrease in murder between 1993 and 2003, the decrease nationally was larger and more
consistent.
Murder Rate
1993-2003
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 16
FORCIBLE RAPE
As defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program, forcible rape, is “the carnal
knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” (Crime in the United States, 2003,
p. 27). Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also
included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
Sexual attacks on males are classified as assaults or sexual offenses. The incidents of
rape per 100,000 residents in Arizona increased by 12.9 percent from the year 2002 to
2003. Arizona ranked 30th in 2002 and then rose to rank 24 in 2003.
Table 13
Rape
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 Alaska 92.5 1 79.4 16.5%
2 Michigan 54.1 3 53.4 1.3%
3 New Mexico 50.0 2 55.4 -9.8%
4 Rhode Island 46.9 21 36.9 27.1%
5 Washington 46.7 8 45.0 3.8%
6 South Dakota 46.3 5 47.4 -2.3%
7 South Carolina 44.4 4 47.7 -6.9%
8 Delaware 43.2 10 44.3 -2.5%
9 Oklahoma 42.7 8 45.0 -5.1%
10 Colorado 41.6 6 45.8 -9.2%
24 Arizona 33.3 30 29.5 12.9%
National Rate 32.1 33.0 -2.7%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 10
On a national level, forcible
rape (known as sexual assault
in Arizona) gradually declined
from 1993 until 2001 when it
started to increase until 2003.
Arizona ranked 24th in the
nation with a rate of 33.3 in
2003. In 2002, Arizona
ranked 30th in the nation with
a rate of 29.5.
Forcible Rape Rate
1993-2003
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 17
ROBBERY
The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines robbery as “the taking or attempting to
take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by
force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear” (Crime in the
United States, 2003, p. 32). Maryland was number one in 2003 with a robbery rate of
241.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. Arizona’s rate of robbery decreased by 6.9 percent from
the year 2002 to 2003, dropping from 14 to 17 in the national ranking among states.
Table 14
Robbery
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 Maryland 241.5 1 245.8 -1.8%
2 Nevada 230.3 2 235.5 -2.2%
3 Illinois 188.2 3 200.6 -6.2%
4 New York 186.3 5 191.3 -2.6%
5 Florida 185.2 4 194.9 -5.0%
6 California 179.7 6 185.0 -2.9%
7 Delaware 169.9 15 142.9 18.9%
8 Texas 167.4 7 172.5 -3.0%
9 Georgia 161.8 11 156.9 3.1%
10 Tennessee 160.4 8 162.4 -1.2%
17 Arizona 136.5 14 146.6 -6.9%
National Rate 142.2 145.9 -2.5%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 11
As seen by Figure 11, the
national robbery rate
decreased markedly from
1993 until 1999, and has
remained stable through
2003. In Arizona, the
robbery rate stayed relatively
constant during the 10-year
period. From 2001 to 2003,
there was a decrease in the
robbery rate in Arizona
dropping from 167.1 to
136.5 robberies per 100,000
residents.
Robbery Rate
1993-2003
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 18
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
According to the Uniform Crime Reporting program, an aggravated assault is an
“unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or
aggravated bodily injury” (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 37). This type of assault
is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or
great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assaults are included since it is not necessary
that an injury result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which could and
probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully
completed. As shown in Table 15 Arizona ranked 14th in 2003 with a rate of 335.5 per
100,000 inhabitants. When compared to the 2002 rate (369.8), the number of
aggravated assaults has decreased 9.3 percent in 2003.
Table 15
Aggravated Assault
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 South Carolina 605.1 1 626.5 -3.4%
2 New Mexico 505.2 2 557.1 -9.3%
3 Florida 500.1 3 529.4 -5.5%
4 Tennessee 484.9 4 507.8 -4.5%
5 Delaware 442.0 7 408.5 8.2%
6 Louisiana 435.0 6 456.1 -4.6%
7 Maryland 428.3 5 489.5 -12.5%
8 Alaska 426.5 8 402.9 5.9%
9 Oklahoma 365.3 13 368.8 -1.0%
10 California 364.6 11 372.6 -2.1%
14 Arizona 335.5 12 369.8 -9.3%
National Rate 295.0 310.1 -4.9%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 12
On a national scale,
aggravated assault has
declined over the past 10
years. Arizona’s aggravated
assault rate experienced a
decline in 1996 and continued
to drop until 2001. There was
a slight increase in 2002,
followed by a decrease in
2003.
Aggravated Assault Rate
1993-2003
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 19
PROPERTY CRIME
In the UCR program, “property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft,
motor vehicle theft and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of
money or property, but
there is no force or
threat of force against
the victim or victims.
Arson is included in the
property crime category
since it involves the
destruction of property,
although its victims may
be subjected to force.
However, because of
limited participation and
varying collection
procedures by local
agencies, only limited
data are available for
arson. Arson statistics
are included in trend, clearance, and arrest tables throughout FBI’s Crime in the United
States, but they are not included in any estimated volume data.” (Crime in the United
States, 2003, p. 41). As seen in Table 16, in 2002 and 2003, Arizona ranked first in
property crime in the United States with a rate of 5,833.4 (2002) and 5632.4 (2003).
Arizona has had the highest property crime rate in the United States since 2000.
Hawaii, ranked number two in property crime, has a property crime rate that was 7.5
percent lower than Arizona.
Figure 13
The national property
crime rate has
decreased over the past
10 years, while the
Arizona property crime
rate has fluctuated over
this same period. In
Arizona, the property
crime rate peaked in
1995 (7345.3). Arizona
experienced a 3.4
percent decrease in the
property crime between
2002 and 2003.
Table 16
Property Crime
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 Arizona 5,632.4 1 5,833.4 -3.5%
2 Hawaii 5,237.5 2 5,781.7 -9.4%
3 Oregon 4,782.3 6 4,576.0 4.5%
4 Washington 4,754.9 3 4,761.4 -0.1%
5 Texas 4,595.3 5 4,611.0 -0.3%
6
South
Carolina 4,477.1 7 4,475.3 0.0%
7 Florida 4,452.0 4 4,650.4 -4.3%
8 Tennessee 4,379.4 10 4,302.0 1.8%
9 Louisiana 4,349.5 8 4,435.7 -1.9%
10 Oklahoma 4,306.0 12 4,239.8 1.6%
National Rate 3,588.4 3,624.1 -1.0%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Property Crime Rate
1993-2003
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
8000.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 20
BURGLARY
The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines burglary “as the unlawful entry of a
structure to commit a felony or theft. The use of force to gain entry is not required to
classify an offense as burglary. Burglary is categorized into three sub-classifications:
forcible entry; unlawful entry where no force is used and attempted forcible entry”
(Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 45). As reflected in Table 17, in 2003, Arizona
ranked 4th in burglary with a rate of 1,050.3 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Table 17
Burglary
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 North Carolina 1,197.6 1 1,196.3 0.1%
2 Tennessee 1,082.0 6 1,056.5 2.4%
3 South Carolina 1,050.9 3 1,065.1 -1.3%
4 Arizona 1,050.3 2 1,082.9 -3.0%
5 Mississippi 1,035.6 7 1,030.5 0.5%
6 New Mexico 1,025.2 5 1,058.4 -3.1%
7 Florida 1,002.7 4 1,060.5 -5.5%
8 Louisiana 998.1 9 1,011.7 -1.3%
9 Texas 993.7 11 976.1 1.8%
10 Oklahoma 992.3 10 1,006.7 -1.4%
National Rate 740.5 746.2 -0.8%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 14
Similar to other UCR
crimes, the national
trend for burglary
has fallen. Arizona
experienced an
increase in 1997 and
a slight rise in 2001
and 2002. Between
2002 and 2003, the
burglary rate in
Arizona decreased
3.0 percent.
Burglary Rate
1993-2003
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1600.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 21
LARCENY-THEFT
Larceny-theft is “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from
the possession or constructive possession of another. It includes crimes such as
shoplifting, pocket-picking, purse-snatching, thefts from motor vehicles, thefts of motor
vehicle parts and accessories, bicycle thefts, etc., in which no use of force, violence, or
fraud occurs. In the Uniform Crime Reporting program, this crime category does not
include embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, and worthless checks. Motor vehicle
theft is also excluded from this category inasmuch as it is a separate Crime Index
offense” (Crime in the United States, 2003, p.49). Table 18 shows that Arizona ranked
2nd in 2003 with a rate of 3,560.9 for larceny-theft. This is a decrease of 3.6 percent
from the 2002 rate of 3,693.6 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Table 18
Larceny-Theft
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
(2002-2003)
1 Hawaii 3,562.9 1 3,963.7 -10.1%
2 Arizona 3,560.9 2 3,693.6 -3.6%
3 Oregon 3,444.6 3 3,377.1 2.0%
4 Utah 3,182.2 4 3,229.1 -1.5%
5 Texas 3,157.7 6 3,163.4 -0.2%
6 Washington 3,142.1 5 3,188.8 -1.5%
7 South Carolina 3,046.1 8 2,999.5 1.6%
8 Florida 2,970.1 7 3,060.3 -2.9%
9 Oklahoma 2,944.7 12 2,867.6 2.7%
10 Louisiana 2,909.3 10 2,973.7 -2.2%
National Rate 2,414.5 2,445.8 -1.3%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 15
When comparing national
trends over the past 10
years, the larceny-theft
rate has declined. Over
the past 10 years,
Arizona’s larceny-theft
rate has been
consistently above the
national average. As
reflected in Figure 15,
the highest larceny-theft
rate occurred in 1995
(4,823.9), and the lowest
rate occurred in 2000
(3,444.1).
Larceny-Theft Rate
1993-2003
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 22
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
Defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program as “the theft or attempted theft of a
motor vehicle, this offense category includes the stealing of automobiles, trucks, buses,
motorcycles, motor scooters, and snowmobiles. The definition excludes the taking of a
motor vehicle for temporary use by those persons having lawful access” (Crime in the
United States, 2003, p. 55). As reflected in Table 19, the motor vehicle theft rate for
Arizona decreased 3.4 percent from 2002 to 2003.
Table 19
Motor Vehicle Theft
2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population
2003
Rank State 2003
Rate
2002
Rank
2002
Rate
Percent Change
2002-2003
1 Arizona 1,021.3 1 1,056.9 -3.4%
2 Nevada 929.8 2 804.5 15.6%
3 Hawaii 767.4 3 796.0 -3.6%
4 California 680.1 5 633.2 7.4%
5 Washington 662.5 4 667.2 -0.7%
6 Maryland 660.8 6 623.3 6.0%
7 Oregon 533.5 12 469.2 13.7%
8 Michigan 533.1 9 494.7 7.8%
9 Missouri 502.4 10 491.5 2.2%
10 Georgia 499.4 16 444.3 12.4%
National Rate 433.4 432.1 0.3%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 16
Nationally, the motor vehicle
theft rate showed an overall
decrease between 1993 and
2003. Arizona has moved
from having the 6th highest
rate of motor vehicle theft in
the nation in 1991 to the
number one ranked state in
the nation in 1994. Arizona
has maintained that ranking
with a rate of 1,021.3 motor
vehicle thefts per 100,000
inhabitants in 2003.
However, in 2003, Arizona
also experienced the first
decline in the motor vehicle theft rate since 1999. A more complete evaluation of
Motor Vehicle Theft in Arizona can be found in the Arizona Auto Theft Study, conducted
in 2004 by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
Motor Vehicle Theft Rate
1993-2003
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Rate per 100,000 Population
Arizona
National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 23
Firearm Use in Violent Crime
Even though violent crime rates have decreased over the past 10 years, a high
percentage of homicides can be attributed to firearm related injuries. In 2003, 70.9
percent of all homicides in the United States were the result of firearm inflicted injuries
(Crime in the United States 2003, 2004). In Arizona, in 2003, there were 440
homicides, 70.7 percent of which involved the use of a firearm (Crime in Arizona,
2003).
An analysis of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program master files was conducted to
determine gun use during violent crimes, including murder, robbery and aggravated
assault at a national and state level. The numbers used for this analysis vary slightly
from published FBI reports such as Crime in the United States because the FBI accounts
for non-reporting or partially reporting agencies by estimating crimes occurring in those
jurisdictions with missing data. The figures used for the purpose of this evaluation
looked only at uniform crime reports submitted by agencies. The comparison being
made for this analysis was the total number of robberies and aggravated assault
reported compared to the number of robberies with a firearm and aggravated assaults
with a firearm. National percentages for crimes committed with a firearm were taken
from Crime in the United States publications. These publications take into account non-reporting
or partially reporting agencies to extrapolate the correct numbers of crime
occurrences. In Arizona, all urban agencies report UCR data to the FBI. However, this
is not the case nationwide. For this reason, it was determined that while actual counts
were the most accurate reflection of Arizona data, the extrapolated figures were the
most accurate reflection at the national level.
Murder Figure 17
The majority of homicides in
the United States and
Arizona involve the use of a
firearm. The inclusion of a
firearm in any crime is of
concern, chiefly because of
the risk that a crime could
escalate to murder. As the
chart to the right shows,
approximately two-thirds
(66.9 percent in 2003) of all
murders in the United States
involve the use of a firearm.
This chart portrays the
percent of murders in Arizona and the United States that involved a firearm between
1994 and 2003. As is shown in Table 20 on the following page, Arizona had a higher
percentage of murders with a firearm than the nation during this time period.
Percent of Murders Involving a Firearm
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Percent
Arizona United States
Source: Crime in Arizona reports, Crime in the United States reports
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 24
Table 20
Murder with a Firearm
1994 – 2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Arizona 72.8% 75.7% 74.3% 70.9% 73.8% 71.1% 70.8% 71.4% 75.8% 70.7%
United States 65.2% 68.0% 67.8% 67.8% 64.9% 65.2% 65.6% 63.4% 66.7% 66.9%
Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports
Robbery
The number of total robberies in Arizona increased 16.3 percent from 1994 – 2003,
while robberies with a firearm increased 39.5 percent during that same time period. In
1994, 40.2 percent of all robberies in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. This
percentage increased to 48.3 percent in 2003. The percent of robberies with a firearm
in 2003 was higher in Arizona (48.3 percent) than nationally (41.8 percent). Since
2001, Arizona has had increasingly higher rates of firearm usage during robberies than
the rest of the nation.
Table 21
Arizona Robberies with a Firearm
1994 – 2003
Robberies with
a Firearm
Total
Robberies
Arizona
Percent
National
Percent
1994 2,606 6,480 40.2% 41.6%
1995 2,983 7,119 41.9% 41.0%
1996 2,871 7,296 39.4% 40.7%
1997 2,958 7,264 40.7% 39.7%
1998 3,082 7,537 40.9% 38.2%
1999 3,150 7,260 43.4% 39.9%
2000 3,116 7,472 41.7% 40.9%
2001 4,084 8,760 46.6% 42.0%
2002 3,722 7,907 47.1% 42.1%
2003 3,636 7,533 48.3% 41.8%
Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports
The number of robberies with or without a firearm increased in Arizona between 1994
and 2003, while the number of robberies fell nationally during the same time period.
However, robberies between 2001 and 2003 decreased at a higher percentage in
Arizona than nationally.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 25
Figure 18
Arizona Robberies with a Firearm
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Robberies
Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm
Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003.
Figures 18 and 19 show that a larger percentage of robberies in Arizona involve the use
of a firearm than nationally.
Figure 19
National Robberies with a Firearm
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Robberies
Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm
Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003.
Robberies involving a firearm increased 39.5 percent in Arizona between 1994 and
2003. Apache, Cochise, Gila, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties
had a decrease in robberies with a firearm, while Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and
Yuma counties experienced an increase in robberies with a firearm between 1994 and
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 26
2003. Graham and Greenlee counties reported no robberies with a firearm during this
time period. In 2003, 77.7 percent of robberies with a firearm were committed in
Maricopa County and 18.6 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 22 shows the
number of robberies with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003.
Table 22
Robberies with a Firearm
By County 1994 - 2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Apache 4 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0
Cochise 16 12 13 20 16 22 26 13 9 11
Coconino 12 17 18 13 15 23 28 16 4 24
Gila 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0
Graham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Greenlee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Paz 4 3 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 3
Maricopa 2,072 2,406 2,319 2,306 2,445 2,599 2,528 3,474 3,247 2,826
Mohave 38 48 25 23 23 15 13 24 13 17
Navajo 7 7 7 10 5 3 6 7 1 2
Pima 390 451 448 535 540 444 447 493 390 675
Pinal 19 10 12 30 22 22 43 31 26 39
Santa Cruz 23 9 10 6 6 4 0 1 4 3
Yavapai 16 12 11 5 9 9 8 16 9 8
Yuma 2 5 6 4 0 7 16 6 16 28
AZ 2,606 2,983 2,871 2,958 3,082 3,150 3,116 4,084 3,722 3,636
Source: FBI database, 1994 – 2003
Aggravated Assault
In 2003, 27.0 percent of all aggravated assaults in Arizona involved the use of a
firearm. This is considerably higher than the 19.1 percent seen nationwide in 2003.
While all assaults with a firearm are considered aggravated assaults, all assaults,
including simple assaults, have the potential of escalating to the point that serious
injury or death to the victims occurs. When a firearm is added to the assault, the
potential for injury or death is higher, as can be seen by the fact that 70.9 percent of
homicides in Arizona in 2003 involved the use of a firearm.
Table 23
Arizona Assaults
1994 - 2003
Assaults with
a Firearm
Aggravated
Assaults
Total
Assaults
Arizona Percent with
Firearm
National Percent with
Firearm
1994 7,019 19,690 68,732 35.7% 24.0%
1995 7,117 20,245 74,017 35.2% 22.9%
1996 5,989 18,023 69,045 33.2% 22.0%
1997 5,471 18,175 69,559 30.1% 20.0%
1998 4,646 16,881 69,048 27.6% 18.8%
1999 4,407 16,915 66,689 26.1% 18.0%
2000 4,248 17,774 69,192 23.9% 18.1%
2001 4,230 17,664 71,177 24.0% 18.3%
2002 4,637 19,900 74,424 23.3% 19.0%
2003 4,950 18,343 71,102 27.0% 19.1%
Sources: FBI database, 1994 – 2003, Crime in the United States reports
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 27
The charts below show the proportions of total assaults (simple and aggravated) that
involve the use of a firearm.
Figure 20
Arizona Assaults with a Firearm
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Assaults
Total Assaults Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm
Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003.
As seen in Figures 20 and 21, while the percentage of assaults that are aggravated
assaults is roughly the same in Arizona and the United States, Arizona has a much
higher percentage of aggravated assaults committed with a firearm than the national
level. Since 1994, Arizona’s rate of firearm use in aggravated assaults has generally
been around 10 percentage points higher than the national rate.
Figure 21
National Assaults with a Firearm
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Assaults
Total Assaults Total Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm
Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 28
Between 1994 and 2003, the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm in Arizona
decreased 29.5 percent, while the total number of aggravated assaults in Arizona
decreased 6.8 percent. Apache, Cochise, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima and Yuma counties
had increases in the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm, while Coconino,
Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties had
decreases in aggravated assaults with a firearm between 1994 and 2003. In 2003, 63.2
percent of aggravated assaults with a firearm were committed in Maricopa County and
27.4 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 24 shows the number of
aggravated assaults with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003.
Table 24
Aggravated Assault with a Firearm
By County 1994 - 2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Apache 3 10 9 1 9 6 5 13 9 7
Cochise 35 25 26 29 27 54 28 44 41 45
Coconino 61 45 33 26 39 21 32 34 29 60
Gila 24 31 14 25 25 8 15 5 18 11
Graham 9 10 2 9 1 5 3 1 2 1
Greenlee 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
La Paz 26 7 0 1 4 6 4 1 2 5
Maricopa 5,179 5,131 4,373 3,757 3,350 3,114 3,056 2,972 3,354 3,128
Mohave 96 86 60 66 55 46 52 63 67 56
Navajo 21 49 22 16 15 20 15 8 14 23
Pima 1,272 1,405 1,195 1,313 965 924 835 871 861 1,358
Pinal 192 185 170 131 90 114 58 79 64 102
Santa Cruz 16 10 10 7 4 7 2 0 2 1
Yavapai 67 108 56 75 52 47 39 47 44 58
Yuma 18 15 19 15 9 34 103 92 129 94
Arizona 7,019 7,117 5,989 5,471 4,646 4,407 4,248 4,230 4,637 4,950
Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003
Firearm Use in Violent Crime
Arizona consistently had a higher rate of firearm use in Part I violent crime (murder,
robbery and aggravated assault) between 1994 and 2003. The chart below shows
Arizona’s and United States’ percentage of crimes involving a firearm for murder,
robbery and aggravated assault between 1994 and 2003. With the exception of
robbery in 1994 and 1996, Arizona had higher firearm usage in all crime categories for
each year examined. Both nationally and in Arizona, murder was the violent crime most
likely to involve a firearm, followed by robbery and aggravated assault.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 29
Figure 22
Violent Crime Involving a Firearm
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Percent
AZ Murder
US Murder
AZ Robbery
US Robbery
AZ Aggravated Assault
US Aggravated Assault
Source: FBI Database, 1994 – 2003.
Project Safe Neighborhoods is a gun violence reduction initiative being coordinated by
the US Attorney’s across the country. While reducing crimes involving a firearm has
become a nationwide focus, it is even more necessary in Arizona, where a higher
percentage of violent crimes involve the use of a firearm.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 30
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
COURT SERVICES
The judicial system in Arizona is both large and complex. It consists of a series of courts
and an array of support services, which assist the court in the timely processing of
cases. Arizona has two appellate courts: the Court of Appeals with two divisions, which
is the intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court, which is the court of last
resort. In this review we have not included workload information regarding the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court because the processing of cases tracked by both the
National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report are not initiated in
the appellate courts. Although no appellate court workload information is incorporated,
we direct the reader to the Arizona Supreme Court web site at
www.supreme.state.az.us for more detailed information.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the state and has administrative supervision
over all the courts in Arizona. Its primary duties are to review appeals and to provide
rules of procedure for all the Arizona courts. Five justices serve on the Supreme Court
for a regular term of six years. Fellow justices select one justice to serve as Chief
Justice for a five-year term. In addition to casework, the Chief Justice supervises the
administrative work of the court.
The Court of Appeals was established
in 1965 as an intermediate appellate
court and consists of two divisions:
Division One in Phoenix with sixteen
judges, and Division Two in Tucson
with six judges. The Court of Appeals
has jurisdiction in all matters and
reviews all decisions properly appealed
from Superior Court. Table 25 lists the
case filings by appellate court for
FY2004. Division One in Phoenix processed more than two-thirds of all appeals from
lower courts in FY2004, reviewing more than 2600 cases. Tucson’s Division Two
Appellate Court reviewed 861. More than 1100 cases in FY2004 were filed in Arizona’s
Supreme Court.
SUPERIOR COURT
The Superior Court, which has a division in each of the 15 counties in Arizona, is the
state’s only general jurisdiction court. Superior Court judges hear all types of cases
except civil actions when the award is less than $5,000.00, small claims, minor offenses
including civil traffic violations, or violations of city codes and ordinances. In addition,
the Superior Court acts as an appellate court to hear appeals from decisions made in
Table 25
FY2004 CASE FILINGS
BY COURT LEVEL
Court Number of Cases Filed
Supreme Court 1,170
Court of Appeals 3,457
Division One 2,596
Division Two 861
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts, (Court Services Division)
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 31
the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts. In counties with more than one Superior
Court judge, a specialized juvenile court is established. The court will assign one or
more Superior Court judges to hear juvenile cases regarding delinquency, incorrigibility
and dependency.
Probation departments are also the responsibility of the courts and fall under the
auspices of the Superior Court. Each Superior Court has either a separate or combined
adult and juvenile probation department, and each probation officer is considered an
employee of the court. Local and state crime trends have a direct and often immediate
impact on Superior Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and probation department
workloads.
Table 26
FY2004 SUPERIOR COURT CASE
FILINGS BY COUNTY
County Filings
Apache 1,065
Cochise 4,448
Coconino 3,851
Gila 2,358
Graham 1,352
Greenlee 321
La Paz 951
Maricopa 128,876
Mohave 5,113
Navajo 3,204
Pima 30,165
Pinal 7,801
Santa Cruz 1,728
Yavapai 7,235
Yuma 6,213
Total 204,681
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court
Services Div.)
Statewide, as of FY2004, there were 163 full-time Superior Court Judges (this figure
does not include Superior Court commissioners). In FY2004, those judges handled
204,681 criminal and non-criminal filings. Maricopa County received 128,876 cases,
which represented 62.9 percent of the total cases filed statewide.
Table 27 indicates that felonies filed in the Superior Court from FY1993 to FY2004 have
increased each year with the exception of FY1999. The number of felony cases filed has
increased by almost 26,000 over the last 10 years with 28,522 in FY1994 compared to
54,420 in FY2004.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 32
Table 27
Felony Filings by Fiscal Year
FY1993 – FY2004
Felony Filings* Felony Filing Rate
1993 26,496 673.2
1994 28,522 699.9
1995 30,372 720.1
1996 30,817 696.0
1997 34,649 760.7
1998 39,515 846.3
1999 38,281 801.2
2000 40,317 785.8
2001 43,462 818.9
2002 45,322 830.6
2003 50,884 911.8
2004 54,420 **
Source of felony filings: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
*Totals Include Filings by the Attorney General Office
**Rate not available for 2004
The following tables provide a look at criminal case filings through the Superior Court
for the period from FY1994-FY2004 by county. A review of the total criminal cases filed
for the state shows, with the exception of FY1999, total criminal case filings rose each
year. Total Superior Court criminal case filings have grown from 30,848 in FY1994 to
56,078 in 2004.
Table 28
TOTAL SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL FILINGS
BY FISCAL YEAR AND COUNTY
County FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Apache 237 220 262 174 191 261 262 271 223 274 373
Cochise 850 846 597 578 713 606 712 836 953 1,128 946
Coconino 973 1,207 1,238 1,025 905 992 953 1,048 1,051 1,038 1,339
Gila 542 857 954 868 892 794 1,049 731 831 830 658
Graham 209 221 232 225 330 338 399 384 390 314 337
Greenlee 47 92 143 74 81 46 73 116 94 70 88
La Paz 227 234 242 283 422 256 303 402 463 469 525
Maricopa 17,130 17,860 18,610 21,882 25,641 25,756 27,385 30,616 31,079 35,612 37,166
Mohave 1,482 1,592 1,664 1,902 1,876 1,518 1,512 1,708 1,618 1,734 1,680
Navajo 548 670 723 915 748 866 930 953 811 975 1,192
Pima 4,829 4,534 4,254 4,677 5,381 5,182 4,840 5,512 4,816 4,986 5,513
Pinal 1,066 1,239 1,304 1,446 1,859 1,212 1,282 1,458 1,741 1,879 1,815
Santa Cruz 364 311 358 244 230 302 166 255 253 316 253
Yavapai 907 1,380 1,228 1,320 1,499 1,397 1,483 1,726 2,056 2,216 2,490
Yuma 1,437 1,331 1,579 1,444 1,656 1,284 1,339 1,364 1,425 1,357 1,703
Total 30,848 32,594 33,388 37,057 42,424 40,810 42,688 47,380 47,804 53,198 56,078
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 33
As reflected in Table 29, the 10-year
increase for criminal case filings
statewide was 81.8 percent. Cochise
showed the smallest increase over a 10-
year period with an 11.3 percent
change. The largest increase was in
Yavapai County with an increase of
174.5 percent. In the most recent year,
five counties had decreases: Cochise,
Gila, Mohave, Pinal and Santa Cruz. The
statewide increase from FY2003 to
FY2004 was 5.4 percent.
Overall, nearly 2.5 million cases were
filed in Arizona courts during FY2004. As
reported by the Administrative Office of
the Courts, the cost of processing a case
in FY2003 was $124.36. There were
66,642 individuals under the jurisdiction
of Arizona county adult probation
departments at the end of FY2004, up
4.5 percent from FY2003. The number
of juveniles on probation was up 2.7
percent to 9,115 at the end of FY2004.
Table 30 represents the total number
of filings in Superior Court from
FY2003 to FY2004. The Arizona Superior Court experienced a 6.5 percent increase in
the number of total cases filed between FY2003 and FY2004. Criminal case filings
increased 5.4 percent from 53,198 in FY2003 to 56,078 in FY2004.
JUSTICE COURTS
During fiscal year 2001, there was a change in the way civil cases can be filed. For civil
cases and forcible detainer cases, legislative changes allowed concurrent jurisdiction
between the Superior Court and Justice Court for cases where the dollar amount for
damages falls between $5,000 and $10,000.
Table 29
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS
FY1994 TO FY2004
County 10-year
Percent Change
1-year
Percent Change
Apache 57.4 36.1
Cochise 11.3 (16.1)
Coconino 37.6 29.0
Gila 21.4 (20.7)
Graham 61.2 7.3
Greenlee 87.2 25.7
La Paz 131.3 12.0
Maricopa 117.0 4.4
Mohave 13.4 (3.1)
Navajo 117.5 22.3
Pima 14.2 10.6
Pinal 70.3 (3.4)
Santa Cruz (30.5) (20.0)
Yavapai 174.5 12.4
Yuma 18.5 25.5
Total 81.8% 5.4%
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services
Division)
Table 30
TOTAL FILINGS IN SUPERIOR COURT
FY2003 - FY2004
2003 2004 Difference
192,129 204,681 12,552 6.5%
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 34
Table 31
FY2004 JUSTICE COURT CASE
FILINGS
BY COUNTY
County Justice Court
Apache 9,559
Cochise 46,150
Coconino 28,771
Gila 15,186
Graham 5,819
Greenlee 1,584
La Paz 16,945
Maricopa 348,040
Mohave 49,008
Navajo 24,526
Pima 189,106
Pinal 44,475
Santa Cruz 10,496
Yavapai 36,914
Yuma 22,142
Total 848,721
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services
Division)
In Arizona, in FY2004, there were a total of 86 precincts with 81 Justices of the Peace
serving four-year terms. In FY2004, 848,721 cases were filed at the Justice Court level.
Uncharacteristically, Maricopa County did not represent more than half of the statewide
Justice Court workload. Maricopa County had the most filings with 348,040 of the
848,721 statewide. That represents approximately 41.0 percent of the total Justice
Court filings.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 35
Of the 848,721 total cases filed in
FY2004, there were 116,582 non-traffic
misdemeanors and 27,008
felonies. Table 32 reflects a
reduction from 122,891
misdemeanors in FY2003 to
116,582 in FY2004. Felonies
increased from 26,209 in FY2003
to 27,008 in FY2004.
MUNICIPAL COURTS
The Municipal Courts are comprised of 138 full
and part-time judges that serve in 84 cities
throughout Arizona. A number of paid, full and
part-time judges pro tempore and hearing
officers assist in the processing of Municipal
Court cases. There were 1,439,452 cases filed
in the various Municipal Courts within Arizona
in FY2004. Maricopa County, with 956,475,
was the largest with approximately 66.4
percent of the Municipal Court filings and
Greenlee County was the smallest with 550
(or less than one percent of total filings).
Table 32
JUSTICE COURT FILINGS
BY FISCAL YEAR AND TYPE
Fiscal Year Non-Traffic
Misdemeanors
Felonies
1994 95,012 29,418
1995 100,557 37,368
1996 111,981 38,385
1997 110,268 43,693
1998 124,884 46,638
1999 120,905 41,022
2000 124,451 41,540
2001 116,371 39,852
2002 121,428 39,112
2003 122,891 26,209
2004 116,582 27,008
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
Table 33
FY2004 MUNICIPAL CASE
FILINGS BY COUNTY
County Municipal
Apache 1,638
Cochise 8,589
Coconino 27,017
Gila 8,680
Graham 3,218
Greenlee 550
La Paz 3,293
Maricopa 956,475
Mohave 29,586
Navajo 6,071
Pima 281,845
Pinal 29,538
Santa Cruz 17,890
Yavapai 41,862
Yuma 23,200
Total 1,439,452
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts
(Court Services Division)
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 36
Municipal Court non-traffic criminal
misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2
percent from 233,507 in FY2003 to 234,139
in FY2004. Although total misdemeanor
filings increased, FY2004 filings were lower in
six of the past 10-year totals (Municipal
Courts do not process felony cases).
Of the nearly 2.5 million filings in FY2004,
almost 1.6 million of those filings were for
criminal traffic and civil traffic violations, all
handled by the limited jurisdiction courts in
the state (Justice and Municipal Courts).
Local and state crime trends have a direct
and often immediate impact on Superior
Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and
probation department workloads. In spite of
the fact crime rates have been on the decline
for most of the past 10-year period, court
workloads have, with the exception of Justice Courts, continued to increase. The 10-
year increase for Superior Court criminal case filings statewide was 81.8 percent. In
FY2004 adult (4.5 percent) and juvenile (2.7 percent) probation caseloads increased,
Justice Court felonies increased while misdemeanors declined and Municipal Court non-traffic
misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2 percent.
Table 34
MUNICIPAL COURT NON-TRAFFIC
CRIMINAL FILINGS BY FISCAL
YEAR
Fiscal
Year
Non-Traffic
Misdemeanors
1994 243,419
1995 270,116
1996 243,253
1997 241,016
1998 222,611
1999 230,792
2000 212,518
2001 224,703
2002 219,166
2003 233,507
2004 234,139
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services
Division)
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 37
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF COURTS
ADULT PROBATION SERVICES DIVISION
The Adult Probation Services Division (APSD) of the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) oversees the statewide administration of adult probation programs and services
in accordance with statutory and administrative guidelines. This division interacts with
the courts, probation departments, and a variety of non-court agencies and
organizations throughout Arizona. The division administers several major program
funds: Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS), Adult Probation Services Fund (PSF),
Community Punishment Program (CPP), Drug Enforcement Account (DEA), Drug
Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF), State Aid Enhancement (SAE) which primarily
funds standard probation supervision, Interstate Compact Program (ISC), Transferred
Youth (TY), Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) and the Judicial Collection
Enhancement Fund (JCEF). These funds are distributed to the counties and used in
conjunction with federal and county monies to operate the local probation departments
and provide supervision and treatment services.
The data presented below was drawn from the Probation Information Management
System (PIMS) and the Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS), and
county monthly statistical reports submitted to the APSD. The data represented
focuses on the total number of probationers under the jurisdiction of Arizona county
adult probation departments, number of active probationers receiving standard and
intensive probation, number completing a probation term, number revoked and
incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC),
total amount of restitution collected, and the total number of community work service
hours performed.
ADULT STANDARD PROBATION
The purpose of standard probation supervision in Arizona is to provide the highest
quality of service to the court, community, and offenders. This is accomplished by
promoting safety through effective community-based supervision and enforcement of
court orders, offering accurate and reliable information and affording offenders
opportunities to be accountable and initiate positive changes. Standard probation is a
less restrictive form of probation and those placed on this type of supervision are
deemed to be a lower risk for re-offending. An officer supervising a standard caseload
may only be required to contact their probationers once or twice a month, as opposed
to intensive officers whose contacts range from four to sixteen times per month. The
program provides supervision through a probation officer that is required to maintain a
complete record of supervision, serve warrants, make arrests, and investigate cases
referred by the court to assist in sentencing decisions. Officers also keep identification
records on all probationers assigned to them, obtain and assemble information
concerning conduct while on probation, and monitor the probationers’ compliance with
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 38
the conditions of probation. Officers are also responsible for returning defaulting
probationers to court for violations.
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, adult probation officers shall supervise no more
than an average of 60 probationers. There are three levels of standard probation:
maximum, medium, and minimum. It is the officer’s responsibility to ensure that
probationers receive services in accordance with their individual risks/needs, and with
the safety of the community in mind. Examples of such services are substance abuse
treatment, education and literacy classes, financial counseling, anger management
counseling, and domestic violence counseling.
From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on
standard supervision increased by 3.3 percent from 60,506 to 62,478. The overall
number of probationers on standard supervision includes active probationers,
absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who
are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving standard probation
services during this same time period increased by 2.4 percent from 34,871 to 35,709
(see Figure 23 for FY1999-2004). The number of active adults receiving standard
probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and
receiving direct supervision services.
During the course of fiscal year 2004, 11,345 standard probationers successfully
completed their probation grant (discharge or early termination), while 4,791 were
revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of
Corrections. The number of standard probationers who absconded from supervision
increased 8.6 percent from 10,421 to 11,317, while the total number of standard
absconders apprehended during this time period was 46.8 percent. Over that same
period, $11,573,507 in restitution to victims was collected, while 813,523 hours of
community service were performed.
ADULT INTENSIVE PROBATION
Adult Intensive Probation Supervision is a sentencing alternative that provides control,
intervention and surveillance to probationers who would otherwise have been
incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections or as a result of a technical
violation of standard probation. The program provides intensive supervision through
probation officer or surveillance officer teams of two or three persons, depending on
the level of supervision. A two-person team is comprised of a probation officer and a
surveillance officer, and a three-person team is one probation officer and two
surveillance officers. Pursuant to statute, a two-person team can supervise a maximum
of 25 intensive probationers and a three-person team can supervise no more than 40
probationers. In small counties, one probation officer is authorized to supervise up to
15 intensive probationers.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 39
Intensive Probation requires supervision teams to have face-to-face contact with
probationers a minimum of four to sixteen times per month, depending on which phase
of the program the probationer is in. Probationers on IPS are also required to maintain
employment, complete 40 hours of community service per month, and pay restitution to
victims of crimes, as well as other financial assessments.
From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on
intensive supervision increased by 18.7 percent from 3,508 to 4,164. The overall
number of probationers on intensive supervision includes active probationers,
absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who
are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving intensive probation
services during this same time period increased by 21.8 percent from 2,399 to 2,923
(see Figure 24 for FY1999-FY2004). The number of active adults receiving intensive
probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and
receiving direct supervision services.
During fiscal year 2004, 1,415 intensive probationers successfully completed their
probation grant (discharged or graduated to standard), while 1,535 were revoked and
incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections. The
number of intensive probationers who absconded from supervision during fiscal year
2004 increased 13.2 percent from 960 to 1,087, while the total intensive absconders
apprehended was 49.5 percent. Over that same period, $761,281 in restitution to
victims was collected, while 615,182 hours of community service were performed.
Figure 23
ACTIVE STANDARD PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 1999-
2004
34,220
34,395
34,699
34,871
35,709
37,388
32,500 33,000 33,500 34,000 34,500 35,000 35,500 36,000 36,500 37,000 37,500 38,000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 40
Figure 24
ACTIVE INTENSIVE PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 1999-
2004
3,401
3,379
3,384
3,084
2,399
2,923
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Figure 25
PROBATION POPULATION UNDER ARIZONA SUPERVISION IN FISCAL YEARS 1999-
2004
55,452
57,420
60,881
64,564
63,763
66,642
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 41
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
America’s juvenile justice system is significantly different from the adult criminal justice
system. In 1899, the Illinois Legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, creating
the first separate juvenile court (http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html).
By 1925, 46 states, 3 territories and the District of Columbia passed similar legislation.
These legislative acts introduced significant differences into America’s juvenile justice
system. Juvenile courts begin with the presumption that juveniles are developmentally
different from adults, and are therefore amenable to treatment. The result is a focus on
rehabilitation rather than retribution, and individualized justice rather than the specified
lengths of incarceration by crime type. There is a much greater emphasis on research
and social science methods in the juvenile than the adult system. The juvenile court has
traditionally discouraged institutionalization in favor of keeping juveniles with their
families in the community. Institutionalization is reserved for serious juvenile offenders
who pose a threat to public safety (www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html).
Juvenile court procedures are considerably different from adult procedures in that the
juvenile system uses a non-adversarial method to arrive at the truth. A treatment team
approach is common, and it consists of professional staff meeting to decide what is best
for the juvenile. The result is adjudication, which is qualitatively different from a
conviction. The 1960s saw the addition of some procedural safeguards for the juvenile
court system including those associated with in re Gault, which was based on a famous
Arizona case. In 1979, the federal government passed the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act to create a national standard for dealing with juvenile
delinquency within the context of law enforcement and criminal justice efforts
(http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/compliance/jjdpchronology.pdf). While the juvenile justice
model, first established in 1899, may be firmly entrenched in America, some would like
to make it more like the adult model. Indeed, the 1990s witnessed numerous states
making modifications to the basic juvenile justice model including the passage of
Arizona Revised Statute 13-501 mandating juveniles accused of violent offenses be
direct filed into an adult court under certain circumstances, thereby precluding the
juvenile from the treatment approach provided in Arizona’s juvenile justice system
(http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00501.htm).
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUVENILES JUSTICE SERVICES DIVISION
The Juvenile Justice Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative
Office of the Courts, in coordination with the 15 county juvenile courts, is responsible
for the effective administration of juvenile justice programs for delinquent and
incorrigible youth. Activities are consistent with constitutional, statutory, and
administrative requirements, which focus on accountability, treatment and rehabilitation
as well as protection of the community and youth.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 42
The following data represent the demographic and offense characteristics of juveniles in
the juvenile court system from FY1996 to FY2004. The tables present data on juvenile
referrals by age, gender, race, county and type of offense. This does not capture all of
the paths that a juvenile may take within Juvenile Court. Rather, the most significant
events are illustrated below.
REFERRALS
Police, parents, school officials, probation officers or other agencies or individuals
requesting that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over the juvenile’s conduct can
make referrals. Referrals can be "paper referrals" issued as citations or police reports,
or "physical referrals" in which the juvenile is physically brought to Juvenile Court. A
juvenile can be referred more than once in a given year. The data that follow reflect an
unduplicated count of juveniles within each year, but because a juvenile could be
referred in subsequent years, the totals cannot be summed across the years.
From FY1996 to FY2004, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court decreased
by 1.9 percent. In FY2004, the largest category for juvenile referrals was public peace
(26.6 percent), while the smallest category was citations/administrative (0.6 percent).
Felonies against person made up 4.9 percent of all referrals, felonies against property
made up 10.5 percent, status offenses made up 16.1 percent and drugs made up 10.0
percent of referrals in FY2004. A higher percentage of referrals came from obstruction
of justice, misdemeanors against person, drugs, public peace and administrative in
FY2004 than in FY1996, while a lower percentage of referrals came from felony against
person, felony against property, misdemeanors against property and status offenses.
Table 35
Juveniles Referred
Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division
By Most Serious Offense FY1996 – FY2004
FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Felony Against Person 3,297 3,039 2,861 2,484 2,491 2,478 2,401 2,400 2,464
Felony Against
Property 7,944 7,504 7,233 5,900 5,727 5,513 5,618 5,290 5,254
Obstruction of Justice 3,613 3,702 4,221 4,288 4,376 4,679 4,850 4,756 4,473
Misd. Against Person 4,372 4,573 4,408 4,276 4,483 4,490 4,329 4,414 4,332
Drugs 4,416 4,940 5,097 4,800 4,459 4,900 4,874 4,608 4,973
Public Peace 6,919 7,476 8,687 9,912 10,861 12,960 12,537 12,937 13,257
Misd. Against Property 9,365 8,885 8,654 7,530 7,313 6,667 6,799 6,724 6,759
Status Offenses 10,732 9,893 9,648 8,850 8,591 9,340 8,729 8,178 8,049
Administrative 162 198 200 206 233 247 262 281 317
TOTAL 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 49,588 49,878
Nearly three-fourths (73.1 percent) of referred youth in FY2004 came from the three
highest populated counties, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal. Over 49 percent of all referrals
came from Maricopa County. Gila, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and
Yuma counties had an increase in referrals in FY2004 when compared to FY1996.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 43
Table 36
Over half (64.7 percent) of youth referred in FY2004 were between the ages of 15 and
17. This is comparative to the 63.5 percent of juvenile referrals between the ages of 15
and 17 in FY1996. A slightly smaller percentage of youth between the ages of 8 and 10
were referred in FY2004 (2.3 percent) than in FY1996 (2.9 percent).
Table 37
Juveniles Referred
Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division
By Age FY1996 – FY2004
FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
8 234 241 312 264 252 284 285 270 197
9 449 423 472 455 485 561 458 459 385
10 800 732 826 787 790 838 770 734 578
11 1,374 1,315 1,369 1,228 1,333 1,429 1,377 1,259 1,175
12 2,544 2,564 2,644 2,571 2,414 2,805 2,706 2,595 2,603
13 4,920 4,705 4,844 4,651 4,596 4,997 4,876 4,734 4,709
14 7,755 7,333 7,285 6,747 7,264 7,400 7,053 6,959 7,313
15 9,957 9,600 9,455 8,968 9,038 9,602 9,321 8,938 9,301
16 10,766 10,955 11,051 10,461 10,031 10,452 10,640 10,444 10,382
17 11,566 11,850 12,100 11,533 11,797 12,422 12,362 12,607 12,596
Unknown 455 492 651 581 534 484 551 589 639
TOTAL 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 49,588 49,878
While there was a 4.3 percent decrease in male referrals between FY1996 and FY2004,
there was a 3.3 percent increase in females during the same time period. The majority
(66.4 percent) of referrals in FY2004 were male, however the percentage of girls
referred (33.6 percent) was higher than in FY1996 (31.9 percent).
Juveniles Referred
Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division
By County FY1996 – FY2004
FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Apache 473 424 419 349 365 309 276 282 272
Cochise 1,955 1,849 1,703 1,625 1,651 1,658 1,496 1,553 1,510
Coconino 2,291 2,166 2,195 1,896 1,873 1,829 1,790 1,753 1,633
Gila 994 1,072 1,050 1,058 985 851 827 923 1,027
Graham 436 486 558 484 521 513 493 437 392
Greenlee 168 172 157 103 104 103 81 84 82
La Paz 181 234 201 193 135 190 188 204 193
Maricopa 24,260 24,000 24,659 22,818 23,133 26,145 25,414 24,680 24,743
Mohave 1,819 1,795 1,836 1,858 1,898 2,225 2,196 2,218 2,161
Navajo 1,261 1,284 1,313 1,158 1,308 1,272 1,195 1,128 1,137
Pima 10,498 10,192 9,913 9,742 9,787 9,595 9,498 9,193 9,461
Pinal 1,956 2,074 2,149 2,035 2,056 2,222 2,121 2,325 2,265
Santa Cruz 460 470 500 789 764 633 699 702 741
Yavapai 1,901 1,872 1,821 1,886 1,844 1,849 1,893 1,737 1,645
Yuma 2,167 2,120 2,535 2,255 2,110 1,880 2,232 2,369 2,616
TOTAL 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,249 48,534 51,274 50,399 49,588 49,878
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 44
Table 38
Juveniles Referred
Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division
By Gender FY1996 – FY2004
FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Male 34,610 34,182 34,406 32,609 32,372 34,224 33,205 32,800 33,136
Female 16,204 16,022 16,598 15,636 16,160 17,050 17,194 16,788 16,742
Unknown 6 6 5 1 2 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 49,588 49,878
Of those referred in FY2004, 48.0 percent were Anglo, 38.1 percent were Hispanic, 7.0
percent were African American, 5.5 percent were Native American, 0.5 percent were
Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remaining 1.0 percent were another race/ethnicity, or
their race/ethnicity was unknown. This is comparable to the racial/ethnic breakdown in
FY1996.
Table 39
Juveniles Referred
Arizona Office of the Courts – Juvenile Justice Services Division
By Race/Ethnicity FY1996 – FY2004
FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Hispanic 16,882 16,709 17,343 16,790 17,335 18,510 18,558 18,186 18,979
Afr. Am. 3,450 3,321 3,291 3,149 3,070 3,298 3,179 3,224 3,502
Anglo 27,260 26,822 26,503 24,767 24,468 25,792 25,095 24,748 23,925
Nat. Am. 2,609 2,823 3,034 2,736 2,829 2,777 2,736 2,614 2,727
Asian/PI 234 249 242 239 301 288 240 238 247
Other 187 132 249 318 172 229 201 165 136
Unknown 198 154 347 247 359 380 390 413 362
TOTAL 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 49,588 49,878
Between FY1996 and FY2004, the number of youth referred in Arizona remained
relatively constant. One trend worthy of consideration is the fact that females are
being referred at a higher rate than previously. Other research has shown that females
are more likely to commit crimes than once thought, a factor that warrants further
research in Arizona. Almost half of referred youth come from Maricopa County, which
is also the county with the highest juvenile population. While a small percentage of
youth referred are on the younger end of those referred, the majority of youth referred
are between the ages of 15 and 17.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 45
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS
The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is responsible for juveniles
adjudicated delinquent and committed to its jurisdiction by the county juvenile courts.
It is also responsible for juvenile parole and Interstate probation and parole. It is
accountable to the citizens of Arizona for the promotion of public safety through the
management of the state's secure juvenile facilities and the development and provision
of a continuum of services to juvenile offenders, including rehabilitation, treatment and
education. ADJC operates and maintains four secure care facilities for the custody,
treatment, and education of committed juveniles. Each juvenile placed in a secure
facility receives rehabilitative services appropriate to the juvenile’s age, risk, needs,
abilities, and committing offenses. This includes education, individual and group
counseling, psychological services, health care, and recreation. In addition, treatment
groups and specialized housing units focus on juveniles with histories of violence,
substance abuse or sexual offenses.
Following their release from secure care, youth under the age of 18 receive community-based
parole supervision and treatment through the Department’s statewide
Community Resource Centers. Community Corrections is responsible for establishing
and operating a system of community based programs to supervise and rehabilitate
youth in the least restrictive environment, consistent with public safety and the needs
of the youth. Transition from Secure Care to the community is facilitated by a multi-disciplinary
team. Secure and parole staff work with the youth and treatment providers
to extend the youth’s treatment into the community.
ADJC also participates in the Interstate Compact. Interstate Compact has the primary
responsibility of promoting public safety, ensuring the welfare of juveniles, and
protecting victims within the various states through control and regulation of the
interstate movement of juveniles. Compacting states are required to provide the same
level of care and supervision for ICJ youth as they provide to their own youth. In
Arizona those standards mean youth from other states are provided excellent
supervision. Arizona “imports” a far greater number of probation and parole cases than
it “exports.” Case management of these youth is in conjunction with the supervision
requirements from the state(s) of origin (sending state). In addition to adjudicated
juveniles, the office provides for the safe return of youth who have run away and/or
have fled to avoid prosecution.
ADJC operates and maintains four safe schools for juveniles: Adobe Mountain School
(AMS), Black Canyon School (BCS), Catalina Mountain School (CMS), and Eagle Point
School (EPS). AMS operates intake and secure care programming for male youth. AMS
operates 17 treatment units, plus one unit for youth with special behavior problems.
AMS primarily houses youth from Maricopa County. It is located on Pinnacle Peak Road,
just west of the I-17 freeway. BCS operates intake and secure care programming for all
female youth. BCS is located just south of the Happy Valley Road exit, west of the I-17
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 46
freeway. CMS is a secure facility for male juveniles. CMS has five treatment units and
one for youth with special behavior problems. CMS primarily houses youth from Pima
County. It is located north of Tucson on Highway 89. EPS is a secure facility for males
that has six housing units. Eagle Point houses youth primarily from the southern and
western counties. It is located off of Highway 85 in Buckeye.
ADJC is currently in the process of revising its assessment and behavior management
systems to better reflect the needs of the youth in its care and to promote the agency’s
vision: Safer communities through successful youth. The improved classification
system includes the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version
(MAYSI-2) and the Criminogenic and Protective Factors Assessment (CAPFA)
instrument. The MAYSI-2 is a method for screening every juvenile entering ADJC in
order to identify potential mental health problems in need of immediate attention. The
CAPFA assesses each juvenile for the need for individual mental health, family, and
group counseling. Additional assessment instruments include the Behavior Assessment
Scales for Children (BASC), which was designed to facilitate the differential diagnosis
and educational classification of a variety of emotional and behavioral disorders of
children and to aid in the design of treatment plans; the Adolescent Substance Abuse
Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-A2), which helps identify youth who have a high
probability of having a substance use disorder; and the Juvenile Sex Offender
Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II), which provides a structured clinical guide to rate
specific variables that have demonstrated an association with future acts of sexual
offending and general delinquent behavior. An integrated behavior management
system has also been developed to promote ADJC’s goal of creating an environment
that is safe, secure, pro-social, and allows all other activities to function.
The following data represent the demographic characteristics of the juveniles
committed to ADJC for the first time (new commitments) for the last four fiscal years
(FY).
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic juveniles (excluding Mexican Nationals), accounted for 46.1 percent of the new
commitments in FY2004, increasing slightly from 42.6 percent in FY2001. The number
of Caucasian juveniles decreased from 38.9 percent in FY2001 to 34.7 percent in
FY2004. Commitments of African American juveniles decreased slightly from 9.2 percent
in FY2001 to 8.6 percent in FY2004. Commitments of Native American juveniles have
remained relatively constant over the four years from 4.48 percent in FY2001 to 4.4
percent in FY2004. The number of Mexican National juveniles committed has also held
steady from 4.5 percent in FY2001 to 4.5 percent in FY2004.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 47
Table 40
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
New Commitments by Race/Ethnicity
FY2001 – FY2004
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Hispanic 336 44 342 35 304 48 271 46
42.5% 42.7% 47.1% 36.1% 46.1% 51.6% 46.2% 45.1%
Caucasian 303 44 243 41 207 36 201 38
38.4% 42.7% 33.5% 42.3% 31.4% 38.7% 34.3% 37.3%
African American 72 10 76 10 64 6 50 9
9.1% 9.7% 10.5% 10.3% 9.7% 6.5% 8.5% 8.8%
Native American 37 3 34 10 32 2 25 5
4.7% 2.9% 4.7% 10.3% 4.9% 2.2% 4.3% 4.9%
Mexican National 38 2 29 1 48 0 30 1
4.8% 1.9% 4.0% 1.0% 7.3% 0.0% 5.1% 1.0%
Asian 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 1
0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5% 1.0%
Other 2 0 2 0 4 0 6 2
0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
TOTALS 790 103 726 97 659 93 586 102
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
AGE
Of the 688 juveniles committed to ADJC in FY2004, two-thirds (66.6 percent) were 16
or 17 years old. New commitments of 15 year old juveniles have remained relatively
stable throughout the past four years, representing 21.7 percent of the total in FY2004.
There were no juveniles ages 11 or younger committed to ADJC in 2004, and only a
small number (.29 percent) of 12 year olds were committed, which remains mostly
unchanged for each of the years represented.
Table 41
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
New Commitments by Age
FY2001 – FY2004
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
11 and younger 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
12 years old 3 0 1 1 3 0 1 1
0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 1.0%
13 years old 40 6 16 0 9 2 7 2
5.1% 5.8% 2.2% 0.0% 1.4% 2.2% 1.2% 2.0%
14 years old 84 20 89 12 61 10 61 9
10.6% 19.4% 12.3% 12.4% 9.3% 10.8% 10.4% 8.8%
15 years old 167 26 164 33 143 18 123 26
21.1% 25.2% 22.6% 34.0% 21.7% 19.4% 21.0% 25.5%
16 years old 229 28 233 28 215 31 192 27
29.0% 27.2% 32.1% 28.9% 32.6% 33.3% 32.8% 26.5%
17 years old 267 23 223 23 227 32 202 37
33.8% 22.3% 30.7% 23.7% 34.4% 34.4% 34.5% 36.3%
TOTALS 790 103 726 97 659 93 586 102
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 48
COUNTY
The number of juveniles committed to ADJC from Maricopa County increased from 44.2
percent in FY2001 to 52.8 percent in FY2004, while juveniles committed from Pima
County decreased from 24.5 percent in FY2001 to 17.7 percent in FY2004. New
commitments from Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, Mohave, Navajo and
Santa Cruz increased slightly over the past four years, while those from Graham, La
Paz, Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma decreased.
Table 42
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
New Commitments by County
FY2001 – FY2004
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Apache 3 0 2 1 0 2 4 2
0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.7% 2.0%
Cochise 21 1 23 3 20 3 18 3
2.7% 1.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 3.2% 3.1% 2.9%
Coconino 12 3 15 3 21 0 15 2
1.5% 2.9% 2.1% 3.1% 3.2% 0.0% 2.6% 2.0%
Gila 10 1 11 0 12 5 12 1
1.3% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.8% 5.4% 2.0% 1.0%
Graham 7 0 7 3 2 2 1 2
0.9% 0.0% 1.0% 3.1% 0.3% 2.2% 0.2% 2.0%
Greenlee 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 1.0%
La Paz 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
0.3% 0 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0
Maricopa 350 45 277 37 277 40 306 57
44.3% 43.7% 38.2% 38.1% 42.0% 43.0% 52.2% 55.9%
Mohave 33 7 26 3 24 7 30 2
4.2% 6.8% 3.6% 3.1% 3.6% 7.5% 5.1% 2.0%
Navajo 13 1 17 2 19 2 9 2
1.6% 1.0% 2.3% 2.1% 2.9% 2.2% 1.5% 2.0%
Pima 192 27 211 30 179 16 104 18
24.3% 26.2% 29.1% 3.9% 27.2% 17.2% 17.7% 17.6%
Pinal 67 5 51 2 37 4 41 6
8.5% 4.9% 7.0% 2.1% 5.6% 4.3% 7.0% 5.9%
Santa Cruz 11 1 8 2 7 2 12 1
1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 2.1% 1.1% 2.2% 2.0% 1.0%
Yavapai 30 3 35 1 27 3 11 2
3.8% 2.9% 4.8% 1.0% 4.1% 3.2% 1.9% 2.0%
Yuma 39 9 41 10 29 7 22 3
4.9% 8.7% 5.6% 10.3% 4.4% 7.5% 3.8% 2.9%
TOTALS 790 103 726 97 659 93 586 102
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 49
New Commitments in ADJC Custody by Most Serious Committing Offense
For FY2004, there were fewer commitments to ADJC in every offense category than
FY2001. Commitments for property offenses, including burglary, theft, shoplifting, and
criminal damage accounted for 44.8 percent of total offenses in FY2004. Crimes
against persons, which includes homicide, assault, sexual assault, and kidnapping,
increased from 17.8 percent of commitments in FY2001 to 20.2 percent in FY2004.
Commitments for drug offenses rose from 16.8 percent in FY2001 to 18.3 percent in
FY2004. Similarly, commitments for public order offenses showed an increase for the
same time period, from 9.7 percent to 10.2 percent.
Table 43
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
New Commitments by Committing Offense
FY2001 – FY2004
COMMITTING OFFENSE FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Property Offenses 437 (48.9%) 358 (43.5%) 316 (42.0%) 308 (44.8%)
Crimes Against Persons 159 (17.8%) 171 (20.8%) 154 (20.5%) 139 (20.2%)
Drug Offenses 150 (16.8%) 146 (17.7%) 129 (17.2%) 126 (18.3%)
Public Order Offenses 87 (9.7%) 81 (9.8%) 81 (10.8%) 70 (10.2%)
Weapons Offenses 22 (2.5%) 28 (3.4%) 30 (4.0%) 19 (2.8%)
All Other Offenses 38 (4.3%) 39 (4.7%) 42 (5.6%) 26 (3.8%)
TOTALS 893 (100%) 823 (100%) 752 (100%) 688 (100%)
Figure 26
FY 2004
Property Offenses
44.8%
Crimes Against Persons
20.2%
Drug Offenses
18.3%
Public Order Offenses
10.2%
Weapons Offenses
2.8%
All Other Offenses
3.8%
FY 2001
Property Offenses
48.9%
Crimes Against Persons
17.8%
Drug Offenses
16.8%
Public Order Offenses
9.7%
Weapons Offenses
2.5%
All Other Offenses
4.3%
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 50
Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Custody
The number of juveniles in secure care has decreased steadily over the last five years
from 964 at the end of FY2000 to 637 in FY2004.
Table 44
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Secure Care*
6/30/2000 – 6/30/2004
POPULATION As of
6/30/2000
As of
6/30/2001
As of
6/30/2002
As of
6/30/2003
As of
6/30/2004
Adobe Mountain School 453 410 371 348 311
Black Canyon School 124 97 77 61 72
Catalina Mountain School 153 122 141 118 118
Eagle Point School 234 193 123 109 136
Encanto - 31 56 45 -
TOTALS 964 853 768 681 637
*Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles.
The number of juveniles in ADJC custody on parole has continued to decline since
FY2000, decreasing from 751 juveniles on parole at the end of FY2000 to 512 juveniles
on parole at the end of FY2004.
Table 45
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Total Number of Juveniles on Parole
6/30/2000 – 6/30/2004
POPULATION As of
6/30/2000
As of
6/30/2001
As of
6/30/2002
As of
6/30/2003
As of
6/30/2004
Home 480 407 405 358 349
PV Center - 73 77 41 -
Abscond 148 103 103 143 108
Residential Treatment
Center 123 138 115 111 55
TOTALS 751 721 700 653 512
*Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 51
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) houses adult offenders convicted of
felonies in Arizona and sentenced to a period of state-level confinement. This includes a
sub-population of approximately 300 adult felons convicted of driving under the
influence who were sentenced to the Department (usually for four months) as a
condition of probation. The ADC maintains segregated prison facilities for juveniles
sentenced in adult court in Arizona. As of December 31, 2004, the total population of
32,570 offenders committed to the DOC was distributed among prison facilities as
follows:
Table 46
LOCATION OF COMMITTED POPULATION
December 31, 2004
Facility Population Capacity
ASPC-Douglas 2,214 2,015
ASPC-Eyman 4,666 4,120
ASPC-Florence 3,848 3,266
ASPC-Lewis 4,184 4,150
ASPC-Perryville 2,592 2,796
ASPC-Phoenix 934 802
ASPC-Safford 1,762 1,453
ASPC-Tucson 3,909 3,784
ASPC-Winslow 1,828 1,626
ASPC-Yuma 2,271 1,850
Private Prisons 4,307 4,746
County Jail Transfers 55
Total Committed Population 32,570 30,608
Designated Operating Capacity 30,608
Bed Surplus/(Deficit) (1,962)
Source: Arizona Department of Corrections
*Arizona State Prison Complex
**No fixed capacity for pending transfer.
The following shows the gender and sentence type of inmates active on December 31,
2004:
Table 47
GENDER AND SENTENCE TYPE OF COMMITTED POPULATION
DECEMBER 31, 2004
SENTENCE TYPE MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Death Sentence 103 2 105
Life Sentence 1,142 51 1,193
Term of Years 28,557 2,715 31,272
TOTAL 29,802 2,768 32,570
Source: Arizona Department of Corrections
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 52
PRISON POPULATION GROWTH TREND
The next section presents three figures that follow the growth in the Arizona prison
population over the period from December 31, 1990 to December 31, 2004. Over this
14-year period, prison population increased from 14,313 to 32,570 or by 128.6 percent.
Growth over this period averaged 1,304 per year or 109 committed adults per month.
Figure 27
ENDING ADULT COMMITTED POPULATION
December 1990-2004
14,313
15,464
16,572
17,968
19,864
21,663
22,697
23,866
25,712 26,003 26,747
28,059
29,591
31,258
32,570
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Calendar Year
Inmates
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 53
Figure 28
PERCENTAGE PRISON POPULATION GROWTH
1991-2004
8.0%
7.2%
8.4%
10.6%
9.1%
4.8%
5.2%
7.7%
1.1%
2.9%
4.9%
5.5% 5.6%
4.2%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Calendar Year
Yearly Percentage Growth
Figure 29
MONTHLY PRISON POPULATION GROWTH
1990-2004
79
96 92
116
158
150
86
97
154
24
62
110
128
139
109
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Calendar Year
Avg. Monthly Population Growth
The highest growth occurred in 1994 (158 per month) and 1998 (154 per month), while
the lowest growth occurred in 1999 (24 per month) and 2000 (62 per month). The
lower levels of growth in 1999-2000 were shown to be associated with a backlog in
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 54
criminal case activity in Maricopa County. Over the five year period between 2000 and
2004, the committed population increased 76.3 percent. Factors believed to be
associated with growth in the Arizona prison population over the period 1990-2004
include state general population growth, mandatory sentencing, an increased level of
methamphetamine drug use, increased drug enforcement activity (the drug war),
increased street gang activity in the state, a stiffening of penalties for driving under the
influence, and harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth in
Sentencing. Normally, you would expect a drop in crime to lead to a drop in the overall
incarceration rates. However, the previously stated factors have had the opposite
effect.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 55
INCARCERATION RATE TREND
The figure “Arizona Incarceration Rate” shown below tracks the trend in the Arizona
incarceration rate over the period 1993-2003. The incarceration rate is calculated as the
number of inmates per 100,000 general population of the state, and is useful as it
factors out the portion of prison population growth, which is due to growth in the state
general population. The incarceration rate increased steadily from 456.5 in 1993 to
560.1 in 2003.
Figure 30
Arizona Incarceration Rate
1993-2003
456.5
487.5
513.6 512.6 524.0
550.7 544.2
521.3 528.7
542.3
560.1
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Calendar Year
Inmates per 100,000 Population
PRISON ADMISSIONS, RELEASES, AND TIME SERVED
The two major factors driving changes in prison population are the fluctuating levels of
prison admissions and prison releases. When admissions rise, prison population tends to
increase, while as releases rise, prison population tends to decrease. Although releases
rise along with admissions, the release rate does not rise at the same rate as the rate of
admissions, causing a net population increase. In any case, the growth in prison
population during any given period equates to the excess of admissions over releases
during the period. Admissions include commitments from the court in addition to
returns to custody of released violators. Releases include both discretionary and non-discretionary
releases. In recent years, following the implementation of Truth in
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 56
Sentencing in 1994, the vast majority of releases have been non-discretionary. The
figure “Adult Prison Admissions and Releases” seen below, tracks the level of Arizona
prison admissions and releases over the period 1990-2004. As shown, both admissions
and releases have risen over the course of the decade. The exception is that admissions
dropped significantly in 1999, because of the aforementioned lag in commitments from
Maricopa County.
Figure 31
ADULT PRISON ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES
1990-2004
8,084 8,256
8,889
9,977
11,223
11,807 11,600
12,697
14,448
13,507
14,198
14,961
16,531
17,331 17,234
7,139 7,105
7,781
8,581
9,327
10,008
10,566
11,528
12,602
13,216 13,454 13,649
14,999
15,664 15,922
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Calendar Year
Admissions/Releases
ADMISSIONS RELEASES
Another way to look at prison population growth is as a function of two factors, the
level of admissions and average time served in prison. Independent of the trend in
admissions, as time served decreases, releases tend to increase, causing a population
decrease. On the other hand, as time served increases, releases tend to decrease, while
population tends to increase. The figure “Average Time Served for Prison Releases”
below, tracks average time served prior to release for inmates released over the period
1990-2004. As indicated, time served has gradually increased over the past 14 years,
primarily because of harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under
Truth in Sentencing.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 57
Figure 32
Average Time Served for Prison Releases
1990-2004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Calendar Year
Average Time Served
(Months)
PRISON POPULATION FORECASTING
One of the responsibilities of the Research Unit of the Arizona Department of
Corrections is to maintain a current viable inmate population forecast. This forecast
forms the basis each year for the Department’s appropriation request and for the 5-
Year Bed Plan. The use of regression analysis assists in projecting future inmate
population in various categories based on the currently observed variation in the longer-term
population trend. This often involves estimates of the impact of new legislation
and of new departmental policies that may affect population growth. These estimates
are calculated from determinations of impact on admission levels and time served.
OFFENDERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
The figure “Offenders under Community Supervision” below, tracks the number of
offenders under community supervision following release from ADC custody over the
period 1991-2004. This does not include those released to probation supervision by
county authorities. Shorter community supervision terms under Truth in Sentencing
laws than under the former criminal code have led to a trend in offender population
under community supervision that does not follow the trend in releases and admissions
into prison. While more inmates are released into community supervision under Truth in
Sentencing, the time spent under community supervision is shorter.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 58
Figure 33
Offenders Under Community Supervision
1991 - 2004
4,098
4,657
5,208
5,468
5,679
4,289
4,033
3,801 3,715
3,351
3,536
3,665
4,626
5,816
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Calendar Year
Supervised Population
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURES
As the inmate population has continued to increase, so has the number of authorized
full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the Department of Corrections. The figure “ADC
Full-Time Equivalent Positions” tracks FTE positions over the period 1991–2004. The