Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

              1999 REPORT
of the
Arizona Judicial Branch
"...there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

The Federalist, No. 78



Protecting Children, Families and Communities

Justice 2002 -- A Strategic Agenda

q Protecting



Children, Families and Communities q Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice q Connecting With the Community q Being Accountable 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. -- Justice 2002



Model Court Continues Success, Begins Statewide Implementation

Building on the nationally-acclaimed success of Pima County's pilot program, Model Court, designed to reduce the time dependent children remain in out-ofhome placement, was successfully implemented statewide in Fiscal Year 1999. This expansion has helped decrease the number of children in foster care by more than 700, and a study in Pima County showed Model Court cases taking only eight days, on average, to complete the initial hearing process, as opposed to an average of 35 days for non-Model Court cases.



Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket I am pleased to present the 1999 Annual Report of the Arizona Judicial Department. I believe it clearly shows that we remain faithful to the four primary themes of our strategic agenda, Justice 2002. Children and families are increasingly being served by our courts. Easy access to the justice system continues to be meaningfully addressed in this state. We are also attempting to frequently and effectively connect with our communities as good citizens and neighbors. But it is in the area of "Being Accountable" that I am particularly pleased. We recognize that we have a level of accountability commensurate with our significant responsibilities. Many dedicated employees work long hours to improve the ways in which our courts use the resources made available to them. As a result, we are getting better at what we do. The founding fathers intended that courts should protect the rights of everyone, not just a privileged few. Judges are sworn to administer laws fairly and impartially, without regard to prevailing currents of opinion. In short, we are the designated neutrals in a government that is otherwise partisan and political. Service to the public and the cause of justice is our ultimate goal. But earning and keeping the public's trust and confidence is not easy. The adversarial nature of the judicial process makes judges and courts frequent targets of criticism, much of it uninformed and undeserved. It comes with the territory. Our job is to correct misperceptions about the justice system through effective public education programs. We need to let people know more about us -- who we are and what we do. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that we are always misunderstood. Where criticisms of us are valid, and they often are, we need to show that we are willing and able to change -- to do things better, more efficiently, more economically, more professionally. In other words, we need to demonstrate our willingness to be held accountable. While acting as ministers of justice, we must always be mindful of our obligation to the public trust, without which we cannot survive. I am proud that Arizona's courts continue to improve, and am confident that we will never cease efforts to make the justice system work better for all our citizens. I am also very grateful to all judges and court staffers for their continued hard work and dedication, and proud to be associated with each of them.



Drug Courts Achieving Success

Adult and juvenile Drug Court programs in several Arizona counties provide a non-traditional approach to dealing with criminal offenders who are substance abusers by providing continuing monitoring, supervision and treatment. The Drug Court mission is to enhance community safety by reducing recidivism and enabling individuals to become functional members of society.



New Facilities Serve Youthful Offenders

To assure public protection and provide safe, sufficient facilities for juveniles, construction and renovation of juvenile detention facilities has continued throughout the state. Several Arizona counties invested a combined total of more than $146 million from the Legislature, as well as federal and local sources, including two measures requiring voter approval, to expand this vital effort. This is in keeping with a significant goal of Justice 2002: "Provide safe and secure juvenile detention facilities." The work, when completed, will increase the total capacity of Arizona's juvenile detention centers to 1,469 beds.



"If you can deal with their addiction...you stand a chance of making useful citizens out of them." � Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

In the past year, Yuma County expanded its Drug Court with the help of more than $350,000 in federal funds. Similarly, Maricopa County, one of the first five counties in the nation to establish a Drug Court, used a $390,000 federal grant to implement its Juvenile Drug Court. Drug Courts also operate in Yavapai, Gila and Pima Counties. By eliminating many costs associated with preparing drug cases for trial, Superior Court in Pima County estimates it saved $600,000 in the first year of its Drug Court program, which began in January 1998.



Juvenile Detention Improvements*

County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham/Greenlee Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma New Beds/Progress 10 awaiting funding 40 under construction 40 under construction 26 under construction 48 under construction 80 completed, 388 in planning 45 completed 40 in design 220 completed, 86 under renovation 30 completed Classrooms in construction 9 completed 45 awaiting funding



Audit Confirmation: Probation With Treatment Works

A performance audit of adult probation services in Arizona by the Office of the Auditor General released in March 1999 confirmed probation, coupled with substance abuse treatment services, significantly decreases the chance that criminals will commit future crimes. The performance audit found that probationers who complete substance abuse treatment programs, maintain employment, and complete community work services are much more likely to complete probation, and far less likely to have a subsequent arrest.



* La Paz County contracts with other counties for juvenile detention services.



1



Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice

Citizens, victims, litigants and defendants deserve access to a fair and swift process for resolving civil or criminal disputes. The court system must help ensure that resources are adequate and that court procedures, policies, and practices are consistent with this goal. -- Justice 2002



Technology Advances Continue in Arizona Courts

The expansion and enhancement of information technology to provide greater access and accountability in Arizona's courts continued in Fiscal Year 1999. The Arizona Court Automation Project (ACAP) is a project deploying case, cash and jury management software to all courts statewide. Now in more than 140 Arizona general and limited jurisdiction courts and used by more than 1,300 court employees, the rollout, including new software and personal computers, addressed many technological needs throughout Arizona's courts. The consolidation of the Arizona Court Automation Project brings into the project four additional counties: Yavapai, Pinal, Yuma and Mohave. Readiness for the "Y2K" problem occupied the time of many court employees throughout the fiscal year, with much success. This effort crossed programs and projects, and involved problem detection, programming, testing and deploying software and hardware changes to provide readiness for Y2K. Also this year, a dependency case module of the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS) was developed and implemented. This system tracks all of the dependency petition, court hearings and familyrelated information on children who have been removed from their homes and have a dependency petition filed with the court. It will enhance the ability of the court to comply with the court hearing time frame mandates that were included in the Model Court legislation. The Arizona Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS) was developed for statewide implementation, and Phase I of the project was completed in Fiscal Year 1999. The system is being piloted in Maricopa County. This automated case management software system will become part of the day-to-day activities of probation officers throughout Arizona to help them become more efficient and accountable, and provide better information to help increase community and officer safety. Also, CourtHelp has been developed to assist citizens to obtain court forms, documents and other information directly from the Internet. All forms previously available on the QuickCourt kiosks are now available on-line (www.supreme.state.az.us/courthelp/), including new applications like the Child Support Calculator and others that use the newest interactive technologies to significantly enhance the public's access to the justice system.



Courts Implement "Fill The Gap"

After more than two years of discussion, funding was provided for the "middle part" of the criminal justice system -- the courts, public defenders and prosecutors -- to reduce the delay in criminal case processing. This "Fill the Gap" legislation, a strategic initiative of Justice 2002, built upon the 1998 legislation that provided funding for criminal case "reengineering" projects. The Legislature, from a variety of sources, provided a package of more than $12 million over two years to assist prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts. Significant progress has been achieved in reducing criminal case processing time through reengineering. In Maricopa County, for example, a pilot program was initiated in January 1999 in one "quadrant" to test calendar restructuring. The program was successful, and eventually expanded to all downtown criminal divisions. Statistics on case disposition and adult jail population have begun to show improvement. In addition, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved 11 judge positions for Superior Court. The number of judicial positions in Maricopa County is also expected to increase in Fiscal Year 2000. These changes are expected to eliminate the backlog of cases within 24 months.



Wendell Comes Alive

The Judicial College of Arizona has developed "Wendell," an electronic resource site for judges and judicial staff, named for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Deployed on the Arizona Judicial Information Network (AJIN) Intranet site, Wendell is an electronic reference and education site, which provides: access to benchbooks, reference manuals, educational materials and scholarly articles; links to sites that contain the Arizona Revised Statutes, the United States and Arizona Constitutions and other relevant information; and soon, access to computer-based training and education programs.



Attorney Discipline Process Improved

In Fiscal Year 1999, the state's attorney discipline system, mandated by the Arizona Supreme Court to make the process quicker, more impartial and more responsive to the needs of citizens, began operating under a new model. Prosecutorial functions remain with the State Bar of Arizona. However, staff members who support the adjudicatory functions of the Disciplinary Commission and the hearing officers are now employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Additionally, the intake, investigative and prosecutorial functions were reengineered to achieve the goal of handling 90% of disciplinary complaints in less than eight months, and 50% of the matters in less than one month through "up-front" mediation and informational efforts upon the initial filing of a complaint. The backlog of cases waiting to have charges filed has almost been eliminated. New rules for the Disciplinary Commission will be considered by the Supreme Court in early 2000.



" If justice delayed is justice denied, there is more criminal justice in Pima County Superior Court now than there was before." � Judge John S. Leonardo

In Pima County, after several months of work to reengineer its process, a new case management system was initiated February 1, 1999. The results have been dramatic: a 289% increase in pleas accepted in under 30 days (in the first six months); defendants awaiting trial decreased by 19%, and of those, cases pending more than 181 days decreased by 25% versus the prior year. Fill the Gap reengineering efforts are underway or planned in all counties.



2



Connecting With the Community

Courts and judges should be independent and free of outside influence when deciding cases. Cases should be decided 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 Department will implement programs to improve how it listens to communities and establish effective methods of communication between citizens and the courts. -- Justice 2002



J u d i c i a l Branch Organization Summary -- 2 0 0 0 *

Supreme Court

5 Justices, 6-Year Terms Chief Justice Vice-Chief Justice 3 Associate Justices



Court of Appeals



"Law For Kids" Hits Home on Internet

The Law For Kids web site, located on the Internet at www.lawforkids.org, was announced in May 1999 as a stand-alone web site developed specifically for children to learn about laws affecting their lives. The web site was a joint project of the Arizona Bar Foundation, the charitable arm of the State Bar of Arizona, and the Administrative Office of The Courts, along with an advisory committee of Central High School students. The site provides referral information for juveniles and parents about laws and their consequences, including the highly-popular section that gives answers by attorneys to real questions posted by students. The web site has nearly 40,000 "visitors" per month, and has been used extensively as a teaching tool designed to give young people and their families greater access to information about our laws, to increase their knowledge, and to promote law-abiding behavior.



22 Judges, 6-Year Terms Division One - Phoenix Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges Division Two - Tucson Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges



Superior Court **

148 Judges, 4-Year Terms Presiding Judge in Each County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham 1 4 4 2 1 Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo 1 1 82 5 3 Pima 27 Pinal 5 Santa Cruz 2 Yavapai 5 Yuma 5



"Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And that goes for kids, too..." � Time, November 29, 1999, in an article about Law For Kids.

Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham



Justices of the Peace

85 Judges, 84 Precincts, 4-Year Terms 4 6 4 2 2 Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo 2 3 23 5 6 Pima 10 Pinal 8 Santa Cruz 2 Yavapai 5 Yuma 3



Diversity of Judicial Applications Encouraged

In keeping with the goal of connecting Arizona's courts with the communities they serve, the Supreme Court's Commission on Minorities and the Arizona Minority Judges Caucus held a Judicial Appointment Workshop in August 1999 to promote judicial opportunities for all interested lawyers.



Municipal Courts

142 Full and Part-Time Judges, 84 Cities/Towns Judges Courts Apache 3 3 Cochise 6 6 Coconino 10 4 Gila 5 5 Graham 4 3 Greenlee 2 2 La Paz 2 2 Maricopa 59 23 Judges Mohave 4 Navajo 4 Pima 21 Pinal 8 Santa Cruz 2 Yavapai 8 Yuma 4 Courts 4 5 5 8 2 8 4



Supreme Court "On the Road" Again

The Supreme Court heard arguments in three cases in December 1999 at the Sundome Center for the Performing Arts in Sun City West. More than 600 citizens observed the arguments. A similar event was held in May 1999 at Central Arizona College in Coolidge, with more than 250 citizens and students in attendance. Following each event, the justices remained on stage to take questions from the audience on a wide range of topics.



Public Members on Committees Increases

Every year, nearly 1,500 Arizona citizens volunteer in various capacities within the court system. These include the Foster Care Review Board, Court Appointed Special Advocates, literacy lab and detention center volunteers, and more than two dozen other court committees. Also, the Supreme Court approved in 1999 the addition of two public members to the State Bar Board of Governors, as well as new public members on the Committee on Character and Fitness and the Disciplinary Commission.



* Numbers may change throughout 2000. ** More than 40 court commissioners and pro tems are appointed through an application and interview process, and they handle cases as assigned by the presiding judge. These positions are not reflected in the Superior Court figures.



3



Being Accountable

The court system must use taxpayer resources wisely and achieve desired results. This objective requires establishing and meeting court standards, linking performance with budget, maintaining ongoing strategic planning, and continuing judicial performance review. -- Justice 2002



Judicial Performance Review Process Improved

The Arizona Legislature approved in 1999 the funds necessary to include results from the Judicial Performance Review process in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to every registered voter in Arizona, beginning with the 2000 general election. This will enable citizens in Maricopa and Pima counties to have complete information available about every Superior Court judge in their county standing for retention election. In addition, voters throughout Arizona will have complete information on all appellate court judges standing for retention. The information will continue to be available at primary election polling sites, the Supreme Court and Superior Court web sites and by request at a toll-free telephone number.



Toll-Free Number Provides Answers on Intercepted Funds

As part of the Debt Setoff Program, an automated telephone voice-response system was put into operation to provide immediate answers to taxpayers who learn that the Department of Revenue has intercepted their tax refund because of a debt owed to an Arizona court. Installation of the toll-free number, 1-800-HELD-TAX, allows callers to obtain information on the individual court that has intercepted monies. The taxpayers facing intercepts can contact the individual court to discuss any concerns about the debt claim.



Operational Reviews Expanded

For years, courts in Arizona have been subject to operational reviews by the Administrative Office of the Courts to ensure proper operational controls and practices are in place. These reviews have now been expanded to include all adult and juvenile probation departments throughout Arizona.



Court-Ordered Enforcement -- Tax Intercept Program

Funds Intercepted � Top Five Courts as of 9/99

Pima Consolidated Justice Courts .............................................. Mesa Municipal Court ................................................................ Juvenile Court in Maricopa County .......................................... Tempe Municipal Court .............................................................. Juvenile Court in Pima County ................................................ $189,494 $140,599 $131,640 $101,832 $ 84,733



"...we have a level of accountability commensurate with our significant responsibilities." � Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket



Comprehensive Enforcement Boosts Probation Collections

For justice to be fair, courts must ensure that orders are enforced. Across the state, adult probation departments continued to carry out the Chief Justice's mandate to enforce defendants' compliance with court-ordered financial sanctions. Probation staff considered not only the financial obligations of offenders, but also the rights of the victims to be compensated. Maricopa County Adult Probation, awarded the President's Award at the American Probation and Parole Association's Annual Institute in August 1999 for being a "visionary organization," dedicated a unit with the sole purpose of addressing enforcement issues of court-ordered monies. The department also developed tools to aid field officers in establishing compliance with court-ordered financial sanctions. Apache County's Adult Probation Department is vigilant about taking action at the early stages of delinquency, and will send out 90-day court order assessments, or intercept paychecks of individuals on standard or intensive probation. Greenlee County's computer-based collections program is capable of tracking virtually everything having to do with monetary obligations, including calculation of taxes, percentage allocations and time periods for payment. The program also generates a number of periodic reports for the probation officers.



Commission on Judicial Conduct

The Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent state agency with jurisdiction over all judges and judicial officers. The commission, which is comprised of six judges, three public members and two attorneys, is responsible for investigating complaints involving willful misconduct in office, failure to perform judicial duties, violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, drug and alcohol abuse, and physical or mental disabilities. In 1999, the commission received 1100 inquiries and 260 complaints. The commission dismissed 223 cases after finding no misconduct on the part of the judges, insufficient evidence to support the allegations or lack of jurisdiction, particularly in cases involving judges' decisions. The commission issued informal or private sanctions in 19 cases and informally resolved 13 cases with advisory letters. In addition, the commission recommended public censure for one judge and suspension without pay for another judge. The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, which is staffed by the commission, issued five formal opinions durCommission on Judicial Conduct ing the year. It also responded to more Caseload Summary 1997-1999 (calendar year) than 115 requests Description 1997 1998 1999 for informal advice Inquiries 891 1074 1100 on ethical issues. Complaints 254 290 260 Informal Actions 33 18 19 Formal Actions 4 4 2



Quick Fact

Total restitution payments for victims collected by courts increased 24.8 percent in FY 99, from $10.5 million in FY 98 to $13.2 million in the current year.



4



Court Statistics by Fiscal Year (July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999)

Arizona Supreme Court

FY 99



Court of Appeals, Division One

Cases Filed Terminated

FY 99



Court of Appeals, Division Two

Cases Filed Terminated

FY 99



1319 1400 1458 1275 1499 1592



2672 2457 2704 2566 2669 2752



1120 1146 1157 1224 1156 1361



Cases Filed Terminated



FY 98



FY 98



FY 98



FY 97



FY 97



FY 97



q q q



Supreme Court FY 99 case filings decreased 9.5% from cases filed in FY 98. Cases terminated by the court in FY 99 increased by 9.8% over case terminations in FY 98. The difference between filings and terminations resulted in a pending caseload decrease of 13.8%, down from 572 on July 1, 1998, to 493 cases on June 30, 1999.



q



q q



Filings in FY 99 represented a 1.2% decrease from FY 98. Total criminal filings, the largest category, increased 3.5% from 1,028 in FY 98 to 1,064 in FY 99. FY 99 case terminations decreased by 4.2%. Total cases pending increased 10.6%, from 2,056 on July 1, 1998 to 2,274 on June 30, 1999.



q



Total filings in FY 99 decreased 3.2% from FY 98. Total criminal filings, the largest category, decreased 1.9% from 619 in FY 98 to 607 in FY 99. FY 99 case terminations were down 6.4%. Total cases pending increased 4.4%, from 1,212 on July 1, 1998 to 1,265 on June 30, 1999.



q q



FY 99 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL

Supreme Court...................................1,319 Court of Appeals................................3,792 Division One................................2,672 Division Two ................................1,120 Tax Court...........................................1,262 County Superior Justice Municipal



Statistical Trends/Highlights

q q q

Arizona courts have collected more than $588 million in additional revenue above a benchmark established in 1988. Additionally, $13.2 million in victim restitution was collected in Fiscal Year 1999, a 24.8% increase. The number of juveniles processed in the adult criminal courts, either through transfer or direct filing, decreased 17.7%, and juveniles committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections decreased 19.5%. More than 55,000 individuals were under the jurisdiction of Arizona adult probation departments at the end of Fiscal Year 1999, a 13.8% increase. More than 2.4 million cases were filed in all Arizona courts in Fiscal Year 1999, an increase of 1%. The cost to process a case in 1999 was $103.27.



Apache 810 Cochise 3,607 Coconino 3,342 Gila 2,249 Graham 1,057 Greenlee 280 La Paz 724 Maricopa 108,534 Mohave 5,505 Navajo 2,802 Pima 26,556 Pinal 6,210 Santa Cruz 1,335 Yavapai 5,932 Yuma 5,659 TOTALS: 174,602



10,967 43,108 28,236 15,922 4,749 2,274 14,879 311,368 37,626 30,588 192,393 33,334 13,253 32,498 25,548



1,963 12,744 33,885 9,002 3,552 565 2,876 957,255 28,985 8,741 288,517 26,982 16,654 31,554 26,010



q q



Arizona Tax Court

FY 99



1262 1327 1961 2829 2798 2842



Cases Filed Terminated



q



A total of 1,262 original cases were filed in the court during FY 99, a decrease of 35.6% from the 1,961 cases filed in FY 98. Of the FY 99 cases filed, 926 were property tax actions, accounting for 73.4% of the total. A total of 1,327 cases were terminated, 503 by judgment. As of June 30, 1999, there were 861 cases pending in the Tax Court.



FY 98



q q q



796,743 1,449,285



FY 97



1998 1999 Difference Total FILINGS: 2,405,973 2,427,003 21,030 0.9 %



The Arizona Tax Court serves as the statewide venue for all civil actions involving a tax, impost or assessment.



5



Court Statistics by Fiscal Year (July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999)

Superior Court

FY 99



Juvenile Court Referrals

175 165 179 174 169 164

Cases Filed Terminated

FY 99



Justice of the Peace Courts

Cases Filed Terminated

FY 99



77651 78012 84719 80766 84504 84945



797 742 817 754 800 754

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

THOUSANDS



Cases Filed Terminated



FY 98



FY 98



FY 98



FY 97



FY 97



FY 97



0



20



40



60



80



100 120 140 160 180



THOUSANDS



q q q



Total case filings in FY 99 decreased 2.3% from FY 98. Total case terminations decreased 5.5% in the same period. Civil case filings decreased 2.5% from 47,166 in FY 98 to 45,992 in FY 99. In the same period, civil case terminations were up 7.2% from 48,131 to 51,586. Criminal case filings were down 4.7% from 42,424 in FY 98 to 40,437 in FY 99. Criminal case terminations decreased 0.9% from 40,893 to 40,535. Domestic relations cases decreased 0.2% from 49,540 in FY 98 to 49,441 in FY 99, and domestic relations case terminations decreased 15.1% from 47,337 to 40,174. Domestic violence petition filings decreased 0.1% in Superior Court from 3,955 to 3,950. There were 169,904 cases pending on July 1, 1999, compared with 167,663 cases pending on June 30, 1998, an increase of 1.3%. Juveniles with direct filings to adult court increased by 3.7%, from 753 in FY 98 to 781 in FY 99. Juvenile cases transferred to adult court decreased by 65.8%, from 336 in FY 98 to 115 in FY 99. A total of 896 juvenile cases were either transferred or directly filed in adult court in FY 99 compared to 1089 in FY 98, a decrease of 17.7%.



q



There were 77,651 referrals to juvenile court in FY 99, a 8.3% decrease compared to 84,719 in the previous year. 78,012 referrals were terminated in FY 99, a 3.4% decrease compared to the 80,766 referrals terminated in FY 98.



q q



q



Juvenile Court Petitions

q



q



q



A total of 30,102 petitions were filed in FY 99, a 3.6% decrease from the 31,222 petitions filed in FY 98. A total of 29,298 petitions were terminated in FY 99, a 4.5% decrease from the 30,690 terminated in FY 98. Juvenile dependency case filings decreased by 8.2% from 2,393 in FY98 to 2,196 in FY 99.



q



q



q



Total filings in FY 99 decreased 2.5% from FY 98. Total case terminations decreased 1.7%. Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise almost two-thirds of all justice court filings, decreased 2.8%, from 514,136 in FY 98 to 499,926 this year. Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case filings decreased 5.0% from 171,488 in FY 98 to 162,829 in FY 99. Criminal case terminations increased 0.1% from 136,566 in FY 98 to 136,644 in FY 98. Domestic violence petition filings decreased 3.1% in justice courts, from 8,234 to 7,981. Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment were down 1.7% from 8,419 to 8,272. Total cases pending increased 4.3% from 498,010 on July 1, 1998 to 519,560 on June 30, 1999.



q



q



q



Juvenile Probation/Corrections

FY 99



Municipal Courts

Added Terminated

FY 99



8042 8362 8533 8057 7934 7307



q



1449 1389 1403 1375 1278 1254

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600



Cases Filed Terminated



FY 98



FY 98



FY 97



FY 97



q



Adult Probation

q



The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona adult probation departments at the end of FY 99 increased 13.8% from 48,728 on July 1, 1998 to 55,452 on June 30, 1999. Of the 55,452 under the jurisdiction of adult probation, 49,757 were on standard probation, 4,432 on intensive probation, and 1,263 were interstate compact cases.



q



q



q



q



The number of juveniles on probation at the end of FY 99 decreased 3.9% from 9,116 on July 1, 1998 to 8,762 on June 30, 1999. A total of 8,042 adjudicated juveniles were placed on probation in FY 99, a 5.8% decrease from the 8,533 youths placed on probation in FY 98. 8,362 juveniles were terminated from probation, an increase of 3.8% from the 8,057 terminated last year. 1,345 juveniles were committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY 99, a decrease of 19.5% from the 1,670 committed last year.



THOUSANDS



q



Case filings in FY 99 increased 3.3% from FY 98. Total case terminations increased 1.0% in the same period. Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise about three-fourths of all municipal court cases, decreased 0.3%, from 1,069,190 in FY 98 to 1,065,739 in FY 99. Criminal misdemeanor case filings increased 3.8% from 222,611 in FY 98 to 231,177 in FY 99. Criminal case terminations decreased 0.2% from 206,964 in FY 98 to 206,456 in FY 99. Domestic violence petitions increased 3.9% from 9,838 in FY 98 to 10,221 in FY 99. Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment increased 6.3% from 7,624 to 8,103. Total cases pending increased 9.7%, from 658,317 on July 1, 1998 to 722,415 on June 30, 1999.



q



q



q



q



6



Statewide Revenue and Expenditure Summary

Revenue Summary

q



Expenditure Summary

q

FY 99



Total statewide court revenue increased 6.0% from $166.9 million in FY 98 to $176.9 million in FY 99, reflecting the continuing efforts of the courts statewide to collect court-ordered fines, fees, and surcharges.



177



FY 98



167



Total statewide court expenditures increased 6.3% from $392.8 million in FY 98 to $417.4 million in FY 99.



FY 99



417



FY 98



393



FY 97



149

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180



FY 97



353

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

$ MILLIONS



$ MILLIONS



Revenue in Excess of 1988 Benchmark

FY 99



Revenue Collected



Expenditures



106.9 96.9 59.2 42.9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120



Municipal 14.6% County 50.2% State 34.9%



FY 98



Increased Revenue Trend

q



Funds Expended by Source

q



FY 96



FY 94



$ MILLIONS



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 collected more than $588 million in additional revenue.



50.2% of the total funds spent by the court system were from the counties, 34.9% from the state, 14.6% from cities and towns, and 0.4% from federal and private sources.



Federal / Private .4%



Cities / Towns 33.2% Counties 33.0%



Revenue Received

q



Funds Expended by Court Level

q



Municipal 14.6%



Justice 6.8%



Supreme / Appeals 11.0%



Of the total court system revenue, the state received 33.8%, counties received 33.0% and cities and towns 33.2%.



State 33.5%



Supreme/Appeals 2.4% Municipal 48.8% Superior 23.7%



67.6% of total court expenditures were in Superior Court (including probation), 14.6% in municipal courts, 11% at the appellate level (including statewide administration) and 6.8% in the justice courts.

Superior 67.6%



Revenue Generated

q



48.8% of total court revenue was generated by municipal courts, 25.1% by justice courts, 23.7% by Superior Court and 2.4% by appellate courts.

Justice 25.1%



FY 99



13.2 10.5



Restitution

q



FY 98 0 2 4 6 8



10



12



14



$ MILLIONS



Total restitution payments for victims collected by courts increased 24.8% from $10.5 million in FY 98 to $13.2 million in FY 99.



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 for fiscal year 1999 (July 1, 1998-June 30, 1999). All data received by the publication deadline are included, but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 1999 Arizona Courts Data Report early in 2000.



Restitution Collected



Published by



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 format or other assistance may be provided upon request by a qualified individual with a disability under the provisions of The Americans with Disabilities Act.

� 2000 Arizona Supreme Court



www.supreme.state.az.us