1998 report of the Arizona Judicial Branch |
Previous | 1 of 14 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
1998 Report of the ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH "Building a Better Judicial System" Courts Under Construction ... Protecting Children, Families and Communities Justice 2002 Justice 2002 is the strategic agenda for the Arizona Judicial Branch. The four goals of the agenda include Protecting Children, Families and Communities; Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice; Connecting with the Community; and Being Accountable. Chief]ustice Thomas Zlaket On behalf of the Arizona Judicial Branch, I proudly present the 1998 Annual Report. This document reflects countless hours of dedicated public service by our many employees, all of whom care deeply about Arizona's courts. The judicial branch of government strives to deliver an independent justice system that carefully considers the rights and obligations of its citizens, and promptly renders impartial decisions free of outside influences or pressures. The system cannot survive without the trust and confidence of those it serves. This annual report should ass ist in updating Justice 2002, our strategic agenda and the blueprint for future court projects. Hopefully, it also shows the progress we've made in our ongoing efforts to build public trust and confidence. In many ways, Arizona's court system is the envy of the nation. We listen to our citizens, embrace new ideas, pursue innovative methods and attempt always to remain accountable. For these and many other reasons, our courts will continue to break new ground in the administration of justice. My thanks to all those court employees who work hard every day transforming worthwhile goals into reality. Sincerely, Courts protect Arizona's children, families and communities by providing them an independent, neutral forum for resolving disputes; limiting the arbitrary use of government power to take their liberty, property, children, or life; and by dispensing justice in a fair and equitable manner. In 1998, the courts served these groups by improving how children and families are served in family law matters; ensuring that juvenile detention facilities are available, safe and secure; helping to protect victims of domestic violence; and providing assistance to elderly citizens through a legal hotline and new safeguards for private fiduciaries. These and other accomplishments are highlighted below. Building a Model Court Project In the 1998 legislative session, Arizona's courts -with the support of legislators, Governor Jane Dee Hull and many others -- championed legislation that will implement statewide a reengineered case processing system to reduce the time abused and neglected children spend in out-of-home placement. The Model Court Project is part of the overall Court Improvement Project, and has brought together all members of the system to expedite these emotional cases. Statewide implementation of Model Court, which stresses involvement of the parents at the earliest stages of proceedings, began in 1998. Early results of the Pima County pilot project conducted last year proved encouraging. After 60 days from filing of the dependency petition, twice as many children moving through Model Court procedures were placed with parents and/or relatives as compared to non-Model Court cases. Additionally, the average number of days to an adjudication ruling on Model Court cases was 43, compared to 85 days for nonModel Court cases. "What Model Court offers ... is a major breakthrough in court procedures that used to drag along. The project brings together parents, caseworkers, attorneys and others quickly after a child enters the system to expedite things." - Arizona Daily Star, April 18, 1998 Constructing Juvenile Detention Facilities The Legislature responded to the court-produced Juvenile Detention Master Plan by providing an additional $6.6 million in state funds to augment muchneeded funding from the previous year. Efforts to upgrade and expand juvenile facilities are underway in all counties. Counties that have already broken ground include Pima, Pinal, Mohave and Yavapai. Expanding Domestic Violence Protection The Supreme Court Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts and the staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts, with assistance from many who work in the domestic violence arena, produced standardized procedures and forms to make it easier for courts to protect victims of domestic violence. Also, legislation initiated by the Arizona Judicial Council and the Supreme Court -- supported by many legislators, the Execmive Branch and community advocates -- provided protection for victims and accountability for offenders by obtaining funding for supervised probation of certain domestic violence offenders. Elder Law Hotline Project The Hotline offers free legal ass istance to Arizona residents age 60 and older, wi th no income restrictions. At no ' \ I ; charge, callers can speak to an attorney who will provide brief legal assistance or services. The Elder Law Hotline is operated by Southern Arizona Legal Aid, a Tucson-based, not-for-profit organization. The Arizona Bar Foundation monitors the performance of the Hotline for customer satisfaction, product quality and appropriateness of referrals. The Hotline handles a variety of legal issues including landlord/ tenant disputes, bankruptcy, protective proceedings, probate and consumer protection. If the case involves a non-legal matter, the caller is referred to the appropriate agency or non-governmental entity. Supporting Private Fiduciary Protections The Ar izona Supreme Court announced in September 1998 the implementation of a ground breaking program that will help ensure Arizona's elderly, mentally incapacitated and other vulnerable citizens have trained and certified individuals managing their financial affairs, medical decisions and other vital matters. The program is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States. Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket signed the historic Administrative Order adopting the Private Fiduciary Certification Administrative Rules on September 21, 1998 pursuant to A.R.S. §14-565 1, relating to the registration of private fiduciaries. Courts Under Construction ... Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice All citizens-victims, litigants and defendants- deserve access to a fair and swift process for resolving civil or criminal disputes. In 1998, the Arizona court system continued its effort to ensure that resources are adequate and that court procedures, policies and practices were consistent with this important goal. As outlined below, the "Fill The Gap" effort, reengineered case processing, an efficient and effective juvenile justice system, and continuing improvements in strategic technology planning were among the many ways the court system increased public access to swift, fair justice. Working to Fill The Gap The "Fill The Gap" initiative began in the 1998 legislative session to call attention to the increased resources at the "front" and "back" ends of the justice system -- 21 percent more police officers; 25 percent more arrests; 22 percent rise in criminal case filings; 6,600 new prison beds -- that occurred from 1992 to 1996. These increases put a tremendous strain on the "middle" of the system, creating a resource "gap" that needs to be filled. In an unprecedented show of unity, the Arizona criminal justice community, led by Chief Just ice Zlaket, announced the "Fill The Gap" legislative proposal to help solve these critical problems in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice team consisted of the Supreme Court, Superior Court judges, the Attorney General, county prosecutors, public defenders, clerks, court administrators, county officials, and victims' representatives. The 1998 effort by the justice community resulted in the Legislature approving $350,000 to fund reengineering projects to improve processing of criminal cases in the Superior Courts and Justice Courts. To be eligible for funding, courts, county attorneys, and the defense bar submitted plans that demonstrated collaborative efforts designed to reduce case processing delay. "The timely processing of cases is important to keeping our communities safe and maintaining public trust and confidence in our system of justice." - Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket Reengineered Case Processing As a key component of the "Fill The Gap" effort, Arizona courts recognized that, in addition to muchneeded additional resources necessary in the "middle" of the justice system, an effort must be made to improve the process by which cases flow. Delays in this system affect victims, families, defendants, and the public at large -- real people, real situations. Courts and others responded in 1998 by studying the problems, then implementing new and better ways of handling cases from beg inning to end, and the results have been significant. Maricopa, Coconino and Yavapai are three prime examples of counties that began to see often dramatic improvements. For example, the Civil Department of Superior Court in Maricopa County announced in 1998 that it had drastically cut the number of pending cases in the previous year. Reengineering caseload practices resulted in a 23.4 percent decrease. Among many other methods, judges stopped the practice of waiting for all defendants to answer and certify before appointing arbitrators, and organized teams of civil judges to back up each other to maintain firm trial da tes. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Program was also expanded to allow more options for reaching conclusion of a case. The Superior Court in Coconino County showed dramatic results in the percentage of criminal cases taking more than 90 days to resolve -- from 72 percent down to 31 percent after reengineering the process. The county was saved a considerable amount of money by cutting the average length of jail time for defendants awaiting disposition from 173 days to only 55 after the reengineering efforts. After reengineering, Superior Court in Yavapai County cut its median case processing time from 183 days to just 88. The Superior Court in Mohave, Pima, Yuma and Pinal counties also began similar studies on reengineering case processing. Rebuilt Juvenile Justice System Rated #1 An independent consulting firm hired by the Legislature to conduct an audit of the juvenile justice system called Arizona's juvenile justice system, "one of the best in the country." Deloitte Touche Consulting reported its findings in November 1998 to members of the Joint Legislative Committee on Juvenile Justice. Following the 6-month aud it, Deloitte Touche Consulting claimed that the procurement process used by the Administrative Office of the Courts' Juvenile Justice Services Division to secure treatment services is "the best--one that should be adopted by the rest of state government." The agencies that make up the state's juvenile justice system (Department of Ju venile Corrections, county juvenile justice programs, juvenile courts and the state Depa rtments of Econo mic Securit y, Behavioral Health Services and Education) are working to better coordinate their efforts to deal with juvenile offenders. In the meantime, Deloitte Touche says " ... Arizona has a very sound system." "Arizona's juvenile justice system is one of the best in the country." - Deloitte Touche Consulting A Technology Blueprint The Judicial Branch is in its sixth year of deploying and supporting automation statewide. A sophisticated and extensive infrastructure is required to support this effort. Most important to communication and coordination is a network connecting the courts in Arizona. The Arizona Judici al In format ion Network (AJ IN) is a state-of- the-art frame relay network extending to 121 court sites and 53 juvenile probation and detention sites statewide, with plans to expand to 58 ad ult probation sites. The Judicial Branch has responsibility for the expansion and maintenance of the network and for working with communication providers to assure uninterrupted system availab ility. The Arizona Court Automation Project (ACAP) is a project deploying jury, case and cash management software to all courts statewide. As of 1998, the project has been implemented in 118 general and limited jurisd ict ion cour ts in Arizona. Phase 2, which invo lved implementation in Maricopa and Pima County small city courts, and Pinal County city courts, was completed. The automated Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) continued to expand in 1998. JOLTS is used in juvenile probation offices, juvenile court and detention facilities in Arizona. Among other things, these entities can now use JOLTS to view photos of juveniles from different counties and track treatment services given to juveniles. This type of vital data is needed to accurately predict trends in juvenile justice and plan resources and strategies accordingly. Additionally, new modules are being implemented to assist courts in the management and tracking of dependency cases, and to assist crime victims. The Arizona Judicial Branch also began a determined, serious effort to ready itself for the "Y2K problem" in 1998. The effort was formed as a result of the work of many, including the Commiss ion on Technology, a subcommittee of the Arizona Judicial Council. Individual components of the Y2K effort include complete testing of all software deployed statewide for Y2K compliance by June 1999. With the increasing presence of people wanting low-cost access to the co urt system, the Ari zona Supreme Court announced in Janua ry 1998 that QuickCourt, its award-winning kiosk system providing free or low-cost legal information and forms, was availab le at most county co urthouses in Ari zona. QuickCourt continued to be available at other sites in every county, but citizens throughout the state were assured of easier access to legal forms and information. Courts Under Construction ... Connecting With the Community Courts and judges should be independent and free of outside influence when deciding cases. Cases should be decided based on the law and case merits, regardless of the involved parties' economic or political status. However, judges can and should be involved in their communities. The Judicial Branch in 1998 implemented programs to improve how it listens to communities and established effective methods of communication between citizens and the courts. Highlighted below, the Citizen Summits held throughout Arizona, oral arguments taken "on the road," and expanded court information available through the Internet are just a few of the ways the Arizona court system is connecting with those it serves. Citizen Summits - Building Community Awareness In order to effectively listen to citizens, it is necessary to bring them together to focus on the issues at hand. An on-going series of "Citizen Summits" were conducted throughout Arizona, beginning in June 1998 in Flagstaff. Summits were also held in Phoenix (November 5 and 10) and in Tucson (December 15). The primary goal was to listen to citizens' thoughts and concerns about the Judicial Branch. More than 500 people came from throughout the varying communities and court systems, from nearly every county and from a broad range of economic, social, racial, religious and political perspectives. The Citizen Summits are part of the Judicial Branch's attempt to better communicate with Arizonans, and the information gathered is part of a nationwide court effort along these lines. In May 1999, a national Public Trust and Confidence Conference will be held in Washington, D.C. Oral Arguments "On The Road" The Arizona Supreme Court, as part of its effort to bring the court system closer to the people of the state, held oral arguments in Yuma and Cochise counties in 1998. In April, at Arizona Western College's Little Theater in Yuma, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases. The public was invited to attend, and more than 100 students, teachers and everyday citizens filled the auditorium. In November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases at Buena High School in Sierra Vista. Several hundred spectators from throughout the Bisbee/Sierra Vista communities observed the arguments and also participated in a question and answer session afterward. Several community events were held in Yuma, Bisbee and Sierra Vista that allowed community members to meet the Supreme Court and discuss areas of interest in the justice system. Expanding Internet Access Fiscal Year 1998 saw a tremendous increase in the amount and types of information available through various court Internet sites in Arizona. The Arizona Judicial Branch's site (www.supreme.state.az.us), hosted by the Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, continued to expand with a wide array of information for the court community and general public. Among many other uses, citizens can now access information on-line about Supreme Court opinions, jury duty, press releases, and information about programs such as the Confidential Intermediary Program, the Elder Law Hotline, and the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Information on child support and domestic violence issues are also available with the click of a button, as are links to many other courtrelated sites. The Superior Court in Maricopa, Pima and Cochise counties each have Internet web sites, along with limited jurisdiction courts in Pima County (Consolidated Justice Courts), and the municipal courts in Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Tucson and Oro Valley. - Judicial Branch Organization Summary - 1999* Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham -- Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham 1 4 4 2 1 Supreme Court 5 Justices, 6-Year Terms Chief Justice Vice-Chief Justice 3 Associate Justices Court of Appeals 22 Judges, 6-Year Terms Division One - Phoenix Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges Division Two - Tucson Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges Superior Court ** 138 Judges, 4-Year Terms Presiding Judge in Each County Greenlee 1 Pima La Paz 1 Pinal 27 5 Maricopa 71 Santa Cruz 2 Mohave 6 Yavapai 5 Navajo 3 Yuma 5 Justices of the Peace 84 Judges, 84 Precincts, 4-Year Terms 4 Greenlee 2 Pima 9 6 La Paz 3 Pinal 8 4 Maricopa 23 Santa Cruz 2 2 Mohave 5 Yavapai 5 2 - Navajo 6 Yuma 3 - -- -- Municipal Courts 142 Full and Part-Time Judges, 85 Cities/Towns Judges Courts Judges Courts Apache 3 3 Mohave 3 3 Cochise 6 6 Navajo 4 5 Coconino 10 Gila 5 Graham 4 Greenlee 2 La Paz 2 Maricopa 60 4 Pima 21 5 5 3 2 2 23 Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 8 2 8 4 8 2 8 4 * Numbers may change throughout 1999. ** More than 40 court commissioners are appointed by presiding judges through an application and interview process, and they handle cases as assigned by the presiding judge. The bulk of their work addresses civil, probate and domestic relations matters. Courts Under Construction ... Being Accountable The court system must use taxpayer resources wisely and achieve desired results. Among many different programs, in 1998 this objective required the continuation of judicial performance review and the dissemination of the results to the public; an increased emphasis on enforcement of court orders, probation requirements, and collections; and the drive to increase the amount of public members serving on the courts' various policy-making committees. Judicial Performance Review - Establishing Trust The 1998 Voter Information Guide prepared by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review is part of an on-going effort to provide as much information as possible to voters about all appellate court judges, and Superior Court judges in Maricopa and Pima counties. Arizona's public process of evaluating the performance of these judges is perhaps the finest in the nation. The members of the Commission, the majority of whom are ordinary citizens who volunteer their time, worked long and hard in 1998 to produce this valuable information. The Commission does not operate behind closed doors. The process is completely open to any member of the public who wants to voice an opinion on the performance of any judge subj ect to merit selection. In fact, the public is actively invited to participate, and the number of surveys returned by non-lawyers to the Commission is very impressive when compared to those states that rely solely on attorney evaluations. All opinions are considered and the information is made available to the media and general public. The 1998 Voter Information Guide was distributed at primary election polling sites in September, and made available on the Supreme Court web page and by request at a toll-free telephone number. The Commission made successful efforts to have the news media assist in distributing the contents of the 1998 Voter Information Guide to voters. As a result, many more citizens became familiar with the Report of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review and had direct access to the guide. Most major newspapers in Arizona gave coverage to the results of the Commission Report, including the biographies of judges, summaries of survey results, phone numbers and In te rnet site addresses, and fa vorable comments on the process of Judicial Performance Review. "By virtually any standard of measure, Arizona judges meet the test of quality throughout the judicial system. This high quality of public service comes in large measure due to the efforts of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review ... " - The Arizona Republic, September 24, 1998 Improving Collections and Enforcement In 1998, Chief Justice Zlaket continued to place an emphasis on increased enforcement of court-ordered financial sanctions, and many efforts were put in place to boost the level of collections and make sure that orders of the court were not simply ignored. Revenues continue to increase, reflective of the Judicial Branch's ongoing efforts in this regard. Fiscal Year 1998 saw court revenues of $169 million, an increase of more than 13 percent over 1997, and a dramatic increase in total dollars collected compared with $70 million in the benchmark year of 1988. Revenues collected in excess of the 1988 benchmark now total in excess of $483 million. Also, total restitution payments collected in 1998 by courts increased more than 12% over 1997. Counties have used a variety of methods to increase collections. Some, like Apache County, have dedicated personnel keeping track of amounts outstanding, sending late notices, and notifying the court when problems require legal action, such as filing a petition to revoke probation. Others, such as Pima County, have worked cooperatively with clerks of the court, placing clerks at the probation offices to actually collect monies. Other counties - Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma, for example - have simply made increased collections a higher priority for probation officers. Also, the Debt Setoff Program enables all Arizona courts to intercept Arizona state income tax refunds if the court-ordered debt is at least $50. Arizona Lottery winnings can be intercepted if the amount outstanding is at least $ 100. If a court provides the name, Social Security number and the full amount of the debt to the Debt Setoff Program, and a debt claim matches with a taxpayer's refund or lottery winning, an intercept will occur. Debt Setoff Program statistics as of September 30, 1998 include: 75 participating courts, 7,890 claims intercepted, and more than $880,000 intercepted. More Public Members - Creating Connections The many councils, commissions and subcommittees of Arizona's Judicial Branch were augmented in 1998 by additional members of the public, those outside the court system who provide fresh approaches and new ideas often not considered by those practicing in the justice arena. This concerted effort was part of an overall attempt to increase the court system's responsiveness to public needs and perceptions. For example, the Arizona Judicial Council, which oversees the administrative policy direction of the Judicial Branch, added three new public members in October 1998. In addition, hundreds of Arizona citizens continue to volunteer every year in various capacities in our court system. These include members of the Foster Care Review Board, Court Appointed Special Advocates, members of three separate judicial nominating commissions, the Arizona Judicial Council, the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, and many others. Commission on Judicial Conduct The Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent agency that investigates complaints against state and local judges involving violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In 1998, the 11 -member commission received 107 4 inquires and 290 complaints. The commission dismissed 299 cases for lack of jurisdiction, no grounds, lack of sufficient or no evidence of judicial misconduct. The commission issued informal or private sanctions in 18 cases and informally resolved 4 cases with letters of instruction. In addition, the commission recommended public censure for one judge, suspension without pay for two judges, and it accepted the voluntary resignation of one judge after formal charges were filed. The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued 6 formal opinions during the year, which are distributed to all judges. The committee responded to more than 160 requests for advice on ethical issues. Commission on Judicial Conduct Caseload Summary 1996-1998 (calendar year) Description 1996 1997 1998 Inquiries 963 891 1074 Complaints 246 254 290 Informal Actions 25 33 18 Formal Actions 3 4 4 Arizona Supreme Court I FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 I 1.4581J 1,275 I) 7 1.499 (L 1,5927, ' 1,671 lJ 1,646 lJ D Cases Filed D Terminated • Supreme Court FY 98 case filings decreased 2. 7 % from cases filed in FY 97. • Cases terminated by the court in FY 98 decreased 19.9 % over case terminations in FY 97. • The difference between filings and terminations resulted in a pending caseload increase of 4 7 .0 %, up from 389 cases on July 1, 1997, to 572 cases on June30, 1998. FY 98 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL Supreme Court ................................... 1,458 Court of Appeals ............................... .3,861 Division One ................................ 2, 704 Division Two ................................ 1,157 Tax Court .......................................... .1,961 County Superior Justice Municipal Apache 931 14,228 2,093 Cochise 3,664 39,241 9,382 Coconino 3,386 28,090 28,184 Gila 2,434 15,465 7,891 Graham 1,263 5,868 3,364 Greenlee 365 2,138 622 La Paz 706 13,807 3,588 Maricopa 107,674 319,087 888,3 73 Mohave 5,881 42,093 25,897 Navajo 2,645 31,370 6,565 Pima 27,345 186,846 25 1,666 Pinal 6,627 42,795 29,278 Santa Cruz 1,418 8,365 14,073 Yavapai 5,710 35,616 33,144 Yuma 6,232 26,907 28,119 TOTALS: 176,281 811,916 1,332,239 Total 1998 1997 Difference FILINGS: 2,327,716 2,255,597 72,119 +3.1 % ----1 ., __ ,.,.. uu111 • .au, 1 ililOJ Court of Appeals, Division One FY 98 2.704 _]) 2,566 J) _j FY 2,669 _1l, 97 2.752 jJ ...i. FY 96 2,51 1 J 2,569 ) D Cases Filed D Terminated_ • Filings in FY 98 represented a 1.3 % increase from FY 97. Total criminal filing s, the largest category, increased 6.5 % from 965 in FY 97 to 1,028 in FY 98. • FY 98 case terminations decreased by 6.8 %. • Total cases pending increased 7.2 %, from 1,918 on July 1, 1997 to 2,056 on June 30, 1998. Court of Appeals, Division Two FY FY FY 98 97 96 Deases Filed D Terminated • Total filings in FY 98 increased 0.1 % from FY 97. Total criminal case filings, the largest category, decreased 9 .4 % from 683 in FY 9 7 to 619 in FY 98. • FY 98 case terminations were down 10.1 %. e Total pending cases increased 1.4 % from 1,195 on July 1, 1997 to 1,212 on June 30, 1998. Statistical Trends/Highlights 0 Criminal case filings in Superior Court continued to increase, rising more than 14 percent, significantly higher than the population growth rate of just over 2 percent. Similarly, the adult probation population rose more than 13 percent. @ Despite the 14 percent growth in criminal filings, more effective and efficient case processing produced a 19 percent increase in case terminations. @ Revenues continue to increase, reflective of the Judicial Branch's ongoing efforts to enforce court orders. Fiscal Year 1998 saw court revenues of $169 million, compared with $70 million in the benchmark year of 1988. The total increase in collections since 1988 now equals $483 .5 million. 0 Cost to process a case in 1998 was $101.30. Arizona Tax Court FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 1,961 - D Cases Filed D Terminated The Arizona Tax Court serves as the statewide venue for all civil actions involving a tax, impost or assessment. Recent changes in Arizona's tax law are reflected in case filings. • A total of 1,961 original cases were filed in the court during FY 98, a decrease of 29.9 % from the 2,798 cases filed in FY 97. • Of the FY 98 cases filed, 1,616 were property tax actions, accounting for 82.4 % of the total. • A total of 2,829 cases were terminated: 1,128 by judgment. • As of June 30, 1998, there were 848 cases pending in the tax court. Court Statistics by Fiscal Year [July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998 1 Superior Court FY 98 176 .J) 172 l) I I FY 97 169 J 164 ) FY 96 161 154 j, 0 lO 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 THOUSANDS D Cases Filed D T erminated • Total case filings in FY 98 increased 4.1 % from FY 97. • Total case terminations increased 4.8 % in the same period. • Civil case fil ings increased 8.6 %, from 43 ,403 in FY 97 to 47.147 in FY 98. In the same period, civil case terminations were up 4.5 % from 46.035 to 48.101. • Criminal case filings were up 14 .l % from 37,046 in FY 97 to 42.287 in FY 98. Criminal case terminations increased 19.0 % from 34,455 to 41,004. • Domestic relations cases decreased 6.2 % from 52.762 in FY 97 to 49,486 in FY 98, and domestic relations case terminations decreased 8.0 % from 50.119 to 46.093. Domestic violence petition filings increased 3.9 % in Superior Court from 3,810 to 3,957. • There were 166.3 11 cases pending on July 1, 1997, compared with 161.395 cases pending on June 30, 1998, a decrease of3.0 %. • Juveniles with direct filings to adult court increased by 1040.9 %, from 66 in FY 97 to 753 in FY 98. Juvenile cases transferred to adult court decreased by 48.0 %, from 646 in FY 97 to 336 in FY 98. A total of 1,089 juvenile cases were either transferred or directly filed in adult court in FY 98 compared to 712 in FY 97, an increase of 53%. Adult Probation • The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona adult probation departments at the end of FY 98 increased 13.6 % from 42,901 on July 1, 1997 to 48.728 on June30, 1998. • Of the 48.728 under the jurisdiction of adult probation, 43,593 were on standard probation, 3.82 7 on intensive probation, and 1.308 were interstate compact cases. • There were 26.610 probation cases added to the in county supervision count during FY 98. • There were 21,848 probation cases terminated from the in county supervision category during FY 98. Juvenile Court Referrals FY 98 84.7 19 _,lJ 8 1,593 Ji FY 97 84 ,504 ~ 84,945 FY 96 86,617 J) 80,825 ~ D eases Filed D Terminated • There were 84,719 referrals to juve nile court in FY 98, a 0.3 % increase compared to 84,504 in the previous year. • 81.593 referrals were terminated in FY 98, a 3.9 % decrease compared to the 84,945 referrals tenninated in FY 97. Juvenile Court Petitions • A total of 31.218 petitions were filed in FY 98, a 3. 7 % increase over 30.102 petitions filed in FY 97. • A total of 30,689 petitions were terminated in FY 98, a 4.1 % increase over the 29,488 terminated in FY97. • Juvenile dependency case filings increased by 6.2%, from 1.309 in FY 97 to [.390 in FY 98. Terminations also increased by 2.6%, from 1.335 in FY 97 to 1.3 70 in FY 98. Juvenile Probation/Corrections r--F FY981-[- - 1 -, - , - a:il58 1J FY97l-r-- - -7,30l' U FY96f 7,619 u i 6. 155 D I : D Added D T erminatcd • The number of juveniles on probation at the end of FY 98 increased 5.5 % from 8,643 on July 1, 1997 to 9, 117 on June30, 1998. • A total of 8,532 adjudicated juveniles were placed on probation in FY 98, a 7.5 % increase over the 7,934 youths placed on probation in FY 97. • 8,058 juve niles were terminated from probation, an increase of 10.3 % from the 7.307 terminated last year. • 1,670 juveniles were committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY 98, an increase of 17 .6 % from the 1,419 committed last year. Municipal Courts I FY 98 1,332 _j,j --- 1,330 j.,' : I FY 1,278 ); 97 1,254 ,,),'. - FY 96 1,247 _j) 1,203 _l), 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1.200 1.400 THOUSANDS D Cases Filed D Terminated • Case filings in FY 98 increased 4.2 % from FY 97. Total case terminations increased 6.0 % in the same period. • Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise almost three-fourths of all municipal court cases, inc reased 6.0 %, from 947, 176 in FY 97 to 1,003,706 in FY 98. • Criminal misdemeanor case filings decreased 1.9 % from 237,864 in FY 97 to 233,402 in FY 98. Criminal case terminations decreased 8.3 % from 242,435 in FY 97 to 222,426 in FY 98. • Domestic violence petitions decreased 1.7 % from 10,792 in FY 97 to 10,605 in FY 98. Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment increased 2.1 %, from 8,379 to 8,555. • Total cases pending decreased 1.7 %, from 611.286 on July 1. 1997 to 600,921 on June 30, 1998. Justice of the Peace Courts 812 V FY 981 752 D I 800 IA FY 97 t ---, _ _,754_ Q--l- ~ _=:= ' ' 790 0: FY 96 755 IJ i 0 I 00 200 JOO 400 ;oo 600 i OO 800 900 T HOUSAN D S D Cases Filed D Terminated • Total filings in FY 98 increased 1.5 % from FY 97. Total case terminations decreased 0.4 %. • Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise more than two-thirds of all justice court filings, decreased 1.7 %, from 517,080 in FY 97 to 508,495 this year. • Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case filings increased 10.9 % from 155,221 in FY 97 to 172,1 29 in FY 98. Criminal case terminations increased 4.4 % from 131 ,770 in FY 97 to 137,605 in FY 98. • Domestic violence petition filings rose 4. 7 % in justice courts, from 7,789 to 8, 154. Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment were up 13.5 % from 7,287 to 8.268. • Total cases pending increased 8.3 % from 454,731 on July 1, 1997 to 492.345 on June 30, 1998. Statewide Revenue and Expenditure Summary Revenue Summary • Total statewide court revenue increased 13 .3 % from $149 .4 million in FY 97 to $169.2 million in FY 98, reflecting the continuing efforts of the courts statewide to collect courtordered fines, fees and surcharges. FY FY - 98 - 1 97 - I I : i -- I i I I I 69 u I I 149 rJ i I 35 1J ! Revenue in Excess of 1988 Benchmark FY98 99.2 I : I FY96 59.2 Ii -r-- I FY 94 42 9 lJ 400 ~ I i FY 92 i 0 10 20 30 ,w 50 60 70 W 00 100 $ MILLIO NS Dlncreased Revenue Trend Counties 34.5% State 32.5% Revenue Generated FY 96 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 $ MILLIONS DRevenue Collected Increased Revenue Trend • This graph represents the trend in increased court revenue above the $70 million benchmark established in FY 1988. Since that time, courts have co llected more than $483 million in additional revenue. Revenue Received • Of the total court system revenue, the state received 32.5 %, counties received 34.5 % and cities and towns 33.0 %. Municipal 47.9% Superior 24.3% • 4 7. 9 % of total court revenue was generated by municipal courts, 25.4 % by justice courts, 24.3 % by Superior Court and 2.5 % by appellate courts. - FY 98 - FY 97 i I i I I 10.5 IJ Restitution I ! I 9.4 $ MILLJON S D Restitution Collected DI • Total restitution payments for victims collected by courts increased 12.6 % from 9.4 million in FY 97 to 10.5 10 12 million in FY 98. Expenditure Summary • Total statewide court expenditures increased 10.8 % from $353.2 million in FY 97 to $391.5 million in FY 98. FY FY FY -A : I 98 - I 97 - ! I 96 I I I I 391.5 D I I I i 353 I I I ! 337 lJ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 $ MI L L l O N S County 50.4% Municipal 14.2% .3% State 35 .2% D Expenditures Funds Expended by Source • 50.4 % of the total funds spent by the court system were from the counties, 35 .2 % from the state, 14.2 % from cities and towns and 0.3 % from federal and private sources. Justice 6.8% Funds Expended by Court Level • 68.0 % of total court expenditures were in Superior Court (including probation), 14.2 % in municipal court, 11.0 % at the appellate level ( including statew ide administration) and 6.8 % in the justice courts. Superior 68.0% The data contained in this report were compiled from Supreme Court financial records, caseload reports from courts and responses to the unaudited Supreme Court survey of expenditures and revenues forfiscal year 1998 (July 1, 1997-June30, 1998). All data received by the publication deadline are included, but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 1997-98 Arizona Courts Data Report early in 1999. Published by © 1998 Arizona Supreme Court Arizona Supreme Court • Administrative Office of the Courts 1501 West Washington • Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231 (602) 542-9300 • TDD (602) 542-9545 This publication can be provided in an alternative fonnat upon request to assist persons with disabilities. www.supreme.state.az.us
Object Description
TITLE | Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch |
CREATOR | Arizona. Judicial Branch. |
SUBJECT | Courts--Arizona; Judicial statistics--Arizona; |
Browse Topic |
Government and politics |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. |
Language | English |
Publisher | Arizona. Supreme Court. Administrative Office of the Courts. |
TYPE |
Text |
Material Collection |
State Documents |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
Source Identifier | SC 1.3:C 58/ |
Location | 40764730 |
DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. |
Description
TITLE | 1998 report of the Arizona Judicial Branch |
DESCRIPTION | 8 pages (PDF version). File size: 5550 KB. |
TYPE |
Text |
Acquisition Note | Scanned from physical copy on January 4, 2018. |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DATE ORIGINAL | 1999 |
Time Period | 1990s (1990-1999) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Paper |
Source Identifier | SC 1.3:C 58/1998 |
Location | 40764730 |
DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. |
Full Text | 1998 Report of the ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH "Building a Better Judicial System" Courts Under Construction ... Protecting Children, Families and Communities Justice 2002 Justice 2002 is the strategic agenda for the Arizona Judicial Branch. The four goals of the agenda include Protecting Children, Families and Communities; Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice; Connecting with the Community; and Being Accountable. Chief]ustice Thomas Zlaket On behalf of the Arizona Judicial Branch, I proudly present the 1998 Annual Report. This document reflects countless hours of dedicated public service by our many employees, all of whom care deeply about Arizona's courts. The judicial branch of government strives to deliver an independent justice system that carefully considers the rights and obligations of its citizens, and promptly renders impartial decisions free of outside influences or pressures. The system cannot survive without the trust and confidence of those it serves. This annual report should ass ist in updating Justice 2002, our strategic agenda and the blueprint for future court projects. Hopefully, it also shows the progress we've made in our ongoing efforts to build public trust and confidence. In many ways, Arizona's court system is the envy of the nation. We listen to our citizens, embrace new ideas, pursue innovative methods and attempt always to remain accountable. For these and many other reasons, our courts will continue to break new ground in the administration of justice. My thanks to all those court employees who work hard every day transforming worthwhile goals into reality. Sincerely, Courts protect Arizona's children, families and communities by providing them an independent, neutral forum for resolving disputes; limiting the arbitrary use of government power to take their liberty, property, children, or life; and by dispensing justice in a fair and equitable manner. In 1998, the courts served these groups by improving how children and families are served in family law matters; ensuring that juvenile detention facilities are available, safe and secure; helping to protect victims of domestic violence; and providing assistance to elderly citizens through a legal hotline and new safeguards for private fiduciaries. These and other accomplishments are highlighted below. Building a Model Court Project In the 1998 legislative session, Arizona's courts -with the support of legislators, Governor Jane Dee Hull and many others -- championed legislation that will implement statewide a reengineered case processing system to reduce the time abused and neglected children spend in out-of-home placement. The Model Court Project is part of the overall Court Improvement Project, and has brought together all members of the system to expedite these emotional cases. Statewide implementation of Model Court, which stresses involvement of the parents at the earliest stages of proceedings, began in 1998. Early results of the Pima County pilot project conducted last year proved encouraging. After 60 days from filing of the dependency petition, twice as many children moving through Model Court procedures were placed with parents and/or relatives as compared to non-Model Court cases. Additionally, the average number of days to an adjudication ruling on Model Court cases was 43, compared to 85 days for nonModel Court cases. "What Model Court offers ... is a major breakthrough in court procedures that used to drag along. The project brings together parents, caseworkers, attorneys and others quickly after a child enters the system to expedite things." - Arizona Daily Star, April 18, 1998 Constructing Juvenile Detention Facilities The Legislature responded to the court-produced Juvenile Detention Master Plan by providing an additional $6.6 million in state funds to augment muchneeded funding from the previous year. Efforts to upgrade and expand juvenile facilities are underway in all counties. Counties that have already broken ground include Pima, Pinal, Mohave and Yavapai. Expanding Domestic Violence Protection The Supreme Court Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts and the staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts, with assistance from many who work in the domestic violence arena, produced standardized procedures and forms to make it easier for courts to protect victims of domestic violence. Also, legislation initiated by the Arizona Judicial Council and the Supreme Court -- supported by many legislators, the Execmive Branch and community advocates -- provided protection for victims and accountability for offenders by obtaining funding for supervised probation of certain domestic violence offenders. Elder Law Hotline Project The Hotline offers free legal ass istance to Arizona residents age 60 and older, wi th no income restrictions. At no ' \ I ; charge, callers can speak to an attorney who will provide brief legal assistance or services. The Elder Law Hotline is operated by Southern Arizona Legal Aid, a Tucson-based, not-for-profit organization. The Arizona Bar Foundation monitors the performance of the Hotline for customer satisfaction, product quality and appropriateness of referrals. The Hotline handles a variety of legal issues including landlord/ tenant disputes, bankruptcy, protective proceedings, probate and consumer protection. If the case involves a non-legal matter, the caller is referred to the appropriate agency or non-governmental entity. Supporting Private Fiduciary Protections The Ar izona Supreme Court announced in September 1998 the implementation of a ground breaking program that will help ensure Arizona's elderly, mentally incapacitated and other vulnerable citizens have trained and certified individuals managing their financial affairs, medical decisions and other vital matters. The program is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States. Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket signed the historic Administrative Order adopting the Private Fiduciary Certification Administrative Rules on September 21, 1998 pursuant to A.R.S. §14-565 1, relating to the registration of private fiduciaries. Courts Under Construction ... Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice All citizens-victims, litigants and defendants- deserve access to a fair and swift process for resolving civil or criminal disputes. In 1998, the Arizona court system continued its effort to ensure that resources are adequate and that court procedures, policies and practices were consistent with this important goal. As outlined below, the "Fill The Gap" effort, reengineered case processing, an efficient and effective juvenile justice system, and continuing improvements in strategic technology planning were among the many ways the court system increased public access to swift, fair justice. Working to Fill The Gap The "Fill The Gap" initiative began in the 1998 legislative session to call attention to the increased resources at the "front" and "back" ends of the justice system -- 21 percent more police officers; 25 percent more arrests; 22 percent rise in criminal case filings; 6,600 new prison beds -- that occurred from 1992 to 1996. These increases put a tremendous strain on the "middle" of the system, creating a resource "gap" that needs to be filled. In an unprecedented show of unity, the Arizona criminal justice community, led by Chief Just ice Zlaket, announced the "Fill The Gap" legislative proposal to help solve these critical problems in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice team consisted of the Supreme Court, Superior Court judges, the Attorney General, county prosecutors, public defenders, clerks, court administrators, county officials, and victims' representatives. The 1998 effort by the justice community resulted in the Legislature approving $350,000 to fund reengineering projects to improve processing of criminal cases in the Superior Courts and Justice Courts. To be eligible for funding, courts, county attorneys, and the defense bar submitted plans that demonstrated collaborative efforts designed to reduce case processing delay. "The timely processing of cases is important to keeping our communities safe and maintaining public trust and confidence in our system of justice." - Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket Reengineered Case Processing As a key component of the "Fill The Gap" effort, Arizona courts recognized that, in addition to muchneeded additional resources necessary in the "middle" of the justice system, an effort must be made to improve the process by which cases flow. Delays in this system affect victims, families, defendants, and the public at large -- real people, real situations. Courts and others responded in 1998 by studying the problems, then implementing new and better ways of handling cases from beg inning to end, and the results have been significant. Maricopa, Coconino and Yavapai are three prime examples of counties that began to see often dramatic improvements. For example, the Civil Department of Superior Court in Maricopa County announced in 1998 that it had drastically cut the number of pending cases in the previous year. Reengineering caseload practices resulted in a 23.4 percent decrease. Among many other methods, judges stopped the practice of waiting for all defendants to answer and certify before appointing arbitrators, and organized teams of civil judges to back up each other to maintain firm trial da tes. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Program was also expanded to allow more options for reaching conclusion of a case. The Superior Court in Coconino County showed dramatic results in the percentage of criminal cases taking more than 90 days to resolve -- from 72 percent down to 31 percent after reengineering the process. The county was saved a considerable amount of money by cutting the average length of jail time for defendants awaiting disposition from 173 days to only 55 after the reengineering efforts. After reengineering, Superior Court in Yavapai County cut its median case processing time from 183 days to just 88. The Superior Court in Mohave, Pima, Yuma and Pinal counties also began similar studies on reengineering case processing. Rebuilt Juvenile Justice System Rated #1 An independent consulting firm hired by the Legislature to conduct an audit of the juvenile justice system called Arizona's juvenile justice system, "one of the best in the country." Deloitte Touche Consulting reported its findings in November 1998 to members of the Joint Legislative Committee on Juvenile Justice. Following the 6-month aud it, Deloitte Touche Consulting claimed that the procurement process used by the Administrative Office of the Courts' Juvenile Justice Services Division to secure treatment services is "the best--one that should be adopted by the rest of state government." The agencies that make up the state's juvenile justice system (Department of Ju venile Corrections, county juvenile justice programs, juvenile courts and the state Depa rtments of Econo mic Securit y, Behavioral Health Services and Education) are working to better coordinate their efforts to deal with juvenile offenders. In the meantime, Deloitte Touche says " ... Arizona has a very sound system." "Arizona's juvenile justice system is one of the best in the country." - Deloitte Touche Consulting A Technology Blueprint The Judicial Branch is in its sixth year of deploying and supporting automation statewide. A sophisticated and extensive infrastructure is required to support this effort. Most important to communication and coordination is a network connecting the courts in Arizona. The Arizona Judici al In format ion Network (AJ IN) is a state-of- the-art frame relay network extending to 121 court sites and 53 juvenile probation and detention sites statewide, with plans to expand to 58 ad ult probation sites. The Judicial Branch has responsibility for the expansion and maintenance of the network and for working with communication providers to assure uninterrupted system availab ility. The Arizona Court Automation Project (ACAP) is a project deploying jury, case and cash management software to all courts statewide. As of 1998, the project has been implemented in 118 general and limited jurisd ict ion cour ts in Arizona. Phase 2, which invo lved implementation in Maricopa and Pima County small city courts, and Pinal County city courts, was completed. The automated Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) continued to expand in 1998. JOLTS is used in juvenile probation offices, juvenile court and detention facilities in Arizona. Among other things, these entities can now use JOLTS to view photos of juveniles from different counties and track treatment services given to juveniles. This type of vital data is needed to accurately predict trends in juvenile justice and plan resources and strategies accordingly. Additionally, new modules are being implemented to assist courts in the management and tracking of dependency cases, and to assist crime victims. The Arizona Judicial Branch also began a determined, serious effort to ready itself for the "Y2K problem" in 1998. The effort was formed as a result of the work of many, including the Commiss ion on Technology, a subcommittee of the Arizona Judicial Council. Individual components of the Y2K effort include complete testing of all software deployed statewide for Y2K compliance by June 1999. With the increasing presence of people wanting low-cost access to the co urt system, the Ari zona Supreme Court announced in Janua ry 1998 that QuickCourt, its award-winning kiosk system providing free or low-cost legal information and forms, was availab le at most county co urthouses in Ari zona. QuickCourt continued to be available at other sites in every county, but citizens throughout the state were assured of easier access to legal forms and information. Courts Under Construction ... Connecting With the Community Courts and judges should be independent and free of outside influence when deciding cases. Cases should be decided based on the law and case merits, regardless of the involved parties' economic or political status. However, judges can and should be involved in their communities. The Judicial Branch in 1998 implemented programs to improve how it listens to communities and established effective methods of communication between citizens and the courts. Highlighted below, the Citizen Summits held throughout Arizona, oral arguments taken "on the road," and expanded court information available through the Internet are just a few of the ways the Arizona court system is connecting with those it serves. Citizen Summits - Building Community Awareness In order to effectively listen to citizens, it is necessary to bring them together to focus on the issues at hand. An on-going series of "Citizen Summits" were conducted throughout Arizona, beginning in June 1998 in Flagstaff. Summits were also held in Phoenix (November 5 and 10) and in Tucson (December 15). The primary goal was to listen to citizens' thoughts and concerns about the Judicial Branch. More than 500 people came from throughout the varying communities and court systems, from nearly every county and from a broad range of economic, social, racial, religious and political perspectives. The Citizen Summits are part of the Judicial Branch's attempt to better communicate with Arizonans, and the information gathered is part of a nationwide court effort along these lines. In May 1999, a national Public Trust and Confidence Conference will be held in Washington, D.C. Oral Arguments "On The Road" The Arizona Supreme Court, as part of its effort to bring the court system closer to the people of the state, held oral arguments in Yuma and Cochise counties in 1998. In April, at Arizona Western College's Little Theater in Yuma, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases. The public was invited to attend, and more than 100 students, teachers and everyday citizens filled the auditorium. In November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases at Buena High School in Sierra Vista. Several hundred spectators from throughout the Bisbee/Sierra Vista communities observed the arguments and also participated in a question and answer session afterward. Several community events were held in Yuma, Bisbee and Sierra Vista that allowed community members to meet the Supreme Court and discuss areas of interest in the justice system. Expanding Internet Access Fiscal Year 1998 saw a tremendous increase in the amount and types of information available through various court Internet sites in Arizona. The Arizona Judicial Branch's site (www.supreme.state.az.us), hosted by the Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, continued to expand with a wide array of information for the court community and general public. Among many other uses, citizens can now access information on-line about Supreme Court opinions, jury duty, press releases, and information about programs such as the Confidential Intermediary Program, the Elder Law Hotline, and the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Information on child support and domestic violence issues are also available with the click of a button, as are links to many other courtrelated sites. The Superior Court in Maricopa, Pima and Cochise counties each have Internet web sites, along with limited jurisdiction courts in Pima County (Consolidated Justice Courts), and the municipal courts in Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Tucson and Oro Valley. - Judicial Branch Organization Summary - 1999* Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham -- Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham 1 4 4 2 1 Supreme Court 5 Justices, 6-Year Terms Chief Justice Vice-Chief Justice 3 Associate Justices Court of Appeals 22 Judges, 6-Year Terms Division One - Phoenix Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges Division Two - Tucson Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges Superior Court ** 138 Judges, 4-Year Terms Presiding Judge in Each County Greenlee 1 Pima La Paz 1 Pinal 27 5 Maricopa 71 Santa Cruz 2 Mohave 6 Yavapai 5 Navajo 3 Yuma 5 Justices of the Peace 84 Judges, 84 Precincts, 4-Year Terms 4 Greenlee 2 Pima 9 6 La Paz 3 Pinal 8 4 Maricopa 23 Santa Cruz 2 2 Mohave 5 Yavapai 5 2 - Navajo 6 Yuma 3 - -- -- Municipal Courts 142 Full and Part-Time Judges, 85 Cities/Towns Judges Courts Judges Courts Apache 3 3 Mohave 3 3 Cochise 6 6 Navajo 4 5 Coconino 10 Gila 5 Graham 4 Greenlee 2 La Paz 2 Maricopa 60 4 Pima 21 5 5 3 2 2 23 Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 8 2 8 4 8 2 8 4 * Numbers may change throughout 1999. ** More than 40 court commissioners are appointed by presiding judges through an application and interview process, and they handle cases as assigned by the presiding judge. The bulk of their work addresses civil, probate and domestic relations matters. Courts Under Construction ... Being Accountable The court system must use taxpayer resources wisely and achieve desired results. Among many different programs, in 1998 this objective required the continuation of judicial performance review and the dissemination of the results to the public; an increased emphasis on enforcement of court orders, probation requirements, and collections; and the drive to increase the amount of public members serving on the courts' various policy-making committees. Judicial Performance Review - Establishing Trust The 1998 Voter Information Guide prepared by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review is part of an on-going effort to provide as much information as possible to voters about all appellate court judges, and Superior Court judges in Maricopa and Pima counties. Arizona's public process of evaluating the performance of these judges is perhaps the finest in the nation. The members of the Commission, the majority of whom are ordinary citizens who volunteer their time, worked long and hard in 1998 to produce this valuable information. The Commission does not operate behind closed doors. The process is completely open to any member of the public who wants to voice an opinion on the performance of any judge subj ect to merit selection. In fact, the public is actively invited to participate, and the number of surveys returned by non-lawyers to the Commission is very impressive when compared to those states that rely solely on attorney evaluations. All opinions are considered and the information is made available to the media and general public. The 1998 Voter Information Guide was distributed at primary election polling sites in September, and made available on the Supreme Court web page and by request at a toll-free telephone number. The Commission made successful efforts to have the news media assist in distributing the contents of the 1998 Voter Information Guide to voters. As a result, many more citizens became familiar with the Report of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review and had direct access to the guide. Most major newspapers in Arizona gave coverage to the results of the Commission Report, including the biographies of judges, summaries of survey results, phone numbers and In te rnet site addresses, and fa vorable comments on the process of Judicial Performance Review. "By virtually any standard of measure, Arizona judges meet the test of quality throughout the judicial system. This high quality of public service comes in large measure due to the efforts of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review ... " - The Arizona Republic, September 24, 1998 Improving Collections and Enforcement In 1998, Chief Justice Zlaket continued to place an emphasis on increased enforcement of court-ordered financial sanctions, and many efforts were put in place to boost the level of collections and make sure that orders of the court were not simply ignored. Revenues continue to increase, reflective of the Judicial Branch's ongoing efforts in this regard. Fiscal Year 1998 saw court revenues of $169 million, an increase of more than 13 percent over 1997, and a dramatic increase in total dollars collected compared with $70 million in the benchmark year of 1988. Revenues collected in excess of the 1988 benchmark now total in excess of $483 million. Also, total restitution payments collected in 1998 by courts increased more than 12% over 1997. Counties have used a variety of methods to increase collections. Some, like Apache County, have dedicated personnel keeping track of amounts outstanding, sending late notices, and notifying the court when problems require legal action, such as filing a petition to revoke probation. Others, such as Pima County, have worked cooperatively with clerks of the court, placing clerks at the probation offices to actually collect monies. Other counties - Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma, for example - have simply made increased collections a higher priority for probation officers. Also, the Debt Setoff Program enables all Arizona courts to intercept Arizona state income tax refunds if the court-ordered debt is at least $50. Arizona Lottery winnings can be intercepted if the amount outstanding is at least $ 100. If a court provides the name, Social Security number and the full amount of the debt to the Debt Setoff Program, and a debt claim matches with a taxpayer's refund or lottery winning, an intercept will occur. Debt Setoff Program statistics as of September 30, 1998 include: 75 participating courts, 7,890 claims intercepted, and more than $880,000 intercepted. More Public Members - Creating Connections The many councils, commissions and subcommittees of Arizona's Judicial Branch were augmented in 1998 by additional members of the public, those outside the court system who provide fresh approaches and new ideas often not considered by those practicing in the justice arena. This concerted effort was part of an overall attempt to increase the court system's responsiveness to public needs and perceptions. For example, the Arizona Judicial Council, which oversees the administrative policy direction of the Judicial Branch, added three new public members in October 1998. In addition, hundreds of Arizona citizens continue to volunteer every year in various capacities in our court system. These include members of the Foster Care Review Board, Court Appointed Special Advocates, members of three separate judicial nominating commissions, the Arizona Judicial Council, the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, and many others. Commission on Judicial Conduct The Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent agency that investigates complaints against state and local judges involving violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In 1998, the 11 -member commission received 107 4 inquires and 290 complaints. The commission dismissed 299 cases for lack of jurisdiction, no grounds, lack of sufficient or no evidence of judicial misconduct. The commission issued informal or private sanctions in 18 cases and informally resolved 4 cases with letters of instruction. In addition, the commission recommended public censure for one judge, suspension without pay for two judges, and it accepted the voluntary resignation of one judge after formal charges were filed. The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued 6 formal opinions during the year, which are distributed to all judges. The committee responded to more than 160 requests for advice on ethical issues. Commission on Judicial Conduct Caseload Summary 1996-1998 (calendar year) Description 1996 1997 1998 Inquiries 963 891 1074 Complaints 246 254 290 Informal Actions 25 33 18 Formal Actions 3 4 4 Arizona Supreme Court I FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 I 1.4581J 1,275 I) 7 1.499 (L 1,5927, ' 1,671 lJ 1,646 lJ D Cases Filed D Terminated • Supreme Court FY 98 case filings decreased 2. 7 % from cases filed in FY 97. • Cases terminated by the court in FY 98 decreased 19.9 % over case terminations in FY 97. • The difference between filings and terminations resulted in a pending caseload increase of 4 7 .0 %, up from 389 cases on July 1, 1997, to 572 cases on June30, 1998. FY 98 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL Supreme Court ................................... 1,458 Court of Appeals ............................... .3,861 Division One ................................ 2, 704 Division Two ................................ 1,157 Tax Court .......................................... .1,961 County Superior Justice Municipal Apache 931 14,228 2,093 Cochise 3,664 39,241 9,382 Coconino 3,386 28,090 28,184 Gila 2,434 15,465 7,891 Graham 1,263 5,868 3,364 Greenlee 365 2,138 622 La Paz 706 13,807 3,588 Maricopa 107,674 319,087 888,3 73 Mohave 5,881 42,093 25,897 Navajo 2,645 31,370 6,565 Pima 27,345 186,846 25 1,666 Pinal 6,627 42,795 29,278 Santa Cruz 1,418 8,365 14,073 Yavapai 5,710 35,616 33,144 Yuma 6,232 26,907 28,119 TOTALS: 176,281 811,916 1,332,239 Total 1998 1997 Difference FILINGS: 2,327,716 2,255,597 72,119 +3.1 % ----1 ., __ ,.,.. uu111 • .au, 1 ililOJ Court of Appeals, Division One FY 98 2.704 _]) 2,566 J) _j FY 2,669 _1l, 97 2.752 jJ ...i. FY 96 2,51 1 J 2,569 ) D Cases Filed D Terminated_ • Filings in FY 98 represented a 1.3 % increase from FY 97. Total criminal filing s, the largest category, increased 6.5 % from 965 in FY 97 to 1,028 in FY 98. • FY 98 case terminations decreased by 6.8 %. • Total cases pending increased 7.2 %, from 1,918 on July 1, 1997 to 2,056 on June 30, 1998. Court of Appeals, Division Two FY FY FY 98 97 96 Deases Filed D Terminated • Total filings in FY 98 increased 0.1 % from FY 97. Total criminal case filings, the largest category, decreased 9 .4 % from 683 in FY 9 7 to 619 in FY 98. • FY 98 case terminations were down 10.1 %. e Total pending cases increased 1.4 % from 1,195 on July 1, 1997 to 1,212 on June 30, 1998. Statistical Trends/Highlights 0 Criminal case filings in Superior Court continued to increase, rising more than 14 percent, significantly higher than the population growth rate of just over 2 percent. Similarly, the adult probation population rose more than 13 percent. @ Despite the 14 percent growth in criminal filings, more effective and efficient case processing produced a 19 percent increase in case terminations. @ Revenues continue to increase, reflective of the Judicial Branch's ongoing efforts to enforce court orders. Fiscal Year 1998 saw court revenues of $169 million, compared with $70 million in the benchmark year of 1988. The total increase in collections since 1988 now equals $483 .5 million. 0 Cost to process a case in 1998 was $101.30. Arizona Tax Court FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 1,961 - D Cases Filed D Terminated The Arizona Tax Court serves as the statewide venue for all civil actions involving a tax, impost or assessment. Recent changes in Arizona's tax law are reflected in case filings. • A total of 1,961 original cases were filed in the court during FY 98, a decrease of 29.9 % from the 2,798 cases filed in FY 97. • Of the FY 98 cases filed, 1,616 were property tax actions, accounting for 82.4 % of the total. • A total of 2,829 cases were terminated: 1,128 by judgment. • As of June 30, 1998, there were 848 cases pending in the tax court. Court Statistics by Fiscal Year [July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998 1 Superior Court FY 98 176 .J) 172 l) I I FY 97 169 J 164 ) FY 96 161 154 j, 0 lO 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 THOUSANDS D Cases Filed D T erminated • Total case filings in FY 98 increased 4.1 % from FY 97. • Total case terminations increased 4.8 % in the same period. • Civil case fil ings increased 8.6 %, from 43 ,403 in FY 97 to 47.147 in FY 98. In the same period, civil case terminations were up 4.5 % from 46.035 to 48.101. • Criminal case filings were up 14 .l % from 37,046 in FY 97 to 42.287 in FY 98. Criminal case terminations increased 19.0 % from 34,455 to 41,004. • Domestic relations cases decreased 6.2 % from 52.762 in FY 97 to 49,486 in FY 98, and domestic relations case terminations decreased 8.0 % from 50.119 to 46.093. Domestic violence petition filings increased 3.9 % in Superior Court from 3,810 to 3,957. • There were 166.3 11 cases pending on July 1, 1997, compared with 161.395 cases pending on June 30, 1998, a decrease of3.0 %. • Juveniles with direct filings to adult court increased by 1040.9 %, from 66 in FY 97 to 753 in FY 98. Juvenile cases transferred to adult court decreased by 48.0 %, from 646 in FY 97 to 336 in FY 98. A total of 1,089 juvenile cases were either transferred or directly filed in adult court in FY 98 compared to 712 in FY 97, an increase of 53%. Adult Probation • The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona adult probation departments at the end of FY 98 increased 13.6 % from 42,901 on July 1, 1997 to 48.728 on June30, 1998. • Of the 48.728 under the jurisdiction of adult probation, 43,593 were on standard probation, 3.82 7 on intensive probation, and 1.308 were interstate compact cases. • There were 26.610 probation cases added to the in county supervision count during FY 98. • There were 21,848 probation cases terminated from the in county supervision category during FY 98. Juvenile Court Referrals FY 98 84.7 19 _,lJ 8 1,593 Ji FY 97 84 ,504 ~ 84,945 FY 96 86,617 J) 80,825 ~ D eases Filed D Terminated • There were 84,719 referrals to juve nile court in FY 98, a 0.3 % increase compared to 84,504 in the previous year. • 81.593 referrals were terminated in FY 98, a 3.9 % decrease compared to the 84,945 referrals tenninated in FY 97. Juvenile Court Petitions • A total of 31.218 petitions were filed in FY 98, a 3. 7 % increase over 30.102 petitions filed in FY 97. • A total of 30,689 petitions were terminated in FY 98, a 4.1 % increase over the 29,488 terminated in FY97. • Juvenile dependency case filings increased by 6.2%, from 1.309 in FY 97 to [.390 in FY 98. Terminations also increased by 2.6%, from 1.335 in FY 97 to 1.3 70 in FY 98. Juvenile Probation/Corrections r--F FY981-[- - 1 -, - , - a:il58 1J FY97l-r-- - -7,30l' U FY96f 7,619 u i 6. 155 D I : D Added D T erminatcd • The number of juveniles on probation at the end of FY 98 increased 5.5 % from 8,643 on July 1, 1997 to 9, 117 on June30, 1998. • A total of 8,532 adjudicated juveniles were placed on probation in FY 98, a 7.5 % increase over the 7,934 youths placed on probation in FY 97. • 8,058 juve niles were terminated from probation, an increase of 10.3 % from the 7.307 terminated last year. • 1,670 juveniles were committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY 98, an increase of 17 .6 % from the 1,419 committed last year. Municipal Courts I FY 98 1,332 _j,j --- 1,330 j.,' : I FY 1,278 ); 97 1,254 ,,),'. - FY 96 1,247 _j) 1,203 _l), 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1.200 1.400 THOUSANDS D Cases Filed D Terminated • Case filings in FY 98 increased 4.2 % from FY 97. Total case terminations increased 6.0 % in the same period. • Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise almost three-fourths of all municipal court cases, inc reased 6.0 %, from 947, 176 in FY 97 to 1,003,706 in FY 98. • Criminal misdemeanor case filings decreased 1.9 % from 237,864 in FY 97 to 233,402 in FY 98. Criminal case terminations decreased 8.3 % from 242,435 in FY 97 to 222,426 in FY 98. • Domestic violence petitions decreased 1.7 % from 10,792 in FY 97 to 10,605 in FY 98. Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment increased 2.1 %, from 8,379 to 8,555. • Total cases pending decreased 1.7 %, from 611.286 on July 1. 1997 to 600,921 on June 30, 1998. Justice of the Peace Courts 812 V FY 981 752 D I 800 IA FY 97 t ---, _ _,754_ Q--l- ~ _=:= ' ' 790 0: FY 96 755 IJ i 0 I 00 200 JOO 400 ;oo 600 i OO 800 900 T HOUSAN D S D Cases Filed D Terminated • Total filings in FY 98 increased 1.5 % from FY 97. Total case terminations decreased 0.4 %. • Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise more than two-thirds of all justice court filings, decreased 1.7 %, from 517,080 in FY 97 to 508,495 this year. • Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case filings increased 10.9 % from 155,221 in FY 97 to 172,1 29 in FY 98. Criminal case terminations increased 4.4 % from 131 ,770 in FY 97 to 137,605 in FY 98. • Domestic violence petition filings rose 4. 7 % in justice courts, from 7,789 to 8, 154. Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment were up 13.5 % from 7,287 to 8.268. • Total cases pending increased 8.3 % from 454,731 on July 1, 1997 to 492.345 on June 30, 1998. Statewide Revenue and Expenditure Summary Revenue Summary • Total statewide court revenue increased 13 .3 % from $149 .4 million in FY 97 to $169.2 million in FY 98, reflecting the continuing efforts of the courts statewide to collect courtordered fines, fees and surcharges. FY FY - 98 - 1 97 - I I : i -- I i I I I 69 u I I 149 rJ i I 35 1J ! Revenue in Excess of 1988 Benchmark FY98 99.2 I : I FY96 59.2 Ii -r-- I FY 94 42 9 lJ 400 ~ I i FY 92 i 0 10 20 30 ,w 50 60 70 W 00 100 $ MILLIO NS Dlncreased Revenue Trend Counties 34.5% State 32.5% Revenue Generated FY 96 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 $ MILLIONS DRevenue Collected Increased Revenue Trend • This graph represents the trend in increased court revenue above the $70 million benchmark established in FY 1988. Since that time, courts have co llected more than $483 million in additional revenue. Revenue Received • Of the total court system revenue, the state received 32.5 %, counties received 34.5 % and cities and towns 33.0 %. Municipal 47.9% Superior 24.3% • 4 7. 9 % of total court revenue was generated by municipal courts, 25.4 % by justice courts, 24.3 % by Superior Court and 2.5 % by appellate courts. - FY 98 - FY 97 i I i I I 10.5 IJ Restitution I ! I 9.4 $ MILLJON S D Restitution Collected DI • Total restitution payments for victims collected by courts increased 12.6 % from 9.4 million in FY 97 to 10.5 10 12 million in FY 98. Expenditure Summary • Total statewide court expenditures increased 10.8 % from $353.2 million in FY 97 to $391.5 million in FY 98. FY FY FY -A : I 98 - I 97 - ! I 96 I I I I 391.5 D I I I i 353 I I I ! 337 lJ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 $ MI L L l O N S County 50.4% Municipal 14.2% .3% State 35 .2% D Expenditures Funds Expended by Source • 50.4 % of the total funds spent by the court system were from the counties, 35 .2 % from the state, 14.2 % from cities and towns and 0.3 % from federal and private sources. Justice 6.8% Funds Expended by Court Level • 68.0 % of total court expenditures were in Superior Court (including probation), 14.2 % in municipal court, 11.0 % at the appellate level ( including statew ide administration) and 6.8 % in the justice courts. Superior 68.0% The data contained in this report were compiled from Supreme Court financial records, caseload reports from courts and responses to the unaudited Supreme Court survey of expenditures and revenues forfiscal year 1998 (July 1, 1997-June30, 1998). All data received by the publication deadline are included, but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 1997-98 Arizona Courts Data Report early in 1999. Published by © 1998 Arizona Supreme Court Arizona Supreme Court • Administrative Office of the Courts 1501 West Washington • Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231 (602) 542-9300 • TDD (602) 542-9545 This publication can be provided in an alternative fonnat upon request to assist persons with disabilities. www.supreme.state.az.us |