Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch 2007

              2007
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
ARIZONA JUDICIAL BRANCH
Good
to
GREAT
Message from
Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor
2
On behalf of the Arizona Judicial Branch, it
is my pleasure to present our 2007 Annual
Report. This online document presents an overview
of the accomplishments of
our court system throughout
the last year. Two-and-one-half
years ago, we embarked
on a new fi ve year strategic
agenda, “Good to Great,”
to guide our priorities and
refl ect our commitment to
making Arizona’s justice system the best possible.
The agenda outlines fi ve goals:
• Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
• Protecting Children, Families, and
Communities
• Being Accountable
• Improving Communication and
Cooperation with the Community, with
Other Branches of Government, and within
the Judicial Branch
• Serving the Public by Improving the Legal
Profession
I am pleased to report that, with the hard work and
professional commitment of the many court offi cers,
employees, and citizen volunteers, we have made
signifi cant progress toward making our courts truly
great. We have reached out to our partners to discuss
how we can all work together to improve the backlog
of capital cases. The initial DUI Case Processing
Pilot Program showed impressive results, resulting
in plans to expand the program statewide. And we
have begun the aggressive implementation of a new
case management system.
The Arizona Judicial Branch continues to do what
it can to protect the most vulnerable: our children
and families. The Supreme Court adopted rules
governing the administration of protective order
cases; and Arizona served as a national leader in
developing common cover sheets for protective
order forms, allowing for easier recognition and
greater enforcement. We also continue to look
for ways to help the welfare of children through
the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA)
Program and the Foster Care Review Board
(FCRB).
As we move forward, we acknowledge that
achieving our goals is possible only through work
and leadership on every level and from participation
by communities and citizens throughout Arizona.
We continue to call upon these people, including the
general public, to take an active role in improving
our justice system by serving on committees and
commissions. Last year, 6,000 people submitted
a survey regarding access and fairness in general
jurisdiction courts statewide. These efforts for
improved accountability through the CourTools
project have only begun; we will now expand the
surveys to additional courts.
I am proud of the progress made so far and look
forward to the continued journey in improving the
delivery of justice and to working with our many
partners, including the Arizona Judicial Council, the
Executive and Legislative Branches of government,
the State Bar of Arizona, and individual citizens
of Arizona. Together we will take our system of
justice from very good to truly great.
Ruth V. McGregor
Chief Justice
Arizona Supreme Court
Table of Contents
Message from Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor 2
Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice 5
IMPROVED DUI CASE PROCESSING 5
CAPITAL CASE TASK FORCE 5
VIDEO CONFERENCING UPGRADE 5
NEW FAMILY RULES REVIEWED 5
NEW PROTECTIVE ORDER FORMS 6
LEGAL INFORMATION TASK FORCE 6
DV COURT RULES ADOPTED 6
CHRIS NAKAMURA JUDICIAL WORKSHOP 7
ADRS: JUSTICE INTEGRATION 7
NEW CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 7
Protecting Children, Families, and Communities 8
JOURNEY THROUGH MY EYES 8
CENTER CREATED FOR IMPROVED PROBATION SUPERVISION 8
PROGRAM REUNITES SIBLINGS 8
LAW FOR SENIORS 9
IFC PILOTS UPDATE 9
BEST FOR BABIES 9
ARIZONA DRUG COURT CONFERENCE 10
LEARN CENTER UPDATES 10
ENHANCED TRAINING FOR OFFICERS 10
ADULT PROBATION CASE MANAGEMENT TRAINING 10
IMPLEMENTING MODEL JUVENILE DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES 11
EXPANDING JUVENILE DRUG COURTS 11
APETS STATEWIDE 11
JOLTSAZ MODERNIZATION CONTINUES 12
FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD “FINDING 10” 12
DEPENDENCY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT PROGRESS 12
PROBATE RULES PROPOSED 12
Being Accountable 13
ACCESS & FAIRNESS MEASURED 13
UPDATED TRAINING FOR NEW JUDGES 13
5TH ACCREDITATION RECEIVED 13
DEBT SET-OFF PROGRAM UPDATE 14
COLLECTING FINES & FEES FARELY 14
3
Table of Contents
Improving Communication & Cooperation with the Community, other
Branches of Government, and within the Judicial Branch 15
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES 15
JURY RULES LEGISLATION UPDATE 15
COLLABORATIVE SUMMITS 17
Serving the Public by Improving the Legal Profession 16
REGULATORY BOARDS ESTABLISHED 16
E-FILING MAKES PROGRESS 16
Court Statistics by Fiscal Year 18
CASELOAD AND REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS 18
JUDICIARY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 19
2007 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL 20
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT 21
COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION ONE 21
COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION TWO 21
ARIZONA TAX COURT 22
SUPERIOR COURT 22
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS 23
MUNICIPAL COURTS 23
JUVENILE COURT REFERRALS 24
JUVENILE PROBATION/CORRECTIONS 24
JUVENILE COURT PETITIONS 24
ADULT PROBATION 24
Statewide Revenue and Expenditures Summary 25
4
Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
Improved DUI Case Processing
The DUI Case Processing Pilot Program concluded
June 30, 2007 with impressive results.
• Pending DUI caseload was reduced by 20
percent.
• Pending DUI cases over 180 days were
reduced by 77 percent.
• The average number of trial settings per case
was reduced from 2.7 to 1.2, a 56 percent
decrease.
• The percentage of cases resolved at the fi rst
trial setting was increased from 31 to 63
percent.
Due to the success of the pilot project, Chief Justice
Ruth V. McGregor authorized a second phase of the
program aimed at improving DUI case processing in a
larger volume of courts. Forty courts representing seven
counties volunteered for this program. The second phase
of the program began January 1, 2008 and the goal of
the program is to adjudicate 85 percent of all DUI cases
within 120 days and 93 percent within 180 days.
The Arizona Judicial Council voted to take this
project statewide in limited jurisdiction courts, with
implementation beginning July 1, 2008.
CAPITAL CASE TASK FORCE
Prompted by an unprecedented number of capital
cases awaiting trial in Maricopa County, Chief
Justice Ruth V. McGregor established the ad hoc Capital
Case Task Force in February 2007. Task Force members
included a cross section of trial and appellate judges,
defense attorneys, prosecutors, and a representative of the
victim community. The effort brought to light a number
of contributing factors, and the Task Force drafted
several case management standards and amendments
to rules and statutes to address common sources of
delay and to promote effi cient resolution of these cases.
These changes will be proposed through possible rule
change petitions, administrative orders, and legislative
proposals in the upcoming year. To view the full report
please visit www.supreme.state.az.us/cctf.
VIDEO CONFERENCING UPGRADE
To offer needed court reporting services in 2007,
superior courts in six counties purchased and
installed video systems in one or more of their courtrooms
to enable court reporters to provide reporting services
for courts in other counties or within counties that have
multiple courthouses at distant locations. To do this
the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts upgraded its
network connections to ensure a reliable exchange of
video and audio data between counties. Court reporters
at the Superior Court in Maricopa County are expected
to provide the necessary reporting services through
intergovernmental agreements with other counties.
NEW FAMILY RULES REVIEWED
The Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure became
effective on January 1, 2006 after the Family
Law Rules Review Committee (FLRRC) drafted them
and the Arizona Supreme Court enacted them. Since
becoming effective, the Committee conducted a review
and analysis of these rules to recommend revisions and
amendments and provide a report of its fi ndings and
recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council in
March 2008.
The most fundamental aspect of our judicial system is that it be swift and fair. All citizens coming
before the courts are entitled to equal justice, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age or economic
circumstance. Furthermore, courts must provide meaningful access to all, ensuring that no litigant is
denied justice due to the lack of counsel or the inability to understand legal proceedings.
5
NEW PROTECTIVE ORDER FORMS
New protective order forms, developed as part of
Project Passport, were in use in all Arizona courts
by the end of 2007. Arizona is a leader in the initiative,
started by the National Center for State Courts, to
encourage courts to develop common cover sheets for
protective order forms for easier recognition and greater
enforcement. The protective order module in the state’s
online tracking system, AZTEC, has been modifi ed so
Arizona’s forms will print directly from the software
system. Courts that don’t use AZTEC were required
to develop the forms in their software and to ensure
that data is transferred to the AOC’s Central Protective
Order Repository.
LEGAL INFORMATION TASK FORCE
Arizona Judicial Branch employees often face the
diffi cult challenge of providing the public with
as much information and assistance as possible about
the courts and court procedures without violating rules
of impartiality, neutrality, or the unauthorized practice
of law. To address the challenge, Chief Justice Ruth
V. McGregor established the Legal Advice-Legal
Information Guidelines Task Force by Administrative
Order No. 2006-40.
The diverse task force, comprised of representatives
from limited jurisdiction and superior courts, and staffed
by the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts, developed
useful guidelines distinguishing legal information from
legal advice to guide court staff. This effort has resulted
in many components helpful for the whole court system
and includes:
• A manual for court employees that includes
policy, guidelines, glossary of common terms,
and a question and response handbook;
• Signs that inform court customers what
employees can and cannot do;
• A three hour training session on legal advice
v. legal information that was broadcasted via
satellite to about 650 employees throughout
the state in March 2007. This video was
distributed to all courts;
• Training sessions at each Judicial Staff
Conference and to courts in outlying counties;
• A special “Train the Trainer Program” held
in November 2007 to prepare sixty trainers to
train court staff on providing customer service
and the guidelines.
The Task Force was recognized for their work at the
2007 Arizona Judicial Branch Achievement Awards in
the “Improving Communication and Cooperation with
the Community, other Branches of Government and
within the Judicial Branch” category.
The fi nal report of fi ndings and manual are available
online at www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv.
DV COURT RULES ADOPTED
The Arizona Supreme Court adopted court rules
governing the administration of protective order
cases. The Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure
(ARPOP) became effective on January 1, 2008.
Drafted by the Domestic Violence Rules Committee,
the rules incorporate substantial portions of procedures
previously found in the DV Benchbook. The new rules
include:
• explanations of procedures for handling
transfer of cases between limited and general
jurisdiction courts;
• fi ling of motions to modify or dismiss
protective orders; and
• instructions regarding contested hearing
procedures.
To educate judges, court staff, and attorneys on these new
rules, the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts offered
several training programs, including a presentation at
the Family Law Judicial Conference, a webcast by the
Arizona State Bar, and a presentation for the courts
made available on compact discs.
6
CHRIS NAKAMURA JUDICIAL WORKSHOP
Twice a year the Commission on Minorities in
the Judiciary offers the Chris Nakamura Judicial
Appointment Workshop, named in honor of the late
Chris Nakamura — a commission member from 1998
to 2002, at the Minority Bar Conference. The Workshop
provides information and preparation for those who
wish to apply for a judicial position, and encourages
attorneys of color to seek judicial appointment.
In anticipation of a number of judicial openings in
Pima County in 2007, the Workshop was offered at the
James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of
Arizona. This session was one of the few times that
the Workshop was offered outside of the Minority Bar
Conference, and it was the fi rst time law students were
included. Attendees learned about the merit selection
process and what it’s like to be a judge. Law student
attendees were also provided with information about
judicial clerkships and internships.
More than 100 law students, attorneys and judicial
offi cers attended the workshop.
Adrs: Justice Integration
The Arizona Disposition Reporting System
(ADRS) improves the accuracy and completeness
of Arizona’s criminal history information through
more timely and accurate reporting of disposition and
sentencing information from law enforcement and
justice agencies throughout the State.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS)
recently implemented an initial version of ADRS (Phase
I) that provides a web interface to justice agencies to
enter disposition and sentence data, thus eliminating
the submittal of paper disposition forms for data entry.
The system interfaces with the Arizona Automated
Fingerprint Identifi cation System (AZAFIS) and the
Arizona Computerized Criminal History System
(ACCH). AZAFIS populates all of the fi ngerprint-based
arrests in the State into ADRS. ADRS has a two-way
interface with ACCH; dispositions added, updated, or
deleted through ADRS are updated in ACCH on a real-time
basis. If updates occur directly in ACCH related
to arrest or charge information, transactions will update
ADRS to keep the two systems synchronized.
Development work for Phase II was coordinated by
the courts on behalf of the Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJC). DPS is currently undergoing
acceptance testing of the system and pilot courts will
initially rollout the system following completion of
testing. Concurrently, AZTEC accepts a stream of data
delivered from a justice partner’s records management
system; stage that data; then creates cases, docket
entries, and calendar events in an automated batch
fashion using it.
New Case Management System
In June 2007 the Arizona Judicial Council approved the
recommendations of the Commission on Technology,
authorizing the purchase and implementation of a case
management system from AmCad, Inc., for the superior
court in thirteen of the 15 counties.
The Superior Court in Yuma and La Paz counties will
serve as pilot courts beginning in summer 2008, and
statewide rollout is expected to begin in fall 2008.
7
Protecting Children, Families
and Communities
While continuing to provide a fair and impartial forum to resolve disputes, ensure those who violate
laws are held accountable, and serve to limit the arbitrary use of government power to deprive citizens
of their rights; Arizona courts are working to ensuring that those in need of protection due to age or
infi rmity are protected from physical or fi nancial harm.
Journey Through My Eyes
The Arizona CASA Program collaborated with the
Arizona Lottery to highlight the issue of child abuse
during Child Abuse Prevention and Awareness Month
in April 2007. To portray a child’s journey in foster
care through the eyes of a child, life sized silhouettes of
children were crafted, and displayed written narratives
about the path through foster care. The public was
invited to read different scenarios along the walk.
The silhouettes narrated the child’s thoughts about
what they were experiencing — from removal from a
biological home to living in a foster home, having visits
with parents, or living in a group home. The silhouettes
were displayed throughout April at various venues
throughout the state, beginning at Wesley Bolin Plaza
and traveling as far as Sierra Vista and Flagstaff. The
display attempted to focus the public’s attention on the
plight of abused and neglected children, and offer ways
for citizens to be a part of a child’s journey.
Center created for improved
probation supervision
Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor announced
the creation of the Center for Evidence Based
Sentencing. The Honorable Ron Reinstein, who had
a long and signifi cant career in the Superior Court in
Maricopa County, was named as the Center’s Director
and will lead the Center’s efforts on behalf of the
Arizona Supreme Court. The work of the Center for
Evidence Based Sentencing will focus on devising
effective supervision plans for offenders who are on
probation.
Evidence Based Sentencing relies upon a set of tools
designed to offer judicial offi cials objective, scientifi c
research about criminal behavior to assist them when
making probation decisions. Prior to sentencing, each
probationer will undergo a risk assessment. By using
objective data and matching that data with the risk level
of each probationer, the judicial offi cer can tailor a term
of probation and supervision so that greater levels of
success in preventing re-offending can be achieved.
Not all probationers present the same risk to society, and
customized supervision, by avoiding a “one size fi ts all
approach” to probation and supervision, will increase
public safety by reducing recidivism and facilitate a
better use of public resources.
One of the Center’s fi rst efforts will be to provide
information about evidence based sentencing and risk
analysis to judicial and probation offi cers, and to other
criminal justice stakeholders statewide.
Program Reunites Siblings
At the request of the Arizona Judicial Council, the
2007 Arizona State Legislature established the
Sibling Information Exchange Program. The adopted
statutory provisions, effective January 1, 2008,
authorize confi dential intermediaries who are trained
and certifi ed by the Arizona Supreme Court, to access
confi dential records for the purpose of reuniting former
dependent children and their siblings who have been
separated during dependency proceedings. This new
program builds upon the success of the Confi dential
Intermediary Program where confi dential intermediaries
have assisted adoptees and birth parents and siblings
in sharing information and making voluntary contact.
More information on the Sibling Information and
Confi dential Intermediary Programs is available at
www.supreme.us.state.az/cip.
8
IFC PILOTS UPDATE
Improving the timeliness and effectiveness of
resolution of family issues is a priority. To address
the special needs of families during litigation the
Superior Courts in Coconino and Pinal counties are
participating in a two-year Integrated Family Court
(IFC) pilot program.
The program is based on fi ndings from a 2002
Domestic Relations Committee (DRC) report. For
more information on the report go to www.supreme.
state.az.us/courtserv/IFC/IFCReport.pdf.
The Coconino County IFC program started January
2007 and focuses on improving delivery of services and
streamlining procedures to provide for a “one family/
one judge approach.” This model increases the use of
alternative dispute resolution methods and expands
services offered through the Self-Help Center. The
Court submitted a progress report to the legislatively
created DRC in Fall 2007.
The Pinal County IFC program began July 2007 and
focuses on improving the delivery of services to families
involved in dissolutions, delinquency and dependency
cases.
Utilizing two pilot sites allows the Committee to
compare and evaluate different approaches for each
IFC pilot program. The counties, while both rural in
nature have signifi cantly different populations: Pinal
County is 29 percent Hispanic or Latino, and Coconino
County is 29 percent American Indian.
An independent evaluation of both programs will
provide on-going input throughout the life of the
projects so that adjustments can be made for continuous
quality improvement.
Best for Babies
Six Arizona counties have implemented programs
to focus on the needs of foster children from 0-3
years of age. These programs have proven successful
in providing assistance and services to this age group.
During a presentation held prior to the 2007 Statewide
Child Abuse Prevention Conference, groups from
several of Arizona’s counties met to learn about
this group of children and their special needs. This
session was sponsored jointly by the Administrative
Offi ce of the Courts, Court Improvement Project and
the Departments of Economic Security (DES) and
Health (ADHS). County teams, led by Presiding
Juvenile Court Judges, included representatives from
Child Protective Services (CPS) and the behavioral
health system, providing services in the county. Upon
completion of the day long training, county teams had
the opportunity to apply for technical assistance. This
technical assistance, or “Community Development and
Training (CDT),” was provided to the six county teams
that applied through a grant jointly funded by Court
Improvement and DES.
Through the CDT process, counties established plans
to best serve these most vulnerable children of their
communities. Personnel from the Courts, DES, and
behavioral health are also working more closely with
the common focus of better outcomes for these most
vulnerable of Arizona’s foster children. Although the
counties are in different phases of implementation, the
initial changes have raised awareness of the importance
of children ages 0-3 years receiving appropriate services
and getting the attention they need.
LAW FOR SENIORS
First launched in 2006, the “Law of Seniors”
brochure/newsletter and Website continued to
meet the need of seniors and their families for legal
information, benefi ts and special services available
to assist Arizona’s seniors stay in charge of their life.
The Web site has received more than 600,000 hits.
Requests for the brochure necessitated an additional
printing and distribution of brochures in the fi rst year
of distribution. Additional information is available at
www.LawForSeniors.org.
9
Arizona Drug Court Conference
The 7th Annual Arizona Drug Court Conference,
“Arizona Drug Courts – Meeting at the Crossroads:
Integrating and Implementing Effective Strategies While
Enhancing Professional Development” was held on
August 23, 2007 in Scottsdale. The conference hosted
387 participants, including guests and speakers from
around the state and nation. Workshop topics included:
treatment, role of the Drug Court team, confi dentiality,
co-occurring disorders, case management, cultural
competency, and community supervision and prevention.
The Conference received fi nancial sponsorship and
planning support from the Arizona Governor’s Offi ce
for Children Youth and Families and the Arizona Parents
Commission on Drug Education and Prevention. In
addition, the Arizona Association of Drug Court
Professionals (AADCP) presented its annual Drug
Court Hall of Fame Awards. The National Drug Court
Institute (NDCI) and the National Association of Drug
Court Professionals (NADCP) provided speakers and
presenters who enhanced the professional development
portion of the conference.
LEARN Center Updates
In May 2007, LEARN coordinators, administrators,
staff, and community partners celebrated the 20th
Anniversary of the LEARN Program at the 5th Annual
ACE/LEARN Symposium in Tucson. As part of the
20th year celebration, Gayle Siegel presented “The
History of Project LEARN” outlining many of the
accomplishments and milestones during the last 20
years of the program.
Adult LEARN Centers throughout the state are
continuing to evaluate the collection of student
and program data in an effort to develop program
performance measures. The State LEARN Advisory
Council has created several sub-committees tasked
with performance measure development, distance
learning software and curriculum development, and
strategies to collaboratively and effectively serve the
probation populations. Technology continues to be a
focus. The Yuma, Pinal, and Cochise County Adult
LEARN Centers were upgraded with new computers
or laptops. These centers are also scheduled to receive
mobile equipment and the Santa Cruz County Adult
LEARN Center is being considered for an equipment
upgrade for FY 2008.
enhanced training for officers
Thorough assessment of an offender’s risk and needs
is a key component to evidence-based practice in
adult probation supervision. The Offender Screening
Tool (OST) is a 44-item risk/needs assessment designed
to assess the presence of a variety of lifestyle type issues
among probationers. The OST assists probation offi cers
with sentencing recommendations, establishing levels
of supervision and developing effective supervision
strategies to target specifi c criminogenic factors.
The Field Reassessment Offender Screening Tool
(FROST) is the reassessment tool that is administered
to probationers at six month intervals during their term
of probation. This screening tool helps to assess a
probationers’ progress over time, and assists probation
offi cers to determine if supervision strategies are
working to change behavior.
In June 2007, the Adult Probation Services Division of
the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts produced a one
hour FROST training video to improve upon offi cers’
scoring accuracy and consistency of the risk needs
assessment. In addition to the video, corresponding
training documentation was also created.
Adult Probation Case
Management Training
During FY 2007, the Adult Probation Services
Division of the Administrative Offi ce of the
Courts provided statewide Case Management Training
to underscore the need for probation staff to promote
positive behavioral changes in the offenders under their
supervision by:
• providing thorough assessments of actuarial
risk/needs;
• enhancing intrinsic motivation to change with
the use of case plans;
• providing positive reinforcement; and
• utilizing effective supervision strategies.
These strategies and tools are essential components of
evidence-based practices.
10
Implementing Model Juvenile
Delinquency Guidelines
In 2006, the Arizona Supreme Court’s Committee
on Juvenile Courts (COJC) endorsed the “Model
Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines” published by the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’
(NCJFCJ). The Guidelines prescribe sixteen key
principles for a “Juvenile Court of Excellence” and
prescribe best practices to incorporate these principles.
The Juvenile Justice Services Division (JJSD) of the
Administrative Offi ce of the Courts, launched a two-year
statewide “Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines
Initiative” in 2007. Phase I (year one) focuses on
training, self assessment and action planning. Phase II
(year two) focuses on the implementation of juvenile
court action plans with support and technical assistance
provided through JJSD and the NCJFCJ.
JJSD partnered with the Judges Council (NCJFCJ)
to participate in three regional workshop trainings in
summer 2007. Presiding Juvenile Court Judges invited
key stakeholders within their counties to participate in
the workshops held in Tucson, Phoenix and Sedona.
Fourteen counties organized teams representing their
respective county attorneys, public defenders, court
administrators, detention and probation administrators,
and law enforcement personnel. Two facilitators from
the National Judicial Council provided an overview
of the model delinquency guidelines, assisted the
county teams in completing self-assessments of their
current court practices, and helped them identify and
select two or three key principles and model practices
to implement in their jurisdictions. Each county then
developed an initial action plan. JJSD has contracted
with the NCJFCJ to provide technical assistance for up
to ten county court sites to build on these action plans.
Expanding Juvenile Drug
Courts
Last year Juvenile Drug Courts (JDC) expanded to
another county and operate in 18 Arizona locations
and 10 counties. Nationally, the JDC model has
reduced substance abuse and juvenile recidivism. Each
drug court operates with a Certifi cate of Assurance
that requires the Court to comply with the “Ten Key
Components of a Drug Court” as prescribed by the
National Drug Court Institute, National Association
of Drug Court Professionals and the Bureau of Justice
Assistance with the U.S. Justice Department.
Under judicial leadership, a local drug court team
provides the organizational and operational structure
for the JDC. Each team includes representatives from
Court, Probation, County Prosecutor, Public Defender
and local treatment providers. Representatives from
local schools, police or sheriff, and social service groups
often participate.
JDC programming lasts 9 to 12 months and generally
includes screening and assessment, group, individual
and family counseling, drug testing, community service,
probation supervision, work or restitution, and parental
involvement. In FY 2007, 440 youth participated in
juvenile drug courts, and the average cost to operate
was $909.09 per youth.
APETS Statewide
During FY 2007, the last fi ve counties of Mohave,
Cochise, Santa Cruz, Apache, and Navajo began
using the Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System
(APETS), providing all fi fteen counties the capability
to initiate, track, and transfer clients from county
to county, all within a single database. APETS now
holds more than 205,000 client records; including
80,000 clients with governing supervision records; and
7 million contact note records. Also, more than 2,500
department employees actively use the system.
With the statewide implementation complete, the
counties focused on entering and updating necessary
data for the accurate reporting of statewide statistics
and population characteristics. Also during FY
2007, ongoing development support provided county
users new functionality in the areas of Drug Court
monitoring, improved petition and termination tracking,
and enhanced “caseload” views to assist offi cers with
probation offender supervision.
11
Foster Care Review Board
“Finding 10”
During the last several years, the Foster Care
Review Board (FCRB) worked with a variety
of stakeholders to develop Finding 10 — a list of 10
factors volunteers must consider during each review.
Additionally, the team developed approximately 12
elements that FCRB volunteers might select during
a review that identify specifi c problem areas in each
case.
Finding 10 is unique because it helps identify how
service gaps (lack of or no service available) or system
Dependency Caseflow
Management Progress
Continuing the success the “Dependency Casefl ow
Management” program, the Court Improvement
Program held three regional trainings with county
casefl ow teams. The teams, typically led by the
Presiding Juvenile Judge for the County, were made
up of representatives from the Court, Child Protective
Services, the Attorney General’s Offi ce, private counsel
and behavioral health. The one day meeting offered
each county the opportunity to report on their progress
since they began meeting in 2006. Participants were
also given access to key child welfare data measures as
well as information on statewide collaborative efforts
for children involved in multiple systems. Finally,
participants set goals for the upcoming year.
Whether incorporating child welfare performance data
into their plan or fast tracking identifi ed dependency
cases, impressive goals were shared at the end of each
training. This program is effective in bringing together
the right people to identify and address issues and
barriers hampering efforts to provide for each child’s
safety, permanency and well-being.
JOLTSaz modernization
continues
The Juvenile Online Tracking System (JOLTS) is
used by all juvenile probation, detention, and court
staff, manage juvenile offender caseload and tracks
juvenile probationers. The Administrative Offi ce of
the Courts, Pima County, and Arizona’s less populated
counties continue to reengineer and modernize this
system through a project known as “JOLTSaz.”
JOLTSaz represents a rewrite of the current JOLTS
using a .NET application environment. In May 2007
each participating county received an update to the
“Detention Visitation” module.
The development of other modules of the JOLTSaz
system continues. The “Infrastructure/Caseload
Management” and “Intra-county transfer” modules are
complete, and the fi rst part of “Probation Supervision”
is developed. Once the development process for all
modules is complete roll out will begin statewide.
JOLTSaz is designed to exchange information with
Maricopa’s ICIS-Juvenile system, child welfare
agencies, treatment providers other criminal justice
agencies as part of the Criminal Justice Information
Integration Project, as well as with the new general
jurisdiction case and fi nancial management system
currently being prepared for implementation.
problems can impact an individual case. The elements
identify concerns regarding the educational, behavioral,
social, and case management systems that are involved
for every case.
The information collected from Finding 10 will be
shared with stakeholders in Spring 2008, and is expected
to assist policymakers, service providers, and child
welfare professionals in rectifying the problems and
service gaps that delay permanency for foster children.
PROBATE RULES PROPOSED
Under the leadership of Vice Chief Justice Rebecca
White Berch, the Probate Rules Committee
drafted and submitted a proposed set of standardized,
statewide Probate Rules. Standardization of a clear
Article continued on page 17
12
Being accountable
Access & fairness measured
CourTools is a set of 10 court performance measures
developed by the National Center for State
Courts measures and improves court performance.
The measures provide an opportunity for courts to
examine areas of excellence and identify areas needing
improvement.
Between April and October of 2007, the AOC, working
with local courts, implemented the fi rst CourTools
measure survey, Measure One: Access and Fairness,
in all general jurisdiction courts across the state. The
survey sought to measure the public’s perception of
both accessibility and fairness within the court system.
More than 5,800 surveys were collected from the fi fteen
general jurisdiction courts.
The survey included ten questions regarding access,
fi ve questions regarding fairness and collected various
pieces of demographic data regarding the court’s user
base. The survey was administered over a three day
period in most courts.
• 91 percent respondents said that they were
treated with courtesy and respect.
• 77 percent said that they way their case was
handled was fair.
• 78 percent said that the judge had the
information necessary to make good decisions
about their cases.
• 85 percent said that they left the court knowing
what to next about their cases.
Due to the overwhelming success of implementing
CourTools Measure One in the general jurisdiction
courts, the AOC has begun distributing the survey in
more than 160 limited jurisdiction courts across the
state.
In order to foster public trust and confi dence, the judiciary must be accountable to the public and
other stakeholders. The judiciary has an obligation to develop a clear strategic agenda; keep the
public informed of court operations, programs and initiatives; and ensure that all levels of staff are
competent, professional and customer service oriented.
Updated training for new judges
The newly designed curriculum for General
Jurisdiction judges was used to train a total of
35 new judges in April and September 2007. Six
recently retired judges served as faculty members and
mentors adding their expertise to the program and a
new dimension as they offered to be consulted before,
during, or after a case.
The program received very good to excellent rating.
Participants commended the networking opportunity
provided to them, not only with other new commissioners
and judges but with the mentors and faculty as well.
Thirty faculty and committee members met in November
2007 to review the new curriculum. Discussions
included what worked, what needs improvement, and
what activities can be added to enrich the program.
The goal is to ensure the program is equally effective
for judges who are just coming onto the bench as well
as those who may have been seated for a few months,
those from rural counties as well as those from the larger
counties and that adult learning styles are utilized so that
the program is a positive learning experience for all.
5th accreditation received
The Probation Certifi cation Academy received its
fi fth accreditation from the American Probation
and Parole Association (APPA) in summer 2007.
The Academy goes through the accreditation process
every three years. Once again, the probation unit was
recognized as a national training standard in the fi eld of
probation. An APPA executive stated, “The reviewers
were extremely impressed with the format of the lessons
plans, quality of the learning objectives and the content
of information provided in the academy.”
13
Debt Set –Off Program Update
The Debt Set-Off (DSO) Program works with the
Arizona Department of Revenue to intercept
taxpayer refunds to satisfy court ordered fi nancial
obligations. For calendar year 2006, the Debt Set-
Off Program disbursed $6.1 million to the program’s
participants. For calendar year 2007 through mid-
October, DSO staff forwarded more than $7.0 million
to program participants — this is more than $1 million
over this same period last year.
collecting fines & fees FARE-ly
The Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement (FARE)
Program is a statewide initiative of the judicial
branch with the goals of compliance with and respect
for court orders and the law, enhanced customer service,
increased revenues, consistency and uniformity in case
processing, and effi ciencies in the collections process.
The program is a public/private partnership involving
the courts, other governmental entities, including the
Motor Vehicle Division and Department of Revenue,
the AOC and a private vendor, chosen through an open
bidding process.
In FY 2007 almost $30.2 million was collected in
outstanding fi nes, fees and restitution. Since inception
of the program in FY 2004 nearly $74 million has
been recovered. More than 90 courts in 11 counties
participate in the program.
Bilingual web-based and telephone credit card payment
began in 2004 and has collected more than $27.9
million. Out-of-state and out-of-country defendants
make a signifi cant portion of these payments.
14
Improving Communication & Cooperation with the Community,
other Branches of Government, and within the Judicial Branch
Effective and meaningful communication within the judiciary and with the Executive and Legislative
branches of government is vital to serving the public effi ciently and effectively, and improving business
relations. It promotes better-informed policy making, improved collegiality, intra-branch cooperation
and participation in the administration of justice. Judicial outreach to the community is also critical so
the public can develop a greater understanding of the important role the judiciary plays in democracy.
Leadership development
continues
The Court Leadership Institute of Arizona (CLIA)
experienced a busy and productive 2007, working
to provide Arizona’s courts with leadership development
and succession planning programming and resources.
CLIA sponsored a variety of leadership-focused
programs. These programs included an in-state
Leadership Institute in Judicial Education in March, a
Faculty Skills Development in April, and several Institute
for Court Management (ICM) sessions throughout the
year. The ICM session registrations included courses
on managing court fi nancial resources, court human
resources, and casefl ow management.
To develop a comprehensive approach to leadership
development and succession planning, CLIA helped to
coordinate a “Human Resources Summit” in September
which brought together human resources professionals
from state courts. The participants helped defi ne court
and probation departments’ recruitment and retention
challenges. The Summit generated ideas to help meet
the future personnel needs of Arizona’s courts.
Finally, CLIA coordinated the annual Arizona Court
Leadership Conference. Under the leadership of Chief
Justice Ruth V. McGregor, this conference brought
together Arizona’s court leaders. Based on the court
leaders’ feedback and recommendations, the conference
featured employee recruitment and retention—key
elements in CLIA‘s mission.
JURY RULES LEGISLATION UPDATE
The Administrative Offi ce of the Courts (ACO)
worked with jury personnel from trial courts around
the state to update, clarify and streamline the Arizona
jury statutes and the corresponding Arizona Code of
Judicial Administration jury management section.
Many statutory provisions had not been updated for
more that thirty-fi ve years and were based upon outdated
manual procedures. For example, one statute required
jury commissioners to draw the names of prospective
jurors in public — a long ago abandoned practice that
had been carried out by placing names in a large barrel,
spun by hand, with names drawn one by one in the
presence of a group of citizens. Today, nearly all jury
operations are automated. The statutes and Arizona
Code of Judicial Administration needed revision to
refl ect updated practices and technology, and the new
provisions accomplished this.
Additionally, the second annual Jury Management
Seminar was held in August 2007 in Bisbee,
Arizona. More than 30 Jury Commissioners, Court
Administrators, Clerks of Court, and jury personnel
from around the state attended. The seminar covered
many timely topics including legal challenges to
juror selection, non-English speaking jurors, and the
new jury legislation. Speakers included judges, jury
commissioners, attorneys, and AOC staff. The seminar
provided jury personnel the ability to learn new skills in
jury management and offered an opportunity to network
with their peers and better serve the public.
15
Serving the Public
by improving the legal profession
The Supreme Court regulates the practice of law and along with the rest of the judiciary, plays a
crucial role of protecting individual rights and liberties in a free society. The court must determine how
the legal profession can best serve the public through examining existing rules governing the practice
of law, attorney admission and disciplinary systems, and legal practices and procedures that encourage
unnecessarily adversarial proceedings in and our of the courtroom.
e-Filing makes progress
Electronic fi ling initiatives, part of the judiciary’s
strategic agenda, support the Court’s efforts to
take advantage of technology to manage court cases
effi ciently and improve the access of law.
The goals of early electronic fi ling projects are:
• Promote the use of technology within courts to
facilitate the processing of cases in an effi cient
manner.
• Develop simple, easy-to-use, web-based
interactive forms needed for high volume case
types.
• Continue to develop standards and policies for
e-fi ling; electronic case access; and electronic
record storage, backup, and recovery.
The e-Court Subcommittee of the Commission on
Technology (COT) and its subsequent court-level-specifi
c sub-teams continue to push toward a unifi ed,
statewide system of e-fi ling in the following general
areas:
• Court to court fi ling, leveraging the electronic
appeal process;
• Leveraging justice community information
using a clearinghouse for case-related data; and
• Form-based attorney/public e-fi ling using
standardized, interactive, statewide forms as
the foundation.
Progress in Appellate Courts
Using OnBase as the electronic document management
system (EDMS), implementation and integration
with the case management system, Appellamation, is
progressing at both Court of Appeals Division One
and the Supreme Court. The statewide court-to-court
electronic fi ling initiative began with the Superior
Court in Yavapai County and the Court of Appeals
Division One, and has expanded to the Superior Court
in Cochise County and Court of Appeals Division Two.
Ultimately, it will expand to the Arizona Supreme Court.
A “clerk review” function was added to Appellamation
permitting the Court to either accept the record on
appeal or reject it if unsuitable. The Supreme Court also
ruled that electronic signature fulfi lls the requirement
in rule for a “signed judgment” in cases being appealed.
The Supreme Court modifi ed its rule for submittals to
allow an electronic fi le to be submitted in place of paper
copies.
REGULATORY BOARDS ESTABLISHED
Consistent with the goals in “Good to Great,” the
strategic agenda of the Judicial Branch, the Court
established three additional regulatory boards: the
Confi dential Intermediary Board, Defensive Driving
Board and Fiduciary Board. Composed of members
of the regulated profession, judicial staff, public and
other stakeholders, the boards hold public meetings
and make all fi nal decisions regarding applications for
certifi cation/licensure, and disposition of complaints
alleging misconduct by a professional. The boards also
make recommendations to the Court on policy issues
of importance to the regulated profession. Additional
information on the boards and their actions to date is
available at:
Confi dential Intermediary Board:
www.supreme.state.az.us/cip
Defensive Driving Board:
www.supreme.state.az.us/drive
Fiduciary Board: www.supreme.state.az.us/fi duc
Article continued on next page
16
Collaborative Summits
The Dependent Children Services Division held
three regional summits to facilitate collaboration
among representatives involved in the child welfare
system. The objectives for the summits were
twofold. First, they provided an excellent educational
opportunity for both presenters and participants. And
second, the setting provided an open arena to discuss
topics critical to participants’ work with dependent
children. Recognized leaders in their fi elds presented
an array of topics that included attorney practices,
teacher responsibilities, and challenges facing children
aging out of the foster care system.
The three summits drew more than 600 participants
from each of Arizona’s 15 counties. Each summit
included professionals from the Court, Child Protective
Services, Behavioral Health, Juvenile Probation,
Indian Tribes, as well as educators, foster parents and
community volunteers – bringing together numerous
volunteers and professionals who work so hard for
Arizona’s foster children.
set of probate rules and setting forth those rules
clearly so they are accessible to professionals and self-represented
persons who participate in probate matters
will allow the effective conduct of probate cases and
assist the courts in providing effective oversight of
the incapacitated and vulnerable individuals under the
care of the professionals and family members. The
public can comment on the rules which the Court will
consider in fall 2008. The proposed Rule Petition
R-07-0012: Arizona Rules of Probate Procedure
can be viewed at the Court Rules Forum online at
www.supreme.state.az.us.
Progress in General Jurisdiction Courts
There are many e-fi ling projects going on with general
jurisdiction courts. These efforts include:
• Continuing to test the multi-vendor fi ling
model in the Superior Court in Maricopa
County. The AOC is constructing an electronic
fi ling manager program to act as a single front
door for fi lings using Maricopa’s development
as a starting point;
• Receiving COT’s approval to begin accepting
criminal fi lings electronically from justice
partners beginning with the Supreme Court;
• Constructing interactive forms for self-represented
litigants’ use at the superior court
level in Maricopa County; and
• Maricopa County’s Clerk of the Court was
authorized to destroy certain paper copies of
imaged court documents as a pilot leading the
way for a rule change enabling all clerks to
eventually do so under strict conditions.
Progress in Limited Jurisdiction Courts
Six jurisdictions are receiving electronic citations from
law enforcement now that a reliable interface exists
between photo radar vans, redlight vendors, handheld
devices, and the court’s case management system.
Tucson Municipal and Oro Valley Municipal courts
led the way, proving the tremendous time-saving and
data quality improvement by using data directly from
ticket writing devices. AOC completed a new release
of AZTEC to accommodate auto-opened cases from
electronic citation fi lings.
Probate rules article continued from page 12
IMPROVING COMMUNICATION
CONTINUED
E-fi ling article continued from page 16
17
CASELOAD AND REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS
• Arizona Courts had 2,666,450 case fi lings in FY 2007.
• On average, there were 10,752 cases fi led in Arizona Courts every working day.
• On average, there were 1,344 cases fi led in Arizona Courts every working hour.
• Statewide case fi lings increased by 114,730 or 4.5%, while Municipal Courts fi lings increased by 81,100
or 5.6%.
• Superior Court case fi lings increased 1.2%; terminations were up 2.3%.
• Justice Court case fi lings increased by 3.5% in FY 2007. Combined criminal and civil traffi c case fi lings
in Maricopa County increased by 8.2% or 16,932.
• In FY 2007, Municipal Court case fi lings statewide increased by 5.6%, while the rural Municipal Courts
increased by 0.8%, during the same period. Maricopa and Pima counties case fi lings increased by 6.7%
and 5.2% respectively.
• 89,592 DUI cases were fi led in Justice and Municipal Courts. This represents an increase of 2,374 case
fi lings from FY 2006 or 2.7%. (Case fi ling in Justice and Municipal Courts are primarily counted by
charges not defendants).
• Civil traffi c case fi lings account for 56.5% of all case fi lings in Justice and Municipal Courts. This case
category increased by 91,500 case fi lings, or 7.1% from FY 2006 to FY 2007.
• Statewide revenue in FY 2007 again outpaced case fi lings trends. Case fi lings increased by 4.5%, while
revenue increased by 10.9%. The increase in revenue is due in part to the extensive collection efforts by
the courts and AOC’s Fines and Restitution Enforcement (FARE) project.
• Arizona courts have collected more than $2.14 billion in additional revenue over the $70 million benchmark
established in FY 1988.
FY 2007 Annual Clearance Rate by Court Level
Annual
Clearance Rate Court Level
108.7% Arizona Supreme Court
102.7% Court of Appeals, Division One
119.0% Court of Appeals, Division Two
88.9% Arizona Tax Court
96.4% Superior Court
98.9% Justice of the Peace Courts
105.5% Municipal Courts
Annual Clearance Rate Defi nition: A percentage that refl ects a comparison of outgoing cases to incoming cases. Outgoing cases
include total terminations and transfer out cases. Incoming cases include original fi lings and transfer in cases. A clearance rate of
100% means a court has the exact number of outgoing cases as incoming cases during this fi scal year.
Court Statistics by Fiscal year
18
Judiciary Organizational Chart
Supreme Court
5 Justices, 6-year terms
Chief Justice, Vice Chief Justice
3 Associate Justices
Court of Appeals
22 Judges, 6-year terms
Division I, Phoenix
Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges
Counties: Apache, Coconino, LaPaz, Maricopa,
Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai, Yuma
Division II, Tucson
Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges
Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee,
Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz
Apache 1 Greenlee 1 Pima 30
Cochise 5 LaPaz 1 Pinal 9
Coconino 4 Maricopa 95 Santa Cruz 2
Gila 2 Mohave 6 Yavapai 7
Graham 1 Navajo 4 Yuma 6
Apache 4 Mohave 5
Cochise 6 Navajo 6
Coconino 4 Pima 10
Gila 2 Pinal 8
Graham 2 Santa Cruz 2
Greenlee 2 Yavapai 5
LaPaz 3 Yuma 3
Maricopa 23
Judges Courts Judges Courts
Apache 3 3 Mohave 4 4
Cochise 5 4 Navajo 4 4
Coconino 5 4 Pima 17 5
Gila 6 6 Pinal 9 9
Graham 2 3 Santa Cruz 2 2
Greenlee 1 1 Yavapai 9 9
LaPaz 2 2 Yuma 4 4
Maricopa 67 23
Justice of the Peace Courts
85 Judges, 85 Precincts, 4-year terms
Superior Court
174 Judges, 4-year terms
Presiding Judge in each county
Municipal Courts
140 Full- and Part-time Judges, varying terms
In addition to the judicial positions listed above, there are approximately 97 full-time and part-time judges
pro tempore, commissioners and hearing offi cers in the Superior Court.
19
FY 2007 Case Filings by Court Level
General Jurisdiction Superior Court
County Case Filings
Apache 1,117
Cochise 4,417
Coconino 3,750
Gila 2,210
Graham 1,410
Greenlee 366
La Paz 866
Maricopa 132,081
Mohave 6,497
Navajo 3,061
Pima 29,531
Pinal 8,830
Santa Cruz 2,335
Yavapai 8,184
Yuma 6,725
Tax Court 916
Total 212,296
Limited Jurisdiction Case Filings
County Justice Municipal
Apache 9,883 1,783
Cochise 44,386 8,281
Coconino 27,462 24,632
Gila 14,337 7,411
Graham 7,878 3,328
Greenlee 3,058 442
La Paz 23,236 4,682
Maricopa 406,251 1,052,739
Mohave 46,774 29,905
Navajo 33,035 5,311
Pima 178,636 277,015
Pinal 44,607 27,796
Santa Cruz 9,831 12,184
Yavapai 41,280 49,156
Yuma 26,012 28,127
Total 916,666 1,532,792
Appellate
Court Level Case Filings
Supreme Court 1,161
Court of Appeals,
Division One 2,676
Court of Appeals,
Division Two 859
Appellate Total 4,696
20
Arizona Supreme Court
• Supreme Court FY 2007 case fi lings decreased
7.6% from cases fi led in FY 2006.
• Cases terminated by the court in FY 2007
increased 1.0% versus case terminations in FY
2006.
• The difference between fi lings and terminations
resulted in a pending caseload decrease of 24.0%.
There were 420 pending cases on July 1, 2006,
compared to 319 pending cases on June 30, 2007.
Court of Appeals, Division One
• Filings in FY 2007 decreased 5.3% due primarily
to the continued tapering-off of a surge of petitions
for post-conviction relief based on a landmark U.S.
Supreme Court opinion issued in 2004. In contrast,
direct appeals of criminal convictions rose 11.8%,
from 636 in FY 2006 to 711 in FY 2007. Filings
of civil case appeals decreased marginally,
from 895 in FY 2006 to 869 in FY 2007, while
remaining well ahead of FY 2004 (797) and FY
2005 (812).
• FY 2007 case terminations decreased by 11.8%,
returning to a more typical level after the
Court of Appeals, Division Two
• Total fi lings in FY 2007 decreased 3.6% from
FY 2006. Total criminal fi lings, the largest
category, comprising 50.6% of total caseload
decreased 2.7% from 447 in FY 2006 to 435 in
FY 2007.
• FY 2007 case terminations increased by 17.3%.
• Total cases pending declined by 16.3%, from
1,007 in July 1, 2006 to 843 on June 30, 2007.
21
unusually high number of terminations in FY 2006 resulting from the surge of petitions for post-conviction
relief mentioned above.
• Τhe pending caseload was increased by 2.0%, from 2,329 on July 1, 2006 to 2,375 on June 30, 2007, due
in part to a statistical upward adjustment of 96 cases. Combined fi lings in civil and criminal appeals, which
comprise the bulk of the caseload, increased by 3.2% from FY 2006 to FY 2007. Filings in all case types
(excepting petitions for post-conviction relief) decreased slightly, from 2,328 in FY 2006 to 2,308 in FY 2007.
Arizona Tax Court
The Arizona Tax Court serves as the Statewide
venue for all civil actions involving a tax, impost
or assessment.
• A total of 856 original cases were fi led in the
court during FY 2007 an increase of 13.2%
from the 756 cases fi led in FY 2006.
• Of the FY 2007 cases fi led, 416 were property
tax actions, accounting for 48.6% of the total.
Superior Court
• Total case fi lings in FY 2007 increased by 1.2%
from FY 2006.
• Total case terminations kept pace with case fi lings
as they increased by 2.3% during the same period.
• Civil case fi lings increased 9.5% from 53,237
in FY 2006 to 58,291 in FY 2007. In the same
period, civil case terminations were up 13.2% from
48,961 to 55,440.
• Criminal case fi lings decreased 0.6% from 59,941
in FY 2006 to 59,601 in FY 2007. Criminal case
terminations were fl at during the same period from
55,831 to 55,836.
• Domestic relations cases decreased 0.9% from
52,197 in FY 2006 to 51,720 in FY 2007, and
domestic relations case terminations decreased
4.9% from 55,273 to 52,579. Domestic violence
petition fi lings increased 10.4% in Superior Court
from 8,826 to 9,744 in FY 2007.
• There were 218,067 total cases pending on July 1,
2006, compared with 221,175 cases pending on
June 30, 2007, an increase of 1.4%.
• Juveniles with direct fi lings to adult court
decreased 5.2%, from 553 in FY 2006 to 524 in
FY 2007. Juvenile cases transferred to adult court
decreased 11.1%, from 72 in FY 2006 to 64 in FY
2007. A total of 588 juvenile cases were either
transferred or directly fi led in adult court in FY
2007 compared to 625 in FY 2006, an decrease of
5.9%
Emancipation of a Minor
In FY 2007, 42 emancipation petitions were fi led in
Superior Court. During the same period, Superior
Court granted 12 petitions, denied seven and 12 were
withdrawn/dismissed. The reasons for granting the
petitions included written consent, minors living on
their own and an unsafe environment.
• A total of 761 cases were terminated, 275 or 36.1% by judgment.
• As of June 30, 2007, there were 743 cases pending in the tax court.
22
Justice of the Peace Courts
• Total fi lings in FY 2007 increased 3.5% from FY
2006. Total case terminations increased 4.1%.
• Civil and criminal traffi c fi lings, which comprise
almost two-thirds of all justice court fi lings,
increased 4.6%, from 536,877 in FY 2006 to
561,399 in FY 2007.
• Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case fi lings
decreased 5.6% from 155,334 in FY 2006 to
146,650 in FY 2007. Criminal case terminations
decreased 14.0% from 162,002 in FY 2006 to
139,242 in FY 2007.
• Domestic violence petition fi lings decreased 4.9% in justice courts, from 11,723 to 11,152. Petitions for
Injunctions Against Harassment increased 1.3% from 10,803 to 10,943.
• Total cases pending rose by 3.4% from 651,888 on July 1, 2006 to 673,748 on June 30, 2007.
Municipal Courts
• Case fi lings in FY 2007 increased 5.6% from FY
2006. Total case terminations increased 5.3% in
the same period.
• Civil and criminal traffi c fi lings, which comprise
about three-fourths of all municipal court cases,
increased 9.4%, from 1,048,225 in FY 2006 to
1,147,182 in FY 2007.
• Criminal misdemeanor case fi lings increased 1.9% from 237,506 in FY 2006 to 242,080 in FY 2007.
Criminal misdemeanor case terminations decreased 5.2% from 290,408 in FY 2006 to 275,243 in FY 2007.
• Domestic violence petitions decreased 0.9% from 12,460 in FY 2006 to 12,344 in FY 2007. Petitions for
Injunction Against Harassment decreased 0.2%, from 8,940 in FY 2006 to 8,919 in FY 2007.
• Total cases pending increased 9.9%, from 835,644 on July 1, 2006 to 918,587 on June 30, 2007.
23
Juvenile Court Referrals
• The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of
Arizona adult probation departments at the end of
FY 2007 increased 12.3% from 72,661 on July 1,
2006 to 82,222 on June 30, 2007.
• Of the 82,822 under the jurisdiction of adult
probation, 41,146 were on standard probation,
2,677 on intensive probation, and 35,234 were
on administrative supervision (unsupervised,
report only, deported, etc). 1,432 of the actively
supervised probationers were interstate compact
cases.
• There were 72,351 referrals to juvenile court in FY
2007, a 0.6% decrease compared to 72,779 in the
previous year.
• 74,007 referrals were terminated in FY 2007, a
1.6% decrease compared to the 75,223 referrals
terminated in FY 2006.
Juvenile Probation/Corrections
• A total of 29,088 petitions were fi led in FY 2007,
a 0.3% increase from the 29,010 petitions fi led in
FY 2006.
• A total of 27,585 petitions were terminated in FY
2007, a 1.5% decrease from the 27,992 terminated
in FY 2006.
Adult Probation Juvenile Court Petitions
• The number of juveniles on probation at the end
of FY 2007 increased 1.2% from 8,806 on July 1,
2006 to 8,916 on June 30, 2007.
• A total of 8,799 adjudicated juveniles were placed
on probation in FY 2007, a 1.3% increase from the
8,686 youths placed on probation in FY 2006.
• 8,613 juveniles were released from probation, an
increase of 0.8% from the 8,548 terminated last
year.
• 692 juveniles were committed to the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY
2007, a decrease of 14.6% from the 810 committed
last year.
24
Revenue
• Total statewide court revenue increased 10.9%
from $323.2 million in FY 2006 to $358.5 million
in FY 2007, refl ecting the continuing efforts of
the courts statewide to collect court-ordered fi nes,
fees, and surcharges. See Graph A.
• Graph B represents the trend in increased court
revenue above the $70 million benchmark
established in FY 1988. Since that time, courts
have collected approximately $2.14 billion in
additional revenue.
• Of the total court system revenue, the state
received 38.7%, counties received 31.3% and
cities and towns 30.0%. See Graph C.
• 50.6% of total court revenue was generated by
municipal courts, 24.4% by justice courts, 23.5%
by Superior Court and 1.5% by appellate courts.
See Graph D.
• Total restitution payments for victims collected by
courts decreased 6.1% from $20.5 million in FY
2006 to $19.2 million in FY 2007.
Graph A — Arizona Court Revenue Graph B — Arizona Court Revenue Above Benchmark
Graph C — Revenue Generated by Government Graph D — Revenue Received by Court
Statewide Revenue
and Expenditures Summary
25
Expenditure
• Total statewide court expenditures increased
10.6% from $631.6 million in FY 2006 to $698.8
million in FY 2007. See Graph A.
• 64.6% of the total funds spent by the court system
were from the counties, 20.7% from the state,
13.5% from cities and towns, and 1.2% from
federal and private sources. See Graph B.
• 70.8% of total court expenditures were in Superior
Court (including probation), 13.5% in municipal
courts, 9.6% at the appellate level (including
statewide administration) and 6.1% in the justice
courts. See Graph C.
Graph A — Arizona Court Expenditures
Graph B — Funds Expended by Source Graph C — Funds Expended by Court
The data contained in this report was compiled from the Supreme Court fi nancial records, caseload reports from courts, and responses to
the unaudited Supreme Court survey of expenditures and revenues for fi scal year 2007 (July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007). All data received
by the publication deadline is included, but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the 2007 Arizona Courts
Data Report in early 2008.
© 2008 Arizona Supreme Court
Published by
Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Offi ce of the Courts
1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 411
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3231
602-452-3300 TDD
www.supreme.state.az.us
This publication may be provided in an alternative format or other assistance may be provided upon request by an qualifi ed individual
with a disability under the provisions of The Americans with Disabilities Act.
26