Equitable treatment of minority youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system: a follow-up to the 1993 equitable treatment report

              COMMISSION ON MINORITIES
EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF MINORITY YOUTH
IN
THE ARIZONA JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
A FOLLOW-UP TO THE 1993 EQUITABLE TREATMENT REPORT
2002
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth
On behalf of the Juvenile Services Subcommittee of the Supreme Court Commission on
Minorities and the Ad Hoc Committee, I am pleased to forward to the Commission and the Chief
Justice this report card on minority youth over-representation in the State of Arizona. It
represents an update and evaluation of years of work among diverse public and private agencies
addressing vexingly complex problems with varying levels of success.
Not quite ten years ago the original study was done and, like similar “studies” and “evaluations,”
it was professionally prepared, presented, debated, and forgotten. However, while the study may
have been forgotten, many of its recommendations and the spirit of the document lived on in new
programs, policies and, perhaps most importantly, continued attention at the highest levels of
state government to the fact minority youth over-representation was, indeed, a problem to begin
with. Of all the information presented in this report card, this is the most encouraging for me:
there is ongoing acknowledgment our minority youth need help and in incremental steps, things
can change for the better. Studies come and go, attentions shift from crisis to crisis from fiscal
year to the next, but underlying these changes appears to be a constancy that over representation
is considered a problem across agencies and positive progress is being made. That is the hopeful
part.
But I strongly urge all who read this to not mistake direction for destination. They aren’t the
same and we haven’t arrived yet, not by a long shot. Significant problems remain and, as you
will see in some areas, things have actually gotten worse. Perhaps the best way to put this is that
the upward spiral of over-representation appears to have stopped-except in a couple troubling
areas - but solid downward trends remain to be realized.
I trust the information here will serve as a basis for comparison and evaluation. I also trust it will
spur more debate and keep the issues raised during that process in agency and governmental
awareness for several more years. I hope that awareness, in turn, will become the future
programs, policies, and initiatives that will remain long after this document, too, is shelved and
forgotten.
In closing, I want to sincerely thank all who took part in the preparation of this report card and
whose names follow. The work is admirable, important, and relevant; it could not have been
done without them.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jon T. Perez, Ph.D.
Committee Chair
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth
Commission on Minorities
CHAIR:
Gerald P. Richard II, Esq.
Director, Legal Support Division
Phoenix Police Department
MEMBERS
HONORABLE FRANCISCA COTA,
Vice Chair
Phoenix Municipal Court Judge
Phoenix, AZ
HELENE ABRAMS
Juvenile Division Chief,
Maricopa Public Defender
Phoenix, AZ
ALEX S. ARREDONDO
Health Safari Coordinator,
BlueCross BlueShield of Arizona
Phoenix, AZ
MIKE BAUMSTARK
Deputy Administrative Director
Arizona Supreme Court
HONORABLE ROBERT CASTILLO
Tucson Municipal Court Judge
Tucson, AZ
PATRICIA L. CORDOVA
Arizona Dept. of Juvenile Corrections
Phoenix, AZ
HONORABLE TRAVIS FLORES, SR.
Chief Judge
Colorado River Indian Tribe
Parker, AZ
CAROLE COLES HENRY
Director, City of Phoenix
Equal Opportunity Department
Phoenix, AZ
JAMES C. KITT Supervisor,
Pima County Juvenile Court
Tucson, AZ
LISA S. LOO
Associate General Counsel,
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
CHRIS B. NAKAMURA*
Attorney,
Gibson, Nakamura, & Decker
Tucson, AZ
HONORABLE ROXANNE K. SONG ONG
Assistant Presiding Judge
Phoenix Municipal Court
Phoenix, AZ
JON T. PEREZ, Ph.D.
Director, Behavioral Health Services
Phoenix Indian Medical Center
Phoenix, AZ
BETTY G. SANCHEZ
Retired Teacher
Superior, AZ
MARGARITA SILVA
Maricopa Public Defender
Attorney/Community Relations Coordinator
Phoenix, AZ
CHERYLN K. TOWNSEND
Director
Maricopa County Juvenile Court Services
Mesa, AZ
*Deceased, May 19, 2002
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth
Commission on Minorities
Ad Hoc Committee on Updating the Findings
Of the 1993 Equitable Treatment Report by the
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Dr. Jon Perez, Ad Hoc Committee Chairman
Director of Behavioral Health Services, Phoenix Indian Medical Center
Helene Abrams, Maricopa Public Defender’s Office
Patricia L. Cordova, Arizona Dept. of Juvenile Corrections
Mitch Halfpenny, Maricopa Juvenile Court Center
Dr. Sandra Perez, Arizona Community Foundation
Dr. John Vivian, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Dr. Richard Wood, Pima County Juvenile Court Center
Commission Staff Members
Administrative Office of the Courts
State Courts Building
1501 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
TED WILSON
Court Services Division, Suite 410
Phone: (602) 542-9363
E-mail: twilson@supreme.sp.state.AZ.us
DONNA NORIEGA
Juvenile Justice Services Division, Suite 337
Phone: (602) 542-9451
E-mail: dnoriega@supreme.sp.state.AZ.us
SONYA PIERCE-JOHNSON
Juvenile Justice Services Division, Suite 337
Phone: (602) 542-9455
E-mail: sjohnson@supreme.sp.state.AZ.us
DEBORAH ORR (D'Orr)
Court Services Division, Suite 410
Phone: (602) 542-9360
E-mail: dorr@supreme.sp.state.AZ.us
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii
Quantitative Summary ............................................................................................................. iii
Qualitative Summary ............................................................................................................... iv
Recommendations................................................................................................................... vi
Maricopa County Comparisons ............................................................................................... ix
Pima County Comparisons ........................................................................................................x
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1
Legislative Impact......................................................................................................................1
Commission on Juvenile Justice ................................................................................................1
1994 Juvenile Justice Omnibus Bill and Subsequent Rule Changes .........................................2
1995 Victim’s Rights .................................................................................................................2
1996 Competency to Stand Trial ...............................................................................................2
Proposition 102 ..........................................................................................................................3
1997 Senate Bill 1446................................................................................................................3
Quantitative Update .........................................................................................................................3
Juvenile Population....................................................................................................................4
Referral .....................................................................................................................................4
Detention.................................................................................................................................10
Probation.................................................................................................................................16
Commitment ............................................................................................................................22
Adult Prosecution (Transfer) ...................................................................................................28
Qualitative Update .........................................................................................................................34
Summary of the Interviews and Focus Groups........................................................................36
A Common Thread ............................................................................................................36
Progress Acknowledged.....................................................................................................37
Focus Group Questions............................................................................................................38
Services.............................................................................................................................38
Staffing Questions..............................................................................................................45
Training Questions.............................................................................................................46
Administration Questions ..................................................................................................47
Qualitative Analysis Summary ................................................................................................52
Recommendations...................................................................................................................52
Glossary of Terms..........................................................................................................................55
Flow Chart Juvenile Delinquency/Incorrigible Acts .....................................................Appendix A
A Comparative Analysis Pima County .......................................................................... Appendix B
AZ Department of Juvenile Corrections Commitment Practices .................................. Appendix C
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth ii
Executive Summary
Juvenile Minority Over-Representation: Progress Made, Progress Needed
Over-representation occurs when a larger proportion of a particular group is present at various
stages within the juvenile justice system (such as intake, detention and adjudication) than would
be expected, based on their proportion in the general population.
In 1993, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Council1 published The Equitable Treatment Of
Minority Youth: A Report On The Over-Representation Of Minority Youth In Arizona’s
Juvenile Justice System.2 This report used 1990 census data to examine the extent to which race
and ethnicity influence decision-making (over-representation of minority youth) within the
juvenile justice system.
Since publication of the initial findings in 1993, the Commission on Minorities (COM) has
sponsored, undertaken, or coordinated a number of activities to address the problem of over-representation.
As part of its work, the COM established an ad hoc subcommittee to assess the
progress made from 1990 to 2000 in the area of minority representation in Arizona’s juvenile
justice system.
This report details the subcommittee’s findings. Its purpose is to assess progress by comparing
data from 1990 to 2000 and to offer recommendations for change. It represents a snapshot of the
juvenile justice population following specific decision points and provides comparisons based on
rates per 1000 youth for each juvenile justice system stage. The stages of the system are:
■ Referrals
■ Detention
■ Probation
■ Commitment
■ Adult Prosecution (Juveniles Prosecuted in Adult Court)
This report provides data that allows policy makers and others to assess change between the
earlier research and current reality. It represents a starting point; and is not based on rigorous
research - the intent is not to replicate the 1993 study and, as such, excludes much of the
multivariate analysis conducted in 1993.
1 Arizona Governor Fife Symington Executive Order 97-6, dated June 26, 1996, created the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission within the Governor’s Division for Children. The corresponding responsibilities of the Juvenile Justice
Advisory Council were transferred to the Juvenile Justice Commission.
2 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: A Report on the Over-Representation of Minority Youth in Arizona”
Juvenile Justice System. Published by the Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Council, Minority Youth Issues
Committee. Dr. P. Bortner, et al, July 1993. This report examined the extent to which race and ethnicity influence
decision making within the juvenile justice system and to examine the extent to which these factors influence tie
interactions between youth, parents, community members and individuals working with in the juvenile justice
system.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth iii
Further, readers must recognize that the demographics for the juvenile population shifted
dramatically between 1990 and 2000.3 For example, the estimated Anglo youth population in
Maricopa and Pima Counties increased by about 7%. At the same time the aggregate minority
youth population nearly doubled. Also, during the last ten years several significant changes have
been made in juvenile court rules and Arizona law. Most noteworthy is Proposition 102, which
radically altered the juvenile justice system. With these changes in mind, the following
summarizes some of the findings.
Quantitative Summary
In 1990, minority youth were likely to have less favorable outcomes than Anglo youth that
commit comparable offenses4. In 2000, using reported data and a comprehensive qualitative
process - where key stakeholders were interviewed and focus group sessions were held with
individuals actively involved in the juvenile justice system - there is substantive agreement that
minority youth are still over-represented when compared to their Anglo counterparts for
comparable offenses.
The quantitative data demonstrates some improvement but the problem of over-representation
still exists. Minority youth are still more likely to be referred to juvenile court, be detained, and
face trial in adult court than are Anglo youth. A graphical review of the changes between 1990
and 2000 for each minority youth, by category, for Maricopa and Pima Counties is included at
the end of this summary.
Regarding the prosecution of juveniles in adult court, major and significant changes occurred in
Arizona during the 1990s. In particular, Proposition 102 was passed in 1996 with subsequent
enabling legislation (SB 1446) enacted in 1997. This bill mandated the direct filing to adult
court of juveniles 15 years and older who commit the following offenses: murder, rape, forcible
sexual assault, armed robbery, drive-by shootings, shooting at an occupied structure, and
aggravated assault that causes serious physical injury. As enacted, Senate Bill 1446 allows the
prosecution to decide which juveniles age 14 and older to prosecute in adult court. The result
significantly expands the category of children who are subject to direct filing. Juvenile court
judges, however, continue to decide whether to transfer younger suspects or those charged with
lesser offenses.
So, who is better off - who is not?
■ For Referrals (Table R6) to the juvenile justice system, the rates decreased for Hispanic,
African American and Native American youth (except in Pima county) in 2000 compared
to 1990. Even with these improvements nearly one in every twelve Hispanic youth,
nearly one in every six African American youth and nearly one in every nine Native
American youth in Maricopa County are referred to the juvenile justice system. These
numbers have added significance because all charges and subsequent juvenile justice
system activity stem from a referral.
3 U. S. Census data
4 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: A Report on the Over-Representation of Minority Youth n Arizona’s
Juvenile Justice System.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth iv
■ At the Detention stage (Table D15), again, the rates decreased in both Maricopa and Pima
County, except for Native American youth in Maricopa County. The rate for Native
American youth went up in 2000 compared to 1990.
■ At Probation (Table P24), changes are less promising. There is improvement for
Hispanic youth in Maricopa County. The reverse is true for Hispanic youth in Pima
County. Rates for African American youth are lower in both Counties. Native American
youth continue to experience a high probation rate, especially in Maricopa County.
■ Regarding commitments to the Department of Juvenile Corrections, there have been
obvious reductions in the Commitment (Table C33) rates among all minority youth
populations. However, significant differences in the rates of commitment remain. For
example, in 2000, Hispanic and Native American youth in Maricopa County are twice
as likely to be committed to the ADJC and African American youth are three times
more likely to be committed than are Anglo youth. In Pima County, similar disparities
exist.
■ Prosecution in adult court (Table T42) by direct file, or transfer from juvenile court, is
where the most troubling data are to be found. Dramatic increases are seen among
Hispanic, Native American, and African American youth in Pima County. African
American youth in Maricopa County show an encouraging trend - a reduction in the rate
of prosecution from 1990 to 2000. This is the point on the continuum where data on
comparable offenses would be illuminating.
Qualitative Summary
A total of twelve interviews and five focus group sessions were conducted, resulting in input
from 62 individuals. Participants were identified by the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) from the following organizations/government agencies:
■ Administrative Office of the Courts
■ Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
■ Maricopa County Juvenile Court Center
■ Pima County Juvenile Court Center
■ Community-based agencies
■ Commission/Board members
An overarching theme is the perceived lack of meaningful progress. Many of the participants did
not see that much had changed, other than awareness. Most thought that more culturally
competent services were available, but that minority youth and families continue having
problems accessing these providers. Several respondents reported that although they may have
contracts to provide services to minority youth, they do not get the referrals. Although a contract
might be in effect, lack of referrals means that no revenues are generated. It also raises questions
about where, if at all, these children are being served.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth v
The issue of accountability generated numerous comments. Funding agencies report a problem
sustaining programs, indicating that some minority providers are unable to meet contract
requirements over an extended period of time. Although technical assistance has been provided
to agencies to meet administrative requirements, problems reportedly continue. Funding
agencies also cite both clinical and programmatic competence as elements of accountability.
These elements give agencies a yardstick to use in maintaining the same level of accountability
for all providers.
Conversely, providers see the contracting process as politicized, with numerous organizations
unwilling to relinquish funding that has been in place for years. Providers also called for
accountability by the system. These providers feel that some programs continue to be funded
even though their results and efficacy are questionable, and that there is no system consequence
for disproportionate minority confinement. Numerous providers saw litigation as the only
recourse to change this perceived lack of system accountability.
There was a constant reference to the continued use of an Anglo-based middle class treatment
model by numerous focus group participants. This was seen as particularly true for Latino
clients. If Latinos go to a counselor who they perceive lacks understanding of and/or
appreciation for their culture, they are not likely to utilize these services.
Respondents considered bias in assessment as a problem. Several respondents indicated that
minority youth score high on the juvenile detention index. This index is the tool used to arrive at
the score that determines if a youth should be detained. Using this index, screening is done when
the youth is brought to a detention center and may result in an increased chance of detention.
The score reportedly increases if transportation is lacking, there is evidence of poverty, lack of
education, or parents who are not available or unreachable. The risk assessment instrument
records seriousness of the presenting charge, prior history, legal status, and both mitigating and
aggravating factors - such as specific threat/injury to person, aggressiveness of offense, and
possession of a weapon. The availability of comparable offense data would assist researchers in
determining if it is the offense or the risk assessment instrument that most influences the
detention decision.
Community Justice Centers (CJC) and Boards are part of the improvement seen, and in Maricopa
County, 350 volunteers serve on boards. Data indicate a significant difference when juveniles
appear before the CJC. The respondents believed the Boards become invested in youth, and
advocate for more services. Many felt that services are available that are culturally competent
and appropriate for minority youth and families but, generally, are not competent in dealing with
delinquents.
Respondents report that recruitment of minority agencies and treatment staff has increased.
There were also numerous reports of pay bonuses for bilingual employees. Despite these efforts,
the resource pool of available treatment staff seems to be diminishing. Providers report an
inability of staff to meet the treatment needs, particularly in specialty areas of therapy for victims
of sexual abuse as well as for sexual offenders.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth vi
Clearly the participants in the focus groups and interviews hold a strong, collective vision about
the need to ensure equity in the juvenile justice system. They also share common ground in their
belief that although progress has been made, problems remain. Some are frustrated, and believe
that we should be done talking about the problem and the system should be showing more
improvement. However, those who expressed anger and frustration joined with others in
providing recommendations to promote the equitable treatment of minority youth.
Recommendations
■ Encourage and promote collaboration among the state agencies and organizations directly
involved with the juvenile justice system, including the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission, the Department of Juvenile Corrections, and other interested agencies.
● Actively engage the Minority Youth Issues Committee of the Juvenile Justice
Commission to further study the issues identified in this report.
● Collaborate with school systems to identify barriers that impact school attendance and
achievement as it relates to ethnicity and race.
■ Develop an annual “Report Card” with specific benchmarks for success each year. The
first report card should establish target rates and prioritize areas for improvement. This
report card should include the following benchmarks:
● The numbers of minority youth in the five areas (referrals, detention, probation,
commitments, transfer) of the justice system.
● Identify immediate steps that can be taken to reduce any negative changes identified
in benchmark comparisons.
■ Review detention assessment instruments and identify those variables that increase
detention of minority youth in the adult criminal system.
● Review detention index used to detain children in the juvenile detention facilities.
● Review bail guidelines used by adult criminal system to set bail for children in the
adult court.
■ Address the Administrative, Staff training, Provider Services and Staffing issues
identified in the various focus groups by developing programs that:
● Increase the number of service providers in areas where minority youth referred to the
juvenile justice system reside (services).
● Analyze policies that impact the number of minority youth in the juvenile justice
system (administrative).
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth vii
● Conduct forums with community members to collect their perception of changes in
the system since 1993 (administrative).
● Increase the number of service provider staff trained in culturally competent
curriculums that are relevant and experiential (training).
● Develop training programs specific to cultural competence that are relevant and
experiential (training).
● Increase the number of minorities that remain in the helping professions or enter the
helping professions after high school or college (staffing).
● Develop a plan to recruit and engage minority students in high school or community
colleges to enter and remain in the helping professions (staffing).
■ Identify and support the development and expansion of programs that work. These
programs include:
● Building Blocks Initiative that promotes rational and effective justice policies.
● Culturally appropriate family-centered wrap-around programs.
● Culturally appropriate blueprint programs such as Functional Family Therapy.
● Community based natural support systems.
● National and private sector strategies that address cultural competency in the
workforce.
● Develop, support, and maintain model programs and program interventions, which
have the potential to increase effective services and decrease over-representation.
In all, there are key conclusions found throughout the quantitative and qualitative data which
indicate that:
■ If minority youth over-representation is identified as a problem, things can be done to
improve the situation. It is neither hopeless, nor useless, nor too complicated to
effectively change.
■ Things are better, but "better" is not to be confused with "good”. This means minority
youth are still over-represented, in some cases by several times their representation in the
general community. What is better is that those rates have reduced from even higher
rates of over-representation in many areas.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth viii
■ There are policies, programs, and methods that work. Support and encouragement for
these to continue and expand is critical.
■ Coordination among private and public agencies in the state that work with the juvenile
justice system is critical. A coherent and coordinated strategy should be developed
among these groups to share resources and responsibilities in an ongoing, collaborative
fashion.
■ There is the need for ongoing evaluation and assessment. Regular "report cards" and
similar evaluative tools should be continued to assess progress and keep the issues in
public awareness.
We should not give up. There can be positive change and it can continue.
Lastly, we would like to extend a special thanks to the numerous individuals and organizations
that assisted in preparing this report. Without them, this project could not have been completed.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth ix
Maricopa County Comparisons
Hispanic Youth
16%
36%
30%
37% 38%
40%
34% 37%
45% 44%
31%
51%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
African American Youth
3% 4%
11%
9%
16%
12% 12%
8%
18%
12%
29%
11%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
Native American Youth
2% 2%
3% 3% 3%
4%
2%
3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
Asian Pacific Island & Other Youth
2%
5%
1%
2%
1% 1% 1%
2%
1%
0% 0% 0%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth x
Pima County Comparisons
Hispanic Youth
36%
38% 39%
43%
37%
43%
38%
45% 44%
49%
35%
50%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
African American Youth
4% 4%
9%
7%
9% 9%
11%
8%
14%
9%
12%
11%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
Native American Youth
4%
5%
3%
4%
3%
6%
4%
5%
2%
5%
0%
4%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
Asian Pacific Island & Other Youth
2%
5%
1%
2%
1% 1% 1%
2%
1%
0% 0% 0%
1990 2000
Population Referrals Detention Probation Commitment Transfer
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 1
Introduction
The Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court established the Commission on Minorities in the
Judicial Department in 1990. One of the Commission’s objectives is to coordinate with public
and private sector programs seeking to address the problems created by over representation of
minority youth in the juvenile justice system. In this spirit of cooperation, the Commission on
Minorities has sponsored or undertaken numerous activities since 1993, when the Arizona
Juvenile Justice Advisory Council5 published the Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: A
Report on the Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in Arizona’s Juvenile Justice System.
In its continuing role, the Commission on Minorities recognizes the need to evaluate progress
made in the over representation of minority youth in Arizona’s juvenile justice system. In 2000,
the Commission on Minorities established an ad hoc committee to update the findings of the
1993 Equitable Treatment Report. This follow-up report details the subcommittee’s findings as
derived from quantitative and qualitative data collected from both Pima and Maricopa Counties.
Legislative Impact
Since the 1993 Equitable Treatment Report, significant changes to juvenile delinquency laws
have occurred - impacting the way that juveniles are processed through the justice system. In
general, there has been a toughening up of laws that respond to less serious offenses like truancy,
curfew, possession of tobacco and alcohol. Some are now classified as misdemeanors instead of
status offenses. These legislative and rule changes should to be considered when reviewing this
report. Some legislative highlights follow.
Commission on Juvenile Justice
The Commission on Juvenile Justice in Arizona was formed in 1993 by then Chief Justice
Stanley G. Feldman6. This advisory committee was formed to assess problems confronting the
juvenile justice system, provide recommendations on ways to make the system more effective in
responding to the problems facing Arizona youth, families and communities and recommend
improvements. The “Report of The Commission on Juvenile Justice” recommended dramatic
changes to the juvenile justice system to better protect society while delivering a continuum of
effective treatment to delinquent juveniles and those at risk of delinquency. Many of the
commission’s recommendations were the basis for the 1994 Juvenile Justice Omnibus bill.
5 See footnote 1.
6 Arizona Judicial Council Commission on Juvenile Justice in Arizona was established by Supreme Court of
Arizona, Administrative Order 93-27, June 1, 1993
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 2
1994 Juvenile Justice Omnibus Bill and Subsequent Rule Changes:
Commitment Guidelines
The Juvenile Justice Omnibus Bill required the development of guidelines to be used to
determine which children should and which should not be committed to the Department of
Juvenile Corrections. The effective date of the guidelines was October 1, 1995.
Length of Stay Guidelines
Also included in the Omnibus Bill was a requirement that guidelines be developed for how long
a juvenile should stay at the Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). In addition, the bill
allowed the court to impose a minimum stay at the department, which required the ADJC to keep
the juvenile until, at least, the imposed minimum time was served.
Presumptive Transfer
The Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court were changed for the transfer process. The
changes specified the circumstances under which a presumption is made that a child will be
transferred to adult court, provided there is a proven preponderance of evidence to warrant
transfer.
Deferred Transfer
This rule change allowed the court to delay the decision on transfer and thereby allowed the child
an opportunity to demonstrate (on a probation-like status) that transfer was not necessary.
1995 Victim’s Rights
Numerous changes to the practice of juvenile law resulted from the adoption of victim’s rights
legislation. The most significant change required that victims be notified of court hearings and
be allowed a voice at every stage of the proceeding. Mandated discussions with the victim about
offers to resolve cases impacted the resolution of some cases.
1996 Competency to Stand Trial
Patterned after the adult competency to stand trial statutes passed in 1995 juvenile competency to
stand trial legislation required that a juvenile be able to understand the proceedings and assist
counsel before the case could proceed. Statutory procedures were created to allow mental health
expert evaluation of juveniles to determine competency. Provisions for restoration services were
also included in these statutes.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 3
Proposition 102
This ballot initiative passed in the November 1996 election. The proposition amended the
Arizona Constitution to allow prosecution in adult court any juvenile 15 years and older who is
accused of certain offenses. These offenses are any class 1 or 2 felony and any class 3 felony
with some exceptions. Other provisions included definitions for “other violent offenses”,
“chronic felony offender” and “forcible sexual assault”, codifying transfer procedures, shifting
diversion to the sole discretion of the county attorney and amending the process for expunging
and destroying juvenile records.
1997 Senate Bill 1446
The implementation legislation for Proposition 102 made dramatic changes to the juvenile and
adult criminal practices of law. Added by statute were the provisions that the prosecutor could
choose to file in adult criminal court on a child 14 or older if they believed the child committed
any class 1 or 2 felony, any class 3 felony with some exceptions. e.g. theft and some drug
offenses and any class 3, 4, 5, or 6 felony if it involved intentional or knowing infliction of
serious physical injury or the discharge, use, or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or
dangerous instrument. Other violent offenses, chronic felony offender and forcible sexual
assault were defined in the implementation legislation. Transfer procedures were codified in this
package. Diversion became the sole discretion of the county attorney. The process to expunge
and destroy juvenile records was also amended. Additionally, as a result of this bill juvenile
hearings and records were opened for the first time in Arizona.
Quantitative Update
Overrepresentation refers to a situation in which a larger proportion of a particular group is
present at various stages within the juvenile justice system (such as intake, detention,
adjudication, and disposition) than would be expected based on their proportion in the general
population. This update on the 1993 data is based on rates/1000 youth in each ethnic group for
the following stages of the juvenile justice system7:
■ Referrals
■ Detention
■ Probation
■ Commitment
■ Adult Prosecution (Transfer to Adult Court)
7 For an understanding of each of these stages, refer the flow chart at Appendix A.
8 These figures represent the juvenile population for Maricopa and Pima counties and are interpolated from 2000
census data, using the ethnic breakdown for the population under age 18 then estimating that each age-year was
equal to each other age-year in terms of population and ethnicity.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 4
Juvenile Population
During the period between the 1990 and the 2000 census, the Hispanic population of Maricopa
County more than doubled - from 16% to 36%. During this time period the Hispanic population
of Pima County increased from 36% to 39% of the total youth population. The populations of
other ethnic groups increased slightly.
Table 1 Estimated Juvenile Population - Youth 8 to 17 years old8
Maricopa County Pima County
1990 2000 1990 2000
Population Population Population Population
Anglo 228,824 77% 244,810 53% 37,457 55% 61,404 46%
Hispanic 48,292 16% 165,016 36% 24,717 36% 52,624 39%
African Amer 9,902 3% 19,623 4% 2,508 4% 4,727 4%
Native Amer 4,510 2% 8,548 2% 2,649 4% 6,153 5%
Asian/Pacific I.* 4,751 2% 9,037 2%
Other 338 <1% 12,968 3% 1,159 2% 8,917 7%
TOTAL 296,617 100% 460,002 100% 68,490 100% 133,825 100%
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
The charts presented for each point on the juvenile justice continuum depict a comparison of
rates/1000 youth from 1990 and 2000 along with a percent increase/decrease in these rates for the
decade. Another set of charts shows the change using the percent in the youth population for
comparison. These frequencies are the most commonly cited in the literature on
overrepresentation of minority youth and the most easily understood. Subjecting the data to more
rigorous analysis lends more precision to the interpretations. Pima County conducted such
analyses for this update. That report can be found in the Appendix B.
Referral
Referrals are received from a variety of sources including law enforcement, schools, parents, and
the public but the majority of referrals come from law enforcement. The charts that follow show
the raw numbers, percentages, and rates for referral for Maricopa and Pima Counties for 1990
and 2000.
Since all charges stem from referrals it is significant to note that the number of referrals per
1,000 youth in each minority group decreased during the period between 1990 and 2000. There
is, however, still over-representation of Hispanic, African American, and Native American youth
when compared with their presence in the youth population for both Maricopa and Pima
Counties. In Maricopa County, nearly one in every twelve Hispanic youth, nearly one in every
nine Native American youth and nearly one in every six African American youth are referred to
the juvenile justice system.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 5
Conversely, in Maricopa County in 1990, Anglos represent a significantly smaller proportion of
the referred population when compared with their representation in the youth population - 77%
vs. 56% of referrals. The data for Anglo youth in 2000 show some change towards more
equitable numbers - 53% vs. 49% - within Maricopa County.
Table R2 Referral Rates - Maricopa County 1990 and 2000
Maricopa County 1990 Maricopa County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 16,179 (56%) 228,824 70.7 17,752 (49%) 244,810 72.5
Hispanic 8,767 (30%) 48,292 181.5 13,607 (38%) 165,016 82.5
African Am 3,100 (11%) 9,902 313.1 3,086 (9%) 19,623 157.3
Native Am 848 (3%) 4,501 188.0 951 (3%) 8,548 111.3
Asian/Pac I. 157 (1%) 4,751 33.0 176 (<1%) 9,037 19.5
Other 73 (<1%) 338 216.0 430 (1%) 12,968 33.2
TOTAL 29,124 296,617 190.9 36,002 460,002 77.6
Overall
Minority
12,945 67,784 191.0 18,250 215,192 84.8
Maricopa County Minority Youth Referral Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 56%
Similar to Maricopa County, between 1990 and 2000 there was a decrease in referrals in Pima
County for Hispanic youth and African American youth. The referral rate per 1,000 Native
American youth remained unchanged.
Table R3 Referral Rates - Pima County 1990 and 2000
Pima County 1990 Pima County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 3,422 (50%) 37,457 91.4 4,103 (43%) 61,404 66.8
Hispanic 2,449 (36%) 24,717 99.1 4,078 (43%) 52,624 77.5
African Am 499 (7%) 2,508 199.0 708 (7%) 4,727 149.8
Native Am 163 (2%) 2,649 61.5 379 (4%) 6,153 61.6
Asian/Pac I. * *
Other 269 (4%) 1,159 232.1 245 (3%) 8,917 27.5
TOTAL 6,802 68,490 116.4 9,513 133,825 74.7
Overall
Minority
3,380 31,033 108.9 5,410 72,421 74.7
Pima County Minority Youth Referral Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 31%
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 6
Chart R4 Referral Rates for Juvenile Population-Maricopa County
In addition to the referral rates above, the following two charts graphically show the comparative
change in the number of youth referred by Maricopa and Pima counties for 1990 vs 2000.
Maricopa County
Referral Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
216
33
188
313
182
71
19 33
111
157
73 82
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
1990 2000
Chart R5 Referral Rates for Juvenile Population-Pima County
Pima County
Referral Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
199
62
232
67 77
150
62
27
91 99
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I.* Others *
1990 2000
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 7
Change in Referral Rates 1990 - 2000
There has been a relative decrease in the referral rates for minority youth in both Maricopa and
Pima counties. The table below shows the percent change, by group, in referrals to the juvenile
justice system. Between 1990 and 2000 the rate of referral increased for Anglo youth and
decreased significantly for all minority groups in Maricopa County.
Table R6 Change in Referral Rates 1990 - 2000
Amount Increase/Decrease
1990-2000
Maricopa County Pima County
Anglo + 3% -26%
Hispanic - 55% -22%
African Am - 50% -25%
Native Am - 41% +0.2%
Asian/Pac I.* - 41%
Other - 85% -88%
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
Expected vs Actual Percentage
The following charts illustrate expected versus actual referral percentages in 1990 and in 2000
and are used to show the differences between the percent of juveniles, represented within the
overall population (by category), versus the percent who are referred into the juvenile justice
system.
The 1990 and 2000 actual versus expected percentage charts in this section, and in all other
sections, demonstrate that although Anglo youth continue to receive a comparatively smaller
ratio of activity than their representation in the overall population, the numbers are improving so
that there is, generally, less over-representation of minority youth groups.
Note that the 1990 actual percent was nearly twice the expected percent for Hispanic youth and
nearly three times the expected percent for African American youth.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 8
Table R7 Expected vs. Actual Referrals 1990 - Maricopa County
In contrast to 1990, in 2000 the actual percent for Hispanic youth in Maricopa County is only
slightly higher (5%) than the expected percent. The percent for African American youth is still
significantly higher, over twice the expected percent.
Referral
Maricopa County
77%
16%
3% 2% 2% 1%
56%
30%
11%
3% 1% 0%
Anglo Hispanic Af. Amer Nat. Amer Asian/Pac Other
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table R8 Expected vs. Actual Referrals 2000 - Maricopa County
Referrals
Maricopa County
53%
36%
4% 2% 2% 3%
49%
38%
9%
3%
0% 1%
Anglo Hispanic Af. Amer Nat. Amer Asian/Pac Other
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 9
Table R9 Expected vs. Actual Referrals 1990 - Pima County
In Pima County, the proportion of actual referrals for Hispanic and Native American youth
increased from 1990 to 2000.
Referrals
Pima County
55%
36%
4% 4% 2%
50%
36%
7%
2% 4%
Anglo Hispanic Af. Amer Nat. Amer Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table R10 Expected vs Actual Referrals 2000 - Pima County
Referrals
Pima County
50%
39%
4% 4% 3%
43% 43%
7%
4% 3%
Anglo Hispanic African Am Native Am Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 10
Detention
The decision to detain a youth is based on a review of his or her charge(s), history, aggravating
factors, and a determination as to whether or not the youth is a danger to self or the community.
A Juvenile Court Judicial Officer reviews the decision to detain within 24 hours after it is made.
Since 1990 both Maricopa and Pima County have increased the number of detention beds. In
Maricopa County, the Juvenile Probation Department manages and operates two detention
facilities: a 149-bed facility located at 3125 West Durango in Phoenix and a 128-bed facility
located at 1810 South Lewis in Mesa. The Pima County facility, located on Ajo Way, has a
capacity of 306 beds.
In Maricopa County, the gap between the expected and actual percentage of Anglos detained was
dramatically narrowed between 1990 and 2000. While the precise cause for this improvement is
unknown, several persons interviewed for the qualitative update referenced the imposition of the
zero tolerance for violence on school property program as a key factor.
In both Maricopa and Pima Counties, improvement in detention rates is noted for minority youth.
The exception is Hispanic youth in Pima County. Overall the data shows that, still, Anglo youth
are statistically less likely to be detained than Hispanic, African American and Native American
youth.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 11
Table D11 Detention Rates - Maricopa County 1990 and 2000
Maricopa County 1990 Maricopa County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 2,268 (43%) 228,824 9.9 4,413 (43%) 244,810 18.0
Hispanic 1,988 (37%) 48,292 41.2 4,053 (40%) 165,016 24.6
African Am 847 (16%) 9,902 85.5 1192 (12%) 19,623 60.8
Native Am 175 (3%) 4,501 38.8 389 (4%) 8,548 45.5
Asian/Pac I. 26 (0.5%) 4,751 5.5 43 (0.4%) 9,037 4.8
Other 10 (0.2%) 338 29.6 68 (1%) 12,968 5.2
TOTAL 5,314 296,617 90.9 10,158 460,002 77.6
Overall
Minority
3,046 67,784 44.9 5,745 215,192 26.7
Maricopa County Minority Youth Detention Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 41%
Table D12 Detention Rates - Pima County 1990 and 2000
Pima County 1990 Pima County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 1,217 (49%) 37,457 32.5 1,287 (41%) 61,404 21.0
Hispanic 915 (37 %) 24,717 37.0 1,327 (43%) 52,624 25.0
African Am 230 (9 %) 2,508 91.7 281 (9%) 4,727 59.4
Native Am 82 (3%) 2,649 31.0 178 (6%) 6,153 28.9
Asian/Pac I.
Other 38 (2%) 1,159 32.8 40 (1%) 8,917 4.5
TOTAL 2,482 68,490 116.4 3,113 133,825 74.7
Overall
Minority
1,265 31,033 40.8 1,826 72,421 25.2
Pima County Minority Youth Detention Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 38%
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 12
Juvenile Population Detention Rates Per 1,000 Juveniles
The following charts for Maricopa and Pima illustrate that the actual rate per 1,000 minority
youth declined in both Maricopa and Pima counties, with the exception of Native American
youth in Maricopa County.
Table D13 Detention Rates for Juvenile Population Maricopa County
Maricopa County
Detention Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
10
41
86
39
5
30
18
25
61
46
5 5
Anglo Hispanic African Am Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
1990 2000
Table D14 Detention Rates for Juvenile Population Pima County
Pima County
Detention Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
32
37
92
31 33
21
25
59
29
4
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Others *
1990 2000
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 13
Changes in Detention Rates 1990 - 2000
As indicated earlier, there was a decrease for all minority youth groups with the exception of
Native Americans youth in Maricopa County.
Table D15 Detention Rates - Maricopa and Pima County
Percent Increase/Decrease
1990-2000
Maricopa County Pima County
Anglo +82% -35%
Hispanic -40% -32%
African Am -29% -35%
Native Am +17% -7%
Asian/Pac I. -13%
Other -82% -86%
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other.”
Expected versus Actual Detention 1990 - 2000
The numbers for expected versus actual percentages in 1990 and in 2000 for Detention show that
the gap between expected and actual detentions is narrowing for Hispanic and African American
youth in Maricopa County. In Pima County, however, there was an increase for Hispanic and
Native American youth. Consequently, although Anglo youth continue to receive a
comparatively smaller ratio of actions, the numbers are improving and there is less over
representation of other groups.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 14
Table D16 Expected vs. Actual Detention Rates Maricopa 1990
Detention
77% Maricopa County
16%
3% 2% 2% 1%
37%
16%
3% 1% 0%
43%
Anglo Hispanic Af. Amer Nat. Amer Asian/Pac I. Other
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table D17 Expected vs. Actual Detention Rates Maricopa County 2000
Detention
Maricopa County
53%
36%
4% 2% 2% 3%
12%
4%
0% 1%
40%
43%
Anglo Hispanic Af. Amer Nat. Amer Asian/Pac I. Other
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 15
Table D18 Expected vs Actual Detention Rates Pima County 1990
As noted earlier, in Pima County there is improvement in the expected versus actual versus
percentage for Hispanic youth.
Pima County
Detention
55%
36%
4% 4% 2%
49%
37%
9%
3% 2%
Anglo Hispanic Af. Amer Nat. Amer Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table D19 Expected vs Actual Detention Rates Pima County 2000
Pima County
Detention
50%
39%
4% 4% 3%
41% 43%
9%
6%
1%
Anglo Hispanic Af Am Nat. Am Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 16
Probation
In Maricopa County, there are two Probation Services Divisions: Durango Probation Division
(West) and SEF Probation Division (East). In Pima County, Probation Services are provided out
of the facility on Ajo Way. Probation services include, but are not limited to the functions of
investigation, standard and intensive probation supervision, and reporting to the court.
Table P20 Probation Rates - Maricopa County, 1990 and 2000
The most dramatic increase for Probation occurred in Maricopa County among Anglo youth,
from considerable under representation in 1990 to more closely approximating their proportion
in the population in 2000. Hispanic youth are also represented in the Probation population at a
percentage that is closely proportionate to their presence in the youth population. African
American youth continue to be over represented in 2000, although with some improvement
shown over 1990.
Maricopa County 1990 Maricopa County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 1,125 (52%) 228,824 4.9 2,625 (50%) 244,810 10.7
Hispanic 728 (34%) 48,292 15.1 1,976 (37%) 165,016 12.0
African Am 249 (12%) 9,902 25.2 444 (8%) 19,623 22.6
Native Am 43 (2%) 4,501 9.5 153 (3%) 8,548 17.9
Asian/Pac I. 11 (1%) 4,751 2.3 26 (0.5%) 9,037 2.9
Other 6 (0.3%) 338 17.8 68 (1%) 12,968 5.2
TOTAL 2,162 296,617 90.9 5,292 460,002 77.6
Overall
Minority
1,037 67,784 15.3 2,667 215,192 12.4
Maricopa County Minority Youth Probation Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 19%
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 17
Table P21 Probation Rates - Pima County 1990 and 2000
In Pima County, Anglo youth who enter the system continue to receive probation at a lesser rate
than minority youth. Hispanic and African American youth continue to be over represented, as
do Native American youth, although to a lesser extent. In Pima County improvement over 1990
is noted among all minority populations except that of Hispanic youth.
Pima County 1990 Pima County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 427 (47%) 37,457 11.4 828 (43%) 61,404 13.5
Hispanic 347 (38%) 24,717 14.0 854 (44%) 52,624 16.2
African Am 99 (11%) 2,508 39.5 157 (8%) 4,727 33.2
Native Am 95 (4%) 2,649 13.2 89 (5%) 6,153 14.5
Asian/Pac I.
Other 7 (1%) 1,159 6.0 16 (1%) 8,917 1.8
TOTAL 915 68,490 116.4 1,944 133,825 74.7
Overall
Minority
548 31,033 17.7 1,116 72,421 15.4
Pima County Minority Youth Probation Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 13%
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 18
Table P22 Probation Rates for Juvenile Population Maricopa County
In Maricopa County the probation rate for Hispanic and African American youth decreased
slightly from 1990 to 2000. However, the rate for Native American youth increased by nearly
90% (from 9.5 to 17.9 per one thousand youth) in Maricopa County.
Maricopa County
Probation Rate (per 1000 juveniles)
5
15
25
10
2
18
11 12
23
18
3
5
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
1990 2000
Table P23 Probation Rates for Juvenile Population Pima County
In Pima County the rate for Hispanic and Native American youth increased. The rate for African
American youth decreased.
Pima County
Probation Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
11 14
39
13
6
13 16
33
14
2
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I.* Others
Rate 1990 Rate 2000
*Excludes Pima county data for Asian Pacific Islanders, who are included in "Other”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 19
Change in Probation Rates 1990 - 2000
Table P24 Change in Probation Rates Maricopa and Pima County 1990 - 2000
The number of Maricopa County Anglo youth sent to probation more than doubled between
1990 and 2000. At the same time the population (as a percent of the total youth population)
decreased and the number of referrals increased only slightly.
Also in Maricopa County, the probation rate decreased for Hispanic and African American youth
but increased by 88% and 24% respectively for Native American and Asian pacific Island youth.
Amount Increase/Decrease
1990-2000
Maricopa County Pima County
Anglo +117% +18%
Hispanic -21% +16%
African Am -10% -16%
Native Am +88% +10%
Asian/Pac I. +26%
Other -70% -70%
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 20
Expected vs. Actual Probation 1990 and 2000
Table P25 Maricopa County Probation 1990
As indicated above, when compared to the 1990 percentage numbers, the gap between the
expected and actual probation rates decreased for Hispanic and African American youth.
Probation
Maricopa County
77%
16%
3% 2% 2% 1%
34%
12%
2% 1% 0%
52%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table P26 Maricopa County Probation 2000
Probation
Maricopa County
53%
36%
4% 2% 2% 1%
37%
8%
3% 1% 0%
50%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 21
Table P27 Pima County Probation Expected vs Actual Rates - 1990
In contrast to Maricopa, in Pima County the difference between the expected and actual percent
of total probation youth population increased for Hispanic and Native American youth and
decreased slightly for African American youth.
Probation
Pima County
55%
36%
4% 4% 2%
47%
38%
11%
4%
1%
Anglo Hispanic African American Native American Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table P28 Pima County Probation Expected vs Actual - 2000
Probation
Pima County
46%
39%
4% 4%
7%
43% 44%
8%
5%
1%
Anglo Hispanic Af. Amer Nat. Amer Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 22
Commitment
Juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent, and who are the most chronically delinquent, are
committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) by the county juvenile
courts.
Obvious and visible improvement occurred n the commitment of minority youth to the ADJC
between 1990 and 2000. The number of youth committed to ADJC by Maricopa County
decreased from 610 to 417. During the same period, there was more than a 50% increase in the
number of youth committed from Pima County, from 215 in 1990 to 330 commitments in 2000.
Overall, however, the data show that Anglo youth continue to be statistically less likely to be
detained than minority youth and that, Hispanic, African American, and Native American youth
continue to be over represented in detention. African American youth showed a dramatic
improvement in the rates of commitment in both Maricopa and Pima counties. Appendix B and
C provide additional facts related to commitment of juveniles to the ADJC.
Table C29 Commitment Rates - Maricopa County 1990 and 2000
Maricopa County 1990 Maricopa County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 196 (32%) 228,824 0.86 169 (41%) 244,810 0.69
Hispanic 276 (45%) 48,292 5.72 185 (44%) 165,016 1.12
African Am 112 (18%) 9,902 11.31 49 (12%) 19,623 2.50
Native Am 19 (3%) 4,501 4.21 13 (3%) 8,548 1.52
Asian/Pac I. 5 (1%) 4,751 1.05 1 (0.2%) 9,037 0.11
Other 2 (0.3%) 338 5.92 12,968 0.00
TOTAL 610 296,617 90.9 417 460,002 77.6
Overall
Minority
414 67,784 6.1 248 215,192 1.2
Maricopa County Minority Youth Commitment Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 81%
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 23
Table C30 Commitment Rates - Pima County 1990 and 2000
Pima County 1990 Pima County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 81 (38%) 37,457 2.2 117 (35%) 61,404 1.9
Hispanic 97 (45%) 24,717 3.9 163 (49%) 52,624 3.1
African Am 30 (14%) 2,508 11.9 31 (9%) 4,727 6.6
Native Am 4 (2%) 2,649 1.5 18 (5%) 6,153 2.9
Asian/Pac I.
Other 3 (1%) 1,159 2.6 1 (0.3%) 8,917 0.1
TOTAL 215 68,490 116.4 330 133,825 74.7
Overall
Minority
134 31,033 4.3 213 72,421 2.9
Pima County Minority Youth Commitment Rate Change1990 - 2000 Decreased 32%
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 24
Table C31 Commitment Rates - Maricopa County - 1990 and 2000
The commitment rate for African American youth in Maricopa County decreased from 11.3 to
2.5, with similar decreased for Hispanic, Native American and Native American youth.
Maricopa County
Commit Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
0.9
11.3
4.2
1.1
5.9
0.7 1.1
2.5
1.5
0.1
5.7
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
1900 2000
Table C32 Commitment Rates - Pima County - 1990 and 2000
Decreases in the commitment rate occurred in Pima County for all groups with the exception of
Native American youth.
Pima County
Commit Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
2.2
3.9
11.9
1.5
1.9 2.6
3.1
6.6
2.9
0.1
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian Pac I.* Others
Rate 1990 Rate 2000
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 25
Change in Commitment Rates 1990 - 2000
Table C33 Change in Rates Commitment 1990-2000
Amount Increase/Decrease
1990-2000
Maricopa County Pima County
Anglo -20% +14%
Hispanic -80% -21%
African Am -78% -45%
Native Am -63% +94%
Asian/Pac I* -89%
Other -100% -95%
*In Pima County these figures are included in "Other"
The significant decrease in the commitment rates for Hispanic and African American youth are
noteworthy considering the increases, as a population percentage, these two groups experienced
between 1990 and 2000.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 26
Expected vs Actual Commitments 1990 and 2000
In Maricopa County, the difference between the actual and expected percent of the population
decreased significantly for Hispanic youth and slightly for African American and Asian/Pacific
Islander youth. The percents remained unchanged for Native American youth.
Table C34 Maricopa Commitments Expected vs Actual - 1990
Commitments
77% Maricopa
16%
3% 2% 2% 1%
45%
18%
3% 1% 0%
32%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac Other
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table C35 Maricopa Commitments Expected vs Actual 2000
Commitments
Maricopa
53%
36%
4% 2% 2% 3%
44%
12%
3% 0% 0%
41%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 27
Table C 36 Pima Commitments Expected vs Actual 1990
In Pima County the difference between the expected and actual percent remained relative
unchanged between 1990 and 2000. The percent for African American youth decreased slightly.
Commitments
Pima
53%
36%
4% 4% 2%
44%
12%
3% 0%
41%
Anglo Hispanic African American Native American Other
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table C37 Pima Commitments Expected vs Actual 2000
Commitments
Pima
50%
39%
4% 4% 3%
49%
9%
5%
0%
35%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native American Asian/Pac&Oth*
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in "Other"
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 28
Adult Prosecution (Transfer)
As with other points on the juvenile justice continuum, the gap between the actual percentages of
youth transferred for adult prosecution versus what might be expected given their presence in the
population has generally narrowed between 1990 and 2000. This is particularly true for Anglo
youth, in both Pima and Maricopa Counties, who continue to represent a smaller percent of the
juvenile justice population than the general population. Two exceptions are noted: (1) for
Hispanic youth, the gap is widening, i.e., the percentage transferred exceeds their presence in the
population by a greater extent in 2000 than in 1990 for both Maricopa and Pima Counties; and
(2) the same is true for African American youth in Pima County.
Significant changes occurred in Arizona during the period between 1990 and 2000 with regard to
the transfer of juveniles to the adult system. In 1996, Proposition 102 was approved by voters,
followed by enabling legislation mandating the automatic transfer to adult court of juveniles 15
years and older who commit the following offenses: murder, rape, forcible sexual assault, armed
robbery, drive-by shootings, shooting at an occupied structure, and aggravated assault that causes
serious physical injury. Other provisions of the enabling legislation gave prosecutors the
discretion of filing charges in adult criminal court on a child 14 or older if they believed the child
committed any class 1 or 2 felony, any class 3 felony with some exceptions, e.g. theft and some
drug offenses and any class 3, 4, 5, or 6 felony if it involved intentional or knowing infliction of
serious physical injury or the discharge, use, or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or
dangerous instrument. Juvenile Court Judges continue to decide whether to transfer to adult
court younger suspects or those charged with lesser crimes.
The data demonstrates that in Pima County the percent of Anglo youth transferred for adult
prosecution declined by 47%, although the rate/1000 increased slightly. However, the percent of
Hispanic youth (although equitable in 1990) increased by 43%. The 1990 high rate of transfer
for African American youth increased even more so, from 1.6 youth per 1000 to 3.2 youth per
1000 in 2000. Juveniles who prosecuted in adult court by “direct file” impact this rate in 2000
while no such juvenile law existed in 1990.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 29
Table T38 Adult Prosecution - Maricopa County 1990 and 2000
Maricopa County 1990 Maricopa County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 43 (37%) 228,824 0.2 140 (35%) 244,810 0.6
Hispanic 36 (31%) 48,292 0.8 203 (51%) 165,016 1.2
African Am 34 (29%) 9,902 3.4 43 (11%) 19,623 2.2
Native Am 3 (3%) 4,501 0.7 13 (3%) 8,548 1.5
Asian/Pac I. 0 4,751 1 (0.2%) 9,037 0.1
Other 0 338 1 (0.2%) 12,968 0.1
TOTAL 116 296,617 90.9 401 460,002 77.6
Overall
Minority
73 67,784 1.1 261 215,192 1.2
Maricopa County Minority Youth Adult Prosecution Rate Change1990 - 2000 Increased 13%
Table T39 Adult Prosecution - Pima County 1990 and 2000
Pima County 1990 Pima County 2000
Number/Percent Population Rate/1000 Number/Percent Population Rate/1000
Anglo 18 (53%) 37,457 0.5 38 (28%) 61,404 0.6
Hispanic 12 (35%) 24,717 0.5 67 (50%) 52,624 1.3
African Am 4 (12%) 2,508 1.6 15 (11%) 4,727 3.2
Native Am 2,649 6 (4%) 6,153 1.0
Asian/Pac I.
Other 1,159 8 (6%) 8,917 1.0
TOTAL 34 68,490 116.4 134 133,825 74.7
Overall
Minority
16 31,033 0.5 96 72,421 1.3
Pima County Minority Youth Adult Prosecution Rate Change1990 - 2000 Increased 157%
Note: In 1990, transfer to adult court for prosecution was exclusively determined by a judge as
part of a specific transfer hearing. In 2000, juveniles are prosecuted as adults in three different
ways: Direct file for age related crimes, discretionary file by prosecutors for juveniles 14-years-old
and above, and transfer determined by a judge as part of a specific transfer hearing.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 30
Table T40 Adult Prosecution Maricopa County 1990 - 2000
The rate for youth prosecuted in Maricopa County increased for Anglo, Hispanic and Native
American youth but declined appreciably for African American youth.
Maricopa County
Adult Prosecution Rate (per 1000 Juveniles)
1
3
1
0 0
1
1
2
2
<1% <1% <1%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac I. Other
1990 2000
Table T41 Adult Prosecution Pima County 1990 - 2000
The adult prosecution rate increased for all youth in Pima County.
Pima County
Adult Prosecution per (1000 Juveniles)
1
1 1 1
3
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac. I* Others
1990 2000
*Excludes Pima County data for Asian Pacific Islanders, which are included in “Other”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 31
Change in Adult Prosecution (Transfer) Rates 1990 - 2000
Table T42 Change in Rates of Adult Prosecution
Amount Increase/Decrease
1990-2000
Maricopa County Pima County
Anglo +200% +20%
Hispanic +50% +160%
African Am -35% +100%
Native Am +117%
Asian/Pac I.
Other
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 32
Expected vs Actual Adult Prosecution 1990 and 2000
In 1990 Hispanic youth in Maricopa County were prosecuted as adults in nearly twice the
numbers suggested by their representation within the youth population. African American youth
were prosecuted nearly at ten times their representation. In 2000 the gap between population
representation and adult prosecution narrowed.
Table T43 Adult Prosecution Expected vs Actual Maricopa County 1990
Adult Prosecution
77% Maricopa
16%
3% 2% 2% 1%
31% 29%
3% 0% 0%
37%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac Other
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table T44 Adult Prosecution Expected vs Actual Maricopa County 2000
Adult Prosecution
Maricopa
53%
36%
4% 2% 2% 3%
35%
51%
11%
3% 0% 0%
Anglo Hispanic African
American
Native
American
Asian/Pac Other
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 33
Table T45 Expected vs Actual Adult Prosecutions 1990 Pima County
In Pima County, the percent of Hispanic and Native American youth transferred for adult
prosecution increased in 2000, compared to 1990. African American youth remained basically
unchanged, although relatively high - nearly three times the expected population.
Adult Prosecution
Pima
55%
36%
4% 4% 2%
53%
35%
12%
0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Anglo African
American
Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 1990
Actual 1990
Table T46 Expected vs Actual Adult Prosecutions 2000 Pima County
Adult Prosecution
Pima
46%
39%
4% 5% 7%
50%
11%
4% 6%
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Anglo African
American
Asian/Pac&Oth
Expected 2000
Actual 2000
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 34
Qualitative Update
This section of the Report Card presents findings from the qualitative component. The data
collection strategy consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key
informants. The qualitative component was designed to enrich the quantitative data and provide
a complementary picture of the status of minority over representation.
A total of twelve interviews and five focus group sessions were conducted, resulting in input
from 62 individuals. Participants were identified by the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) and included representatives from the following organizations and government agencies:
■ Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
■ Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC)
■ Maricopa County Juvenile Court Center (MCJCC)
■ Pima County Juvenile Court Center (PCJCC)
■ Community-based agencies
■ Commission/Board Members
A series of questions was developed as a discussion guide which included topics derived from
recommendations/themes that cut across numerous reports and activities that have been
undertaken since the 1993 publication of The Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth, A Report
on the Over representation of Minority Youth in Arizona’s Juvenile Justice System. The
following studies, reports, papers, and conferences on the issue of minority over representation in
the juvenile justice system that have been undertaken over the past 8 years were reviewed for
development of the discussion guide. These included:
1993 Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth: A Report on the Over-Representation of
Minority Youth in Arizona’s Juvenile Justice System. Arizona Juvenile Justice
Advisory Council Minority Youth Issue Committee, July 1993.
1993 Report on the Commission on Juvenile Justice. Arizona State Attorney General
Grant Woods, Chair, July 1993.
1993 Playing Against A Stacked Deck: Inequitable Treatment of Hispanic and African-
American Youth in the Arizona Juvenile Justice System. Esteban Velos and Eric
Spivak, October 1993.
1995 Survey of Arizona Juvenile Justice Service Providers: Final Report. Report
commissioned by the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Court.
Survey conducted by Romero and Associates, Inc. August 1995.
1996 Minority Youth Issues Committee 1995/1996; Accomplishments and
Recommendations. Subcommittee of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory
Council, February 16, 1996.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 35
1996 Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities: Progress Report. June 1994 -
May 1996. Arizona Supreme Court Commission on Minorities, May 15, 1996.
1998 Colorblind Justice? Minority Youth Over Representation in Arizona’s Juvenile
Justice System. Conference Report, Arizona Commission on Minorities,
September 1998.
2000 Enlarging the Healing Circle Ensuring Justice for American Indian Children.
Report on the Annual Ethnic and Cultural Diversity Training Conference.
Coalition for Juvenile Justice Report on the 5th Annual Ethnic and Cultural
Diversity Training Conference, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, February, 2000.
2001 ADJC/AOC Follow-up Planning to December 2000 Conference on Mental Health
Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Paul Wong, Ph.D., Washington
State University, April 1994.
The Commission on Minorities summarized recommendations from the above activities in a
report: Disproportionate Minority Youth Confinement - Minority Over Representation, August
2000.
Focus Questions
Past recommendations focused on four primary areas: services, staffing, training, and
administration. Questions were designed around these areas to frame the discussions.
Services:
1. How has the availability of community based services that respond to cultural/linguistic
needs changed?
2. Are services available that are appropriate to minority populations served?
3. Has collaboration on behalf of minority youth and families changed, If so, how?
4. How has Neighborhood level field work/outreach increased?
5. Has family involvement increased?
Staffing:
1. Have there been any changes in recruitment, hiring of staff?
2. Has the number of bilingual/bicultural staff increased?
3. Is cultural competence addressed in staff supervision and treatment plans?
4. Has your organization conducted an assessment of cultural competence?
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 36
Training:
1. Has there been an increase in staff training to improve knowledge, skills and abilities to
meet the needs of ethnic minority youth and their families?
2. Is family training/advocacy available/utilized?
Administrative/Other:
1. Is there diversity in the judiciary?
2. Do you have a Diversity Manager? Should state/county agencies (AOC, ADJC, DES,
MCJCC) have such a position to coordinate/monitor activities related to the over
representation of minority youth?
3. Has funding for multicultural or culturally specific programming increased?
4. Is there increased sensitivity to the potential for racial bias in system referrals among
youth of color?
5. Is there family/youth involvement in policy development?
6. How have policies and procedures changed to reflect a more diverse approach to minority
youth and case handling?
Each of the interviews and focus groups lasted approximately two hours.
Summary of the Interviews and Focus Groups
A Common Thread
An overarching theme among several of the focus group
participants concerned the perceived lack of meaningful progress
in the area of over representation. As one representative from
juvenile court put it, “Nine studies and data and not much has
changed. There are more minority community groups interested
in getting involved and many have helped train us. But there’s
not enough of them. It’s hard to get into communities. There’s
not a good connect between money and people who get to
people.”
The last statement was made in the context of service providers, specifically funding of programs
that deliver services in communities where minority families tend to live.
A focus group participant offered the following: “I’ve been an administrator for 25 years. The
best way to not deal with an issue is have someone write up an assessment and develop solutions.
This “turns off the sound”. It’s time to stop planning and start holding people accountable.”
This has been going on for
years, the numbers we have
now are not by accident.
The system is not listening
to our organizations or to
our communities. We can do
conferences and reports
from ’93 until the cows
come home, but they’re not
listening.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 37
Another discussant stated “We need to make this one thing a priority for all - Children’s Action
Alliance, ADJC, the Governor’s Office, the Courts, all of us. We can't put a dent in this until we
come together around it. This needs to be a cause we can all champion collectively. I don’t
want to walk around afraid of people who aren't like me.”
Other comments on the issue of progress:
Little has actually changed other than awareness, we’re going in the right direction, but we’re a
long way from being there.
Just go to Adobe Mountain and take a look. Bias is still evident. The gang thing promotes bias.
We’ve been looking since 1993, all these activities, all these meetings, roundtables - have things
changed? No, we’re still warehousing people of color. Is that what it’s going to take - A race
discrimination lawsuit? Kids are the focus, not something to be feared. Quit talking about what
we know is happening and do something, start with an area of high minority over representation.
Walk down the halls of detention - see over representation. It’s still true, more cops, more
arrests. Racism is alive and well, even at Durango.
Progress Acknowledged
Several of the interview participants recognized positive change, with some qualifying their
input with comments about continuing problems.
It’s better than it used to be. We’re seeing more referrals of minority youth to residential
treatment programs, etc. ADJC appears more culturally competent - open to dialogue with more
presence in the community.
We’re more treatment oriented but we have a long way to go. We lose kids if we wait too long
after release to refer to treatment. We need to start 30 days before release to transition.
ADJC/MCJCC has to pay for that. It’s happening some but not enough. All kids need to be
transitioned.
There’s an increased availability of services, but not to the degree it needs to be. Minority youth
still have trouble accessing services needed.
There’s an increased awareness of the issue among providers, increasing staff. Staff is better
trained.
We can't get tired. I think the juvenile justice system has made progress, I’m glad data shows
that.
There are more efforts to engage minority providers particularly in the metro area while
attempting to build capacity. It’s accurate that we have a large number of minority youth. We
have 14 minority owned contractors, an increase over last year by five.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 38
We have increased information sharing - our staff all have Internet connection to JOLTS and can
access history, warrants, etc. More often it helps to know youth aren’t in trouble versus they are
in trouble. If you don’t give people access to information, they think you're keeping secrets.
Information sharing is important - it builds trust and partnerships.
Focus Group Questions
Services
Question #1: How has the availability of community based services that respond to
cultural/linguistic needs changed?
Three primary themes emerged in response to this question:
􀂉􈤠 Lack of Referrals to Minority Providers
􀂉􈤠 Gaps in Service Availability by Geographic Area
􀂉􈤠 New, Expanded Programs
Several respondents reported that although they may have contracts to provide services to
minority youth, they don’t get the referrals. This was the predominant theme for minority
providers. Not only is this a problem because the lack of referrals means that income cannot be
generated on a contract, it also led several to questions about where, if at all, these children were
being served.
Minority providers are concerned about the reported AOC
requirement that no more than 70% of their clients can come
from juvenile court. For some small, specialty (delinquency
prevention and intervention) minority providers, this can be a
problem. “There are only so many kids!” (Editorial Note: The
AOC confirmed that this is not a requirement. All providers are
encouraged to accept appropriate referrals to their programs
from various sources to achieve economies of scale and to build
their bases of funding).
Some respondents felt the problem of referrals to minority
providers is exacerbated by caseworkers and probation officers
who become comfortable with certain providers and tend to make
referrals only to those agencies.
Representatives from State and County contracting agencies
commented on the problems with some minority providers. Accountability was a consistent
theme, which is discussed later in this report.
“Latinos drop out of
treatment earlier than any
other group because they’re
not being treated in their
language and the system is
not respecting their language
and culture. We agree that
minority kids go into the
system on a delinquent
offense, then we discover that
75% have a problem with
substance abuse.”
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 39
Contracting agencies feel the problem is also related to how the system sets up numerous
providers, both minority and non-minority owned and run, without enough referrals to support
the contracted agencies. There is a need to redefine the number of providers based on location
and need.
Services are available, but not throughout Maricopa County. This is reported as particularly true
for the far west side and on 19th Avenue in South Phoenix. When clients have to travel to access
services, transportation becomes a significant barrier.
On the positive side, there was acknowledgement of new and expanded services. Respondents in
Pima County particularly highlighted this.
Participants in focus groups and individual discussants cited a growth, since “Weed and Seed,”
of comprehensive programs including family courts, law enforcement, employment, and
social/recreational programs. All of these programs are located in high poverty areas. Some
providers have realigned their service areas to ensure they are reaching the minority youth and
families.
Question #2: Are services available that are appropriate to minority populations served?
This question generated the most responses of all questions asked. Four themes emerged:
■ Middle Class Model
■ Bias in Assessment
■ Lack of Knowledge of the System
■ The Probation Perspective
Middle Class Model
The reference to a continued use of a middle class model was cited by or alluded to by numerous
discussants. This was seen as particularly true for Latino clients. Respondents made reference
to findings by ValueOptions that Latinos do not stay in treatment programs, and that they tend to
drop out earlier than any other population. The conclusion was that Latinos are not being treated
in their language and the system is not respecting their language and culture.
Others reported that Hispanics who are new to the area are reluctant to participate in
programming. If they perceive a counselor lacks understanding about their culture, they won't
go back.
Using interpreters was also cited as a problem as it interferes with
the process. One discussant stated that you cannot develop a
relationship and pick up on nuances of communication when you
need to use an interpreter.
Services can't be office-based,
they need to be
mobile and they need to be
provided in the primary
language of the client by the
provider.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 40
One respondent was appalled at the continuing practice at some agencies of using the secretary
to translate for the psychiatrist or the counselor.
In addition to language, it was reported that more and more youths with disabilities (crack babies
are now adolescents) are coming into the system. Capacities such as signing, Brailing and TDD
are needed.
Overall, discussants see the need for more in-home services, and more services that are family
centered and neighborhood based.
Bias in Assessment
Participants reported that minority youth score high on the juvenile court detention assessment
tools, which can lead to an increased chance for the youth to be detained. The score reportedly
increases if transportation is lacking, there is evidence of poverty, lack of education, or parents
are not available. At the time of detainment, there frequently isn't time to locate parents and
arrange for transportation.
Data from Orange County, California reports that 8% of the juveniles take up the vast majority
of resources. Intervening on the 8% Factor (from Orange County) was also cited as a possible
way of counteracting this bias. In Pima County, assessment is used to identify juveniles earlier,
at the 1st or 2nd referral (before they become part of the 8%). It was reported that minority
youth tended to score higher on the assessment. With earlier identification and services, more
services are needed in diversion.
Gang involvement, perceived or real, was also cited as promoting
bias. There is also a continuing stereotype that only minority
youth are gang involved, which is not true. When youth (and
these are primarily minority youth) are labeled as gang members
respondents believe these youth are penalized more and seen as
organized crime figures. They are then watched more closely
especially by GITEM. (Note: GITEM is the acronym for
Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Gang Intelligence and
Team Enforcement Task Force responsible for assisting criminal
justice agencies statewide in gang enforcement and investigative
strategies.) Participants felt GITEM was an extremely hostile
group and part of the continuing perception of institutional
racism.
Reference was made to Probation Incident Reports (IR). One focus group participant wondered
if IR’s were being written proportionately with regard to race and ethnicity. If not, the
participant suggested that the reasons for the inequity be investigated.
Related to this issue is data on diversion programs with regard to disparity. One participant
wondered if we are diverting youth “proportionately” or making efforts to divert more youth.
There’s still bias at the front
end of the system, like how
we assign officers. In South
Phoenix, there are more
cops and, therefore, more
arrests. I don’t think people
intend to be biased, but
some of those who work for
them are.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 41
Lack of Knowledge of the System
Several discussants reported that families continue to be intimidated by the system and lack
information about how the system works: "We need to mentor families, employing families to
mentor others."
The Probation Perspective
Participants mentioned that a new facility is planned for Maricopa County but one comment
summed up how "user unfriendly" the facility is: "The court center environment is ugly and
depressing. The telephones for public use are outside and families have to use them when it's
115 degrees."
Regarding probation services, the input was mixed. In both Pima and Maricopa Counties,
discussants stated that the Community Justice Centers (CJC) are part of the improvement seen.
Services are neighborhood based with engagement of community members. In Maricopa
County, 600 volunteers serve on boards. Data indicates a significant difference when youth
appear before the CJC. The community gets invested in youth, becomes involved and advocates
for more services for youth and families.
The CJC’s have limits, however. It was reported that many boards are comprised of people who
have the time to volunteer. These are mainly older, retired residents, some of whom are reluctant
to drive at night because of poor night vision. It was reported that recruitment efforts are
underway to recruit younger board members.
Many participants cited positive relationships with community providers. In Pima County,
Community Services sets aside in excess of two million dollars for programs. Programs such as
Los Artes was cited in both focus groups and the individual interview conducted in Pima County
as the stellar example of a comprehensive program designed to serve primarily minority youth.
In Maricopa County, many discussants reported the changing philosophy at Juvenile Court,
toward treatment versus lockup.
Yet others reported that probation isn't changing, that it's "still surveillance oriented." Some felt
that paperwork and reporting requirements were causing the probation department to become a
"technocratic service agency, having lost its heart and soul." Conflicting philosophies were also
cited. This may be a phenomenon of transition. Services are reported to be moving from a focus
on "lock-up" to a type of restorative justice with an emphasis on accountability to family
centered practice. All of this is occurring within the highly politicized arena of “get tough on
crime” (Proposition 102).
Some services that were showing promise are no longer being provided or are not provided at the
level needed. Cited specifically was Renewing Arizona Family Traditions (RAFT). This
program reportedly was family-centered with an emphasis on in-home, and wrap around
services. Providers reportedly gave up the contract for reasons unknown but suspected to be lack
of funding to pay for the costs. (Editorial Note: The AOC clarified that RAFT was competitively
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 42
re-solicited to engage one contractor for Maricopa County and one contractor for Pima County
in the interest of program fidelity and consistency of service).
Several representatives from Probation cited the recent increase in the referral of young Anglo
males (age 9-11) as potentially skewing the data on minority over representation. Participants
suggested the need to look at the reported decrease in the percentage of minority youth in
consideration of this phenomenon. The increase in younger Anglo males is due to the impact of
the zero tolerance for school violence. Schools are reportedly calling the police on events that, in
the past, they would have dealt with at the school level. The MCJCC reports they are working
with schools and the legislature on this unintended consequence. In an effort to keep weapons,
drugs, and violence out of the classroom, Arizona law mandates a uniform penalty without
discretion. The consequence is the increase in referrals.
Other Input on Availability
For minority providers, the issue of availability was underscored. Respondents felt that
numerous people of color agencies are available to provide services.
“If the majority of clients are in South Phoenix, referring agencies should be
using agencies within those zip codes and stop sending people to the north side
agencies.”
Others felt that services were available that were appropriate to minority youth and families
(culturally competent) but weren’t competent in dealing with delinquents. Private non-profits
are seen as needing the money and are seeking economies of scale. This often means co-mingling
youth (delinquent and non delinquent) which is not good for youth.
Related to this were comments from others who spoke of the
difference between the availability of culturally competent
programs and programs that are competent to deal with youth.
Many providers are seen as needing training on delinquent youth.
Question #3: Has collaboration on behalf of minority youth and
families changed? If so, how?
Most respondents do not see an increase in collaboration. The
predominant theme on this question relates to forced collaboration.
The process is reportedly required by many funding sources and
used in pursuit of contracts. There is a lack of higher order collaboration where resources are
shared and services are blended. Agencies are seen in survival mode and motivated to take care
of themselves.
Several key stakeholders cited the Building Blocks initiative as a collaborative activity that
addresses minority over representation. This initiative is an alliance of children’s advocates,
researchers, law enforcement professionals and community organizers that seek to protect
minority youth in the justice system and promote rational and effective justice policies.
When kids act up, we
don’t need to lock them
up. We need to partner
with schools and juvenile
courts. Schools need to
see students as customers
who bring $4,000 with
them. Can you spell
C.H.A.R.T.E.R.?
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 43
Others remembered collaborative endeavors that demonstrated success and wondered why they
are no longer supported. Specifically mentioned was Project 85301 that was recalled as led by
the Department of Economic Security (DES) and which focused on the Glendale zip code where
a high number of DES referrals were received. The project was described as similar to Building
Blocks (community and needs driven, representatives from all child serving systems, multiple
services).
Long-standing collaboration with probation was recognized by stakeholders but not seen as
impacting the problem: “We have always collaborated with probation, adult and juvenile. They
come to our offices; they do their services there. We just open our doors to them, always have.
They’re part of our office. We have small groups here and there but nothing to affect the bottom
line. The bottom line is we still have an over representation of minority kids.”
In both Pima and Maricopa Counties, collaboration with schools was seen as having increased.
Probation Officers are at the front end of the system, working with community-based
organizations to “push” juveniles out of the system and to resources. An increase in Probation
Officers in schools was also seen as improved collaboration.
Question #4: How has neighborhood level field work/outreach
increased?
The themes that emerged from this question included:
■ Lack of services in specific areas
■ Pressure to avoid high crime areas
Input regarding neighborhood level fieldwork and outreach focused
on the location of services. Aside from Community Justice Boards,
most participants find neighborhood level work to be poor. Many
specifically cited the lack of neighborhood level resources on the
west side of Maricopa County.
Mixed messages were cited, with pressure from funding agencies to get out of high crime
neighborhoods (which also tend to be high minority) because of the risk issues. The movement
to wear bulletproof vests and to arm juvenile probation staff was brought up in this context. One
discussant questioned the need for this protection, as there had not been any reports of injuries.
Several participants recommended using GIS (Geographic Information System) technology to
map where referrals are coming from and where services are located (or need to be located) to
make data driven service decisions.
We’re way overspecialized
and we’re structured to
accommodate the court, not
the community. The
specialty needs to be the
geographic area we handle.
We really need to get to
know the community. The
key is connection to
community, and knowing
their needs and resources.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 44
Question #5: Has family involvement increased?
There were two primary themes associated with this
question:
■ Child Welfare Model
■ Court Ordered Family Involvement
Child Welfare Model
Previous discussion addressed the recognition of services moving from a focus on "lock-up" to
family centered practice. Numerous participants and discussants cited evidence of practices
based in the child welfare perspective. In addition to a family centered practice approach,
several discussants mentioned specific interventions and methods. One was Functional Family
Therapy (FFT) named to reflect a set of core theoretical principles, which represents the primary
focus (family), with a commitment to positive outcomes in a model that recognizes both positive
and negative behavior as representations of family relational systems (functional). FFT
reportedly grew out of a need to serve a population of at-risk adolescents and families that were
underserved, had few resources, were difficult to treat, and were often perceived by helping
professions to be treatment resistant. Although designated a model program appropriate for
minority families, a report from one discussant found the FFT trainers to be rather rigid and
irritating. They were also all Anglo.
Another model cited was the Family Builders approach, also from the child welfare arena.
Family Builders is a DES program that funds networks of community based providers for family
assessments, case management and services using a home-based, family-centered, strengths-based
practice approach.
For minority youth already in the system, acknowledgement was made of difficulties in engaging
families. For ADJC, reference was made to the “Deloitte Report” which included a
recommendation to improve engagement of families. In response, the Department has changed
visitation time, increased visitation time, and added family specialist staff for community
corrections. For probation, Masters of Social Work (MSWs) are now utilized to conduct in-home
family assessments where probation officers used to do them. MSWs were seen as giving
a more comprehensive view of families and needs.
Wraparound Services were also cited as a process, similar to Family Builders, for providing
customized services to youth and families with complex, multiple problems that cut across
traditional boundaries.
Court Ordering Involvement
Family involvement is seen as increasing as a result of court order. Judges order parents to
accompany juveniles to community service and drug court. Families are more apt to get involved
when the judge orders involvement.
When you do specific activities
to recruit families, they come
in. Prior to implementing FFT,
we had 30% of our cases
reflecting family involvement,
now we’re at 65-70%.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 45
It was also reported that some parents are involved in the adult system. In these cases, parental
involvement can be enhanced by making it a condition of probation.
In regards to Community Justice Boards, a significant change in family involvement is not seen.
Although Boards try to get parents involved, many of the families are not doing well. Many
parents reportedly are working more than one job or are single parents. Also, the Boards don't
meet as often as they need to in the evenings. It was stated that many of the Boards consist of
retired people who don't like to drive at night.
Staffing Questions
Question #1 and #2: Has there been any changes in
recruitment, hiring of staff?
Has the number of bilingual/bicultural staff increased?
There were three themes that emerged from these
questions:
■ Increased recruitment and pay differential
■ “Pirating” of staff
■ Changing face of the new generation of
professionals
Increased Recruitment and Pay Differential
Respondents report that recruitment of minority staff has increased. Activities such as job fairs,
websites, and advertisements in culturally relevant publications were cited. There were also
numerous reports of a pay bonus for bilingualism, which is seen as a skill that should be
compensated.
Despite these efforts, the resource pool of available staff seems to be diminishing. Providers
report an inability of staff to meet the needs, particularly in specialty areas. Specifically cited
was the lack of African American male sex offender therapists and bilingual/bicultural outpatient
substance abuse counselors.
Minority staffing at the State agencies (specifically ADJC) is seen as getting better. ADJC was
reported as the only State agency that openly shares data on staffing. It was noted, however, that
overall minority staffing drops off at the executive level. Diversity tends to be relegated to lower
levels.
You’re not culturally competent
just because you hire a couple of
Mexicans. That’s not culturally
competent. If you want to
measure cultural competence, you
measure the history, the extent
that organization with that
community - that’s cultural
competence. Just hiring two
Mexicans and a black doesn’t
make you culturally competent.
That’s the mistake that’s been
made.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 46
“Pirating” of Staff
Numerous respondents state that bilingual, MSW, certified clinicians are hard to find. “Those
few people who are around, who are qualified minority staff, are being recruited from each
other.” Another respondent reported having recently lost three bilingual professionals to
ValueOptions. A network of providers has an agreement not to recruit from each other.
Changing Face of the New Generation of Professionals
Many of the respondents and focus groups participants have been working in juvenile justice for
numerous years and see themselves as “cut from the old bolt of cloth”, with a career commitment
to youth, and compassion with more social welfare backgrounds. They see the newer recruits
coming in with education and training that seems more conservative and lacking compassion.
Others agree that the front line staff is getting younger but they also see an increased awareness
of issues related to diversity.
Several interesting recommendations were made to address the issue of staffing. One was
described as “Grow Your Own.” This would entail recruiting minority youth in high school or
community college, supporting them to stay in school and mentoring them in the helping
professions.
Question #3: Is cultural competence addressed in staff supervision and treatment plans?
Participants and respondents did not see cultural competence in supervision and treatment plans
as being addressed. One focus group cited training gaps with regard to this issue. Clinical
considerations, including diagnoses, were seen as requiring different responses depending on
culture and language.
Training Questions
Question #1: Has there been an increase in staff training to improve knowledge, skills and
abilities to meet the needs of ethnic minority youth and their families?
There were two primary themes associated with this question:
Experiential training is more effective and relevant than didactic training, follow-up and
tracking.
Participant responses were mixed on this item. Some find that training has
increased. Others report that training seems to be reduced, and that only
the minimum requirements are being met (two to three hours per year and
at orientation). For those needing required training, reports are that
cultural competence training competes with other topics.
Training needs to
include a way for
people to be more
comfortable in an
uncomfortable
situation.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 47
Many respondents reported on formal and informal training. Formal training was reported as
curriculum based structured training on issues related to diversity and competence. These large,
didactic, standardized trainings were reported as “hard to bring to life.” Training that is more
experiential, done in smaller settings, was reported to be the most powerful. There is an
emotional side to the issue that is best explored and facilitated to allow participants to look at
themselves. The Anytown model was cited, along with training provided by the Institute for
Non- Profit Management, and Undoing Racism (Peoples Beyond). The film, The Color of Fear
was recommended for all training.
For training to be relevant, some participants report that it must focus on people forming bonds
and building trust. The first level in training should be information, the next should be
understanding, followed by application. The ultimate outcome would then be competence.
An increase in informal training seems to be occurring with minority staff conducting in-services
in their agencies on cultural issues such as Native American ceremonies and beliefs and African
American family values. These in-services were reported as helping to differentiate between
“what's cultural and what's crazy”.
Several respondents questioned the status of follow-up on training requirements. Specifically
mentioned was the requirement from AOC that providers were to increase cultural competence
and the Training of Trainers conducted by the AOC and ADJC. The status of training or
tracking by the AOC is unknown.
Administration Questions
Question #1: Is there diversity in the judiciary?
An overall increase in diversity with regard to both gender and race/ethnicity on the bench was
noted although some see a recent increase in white males. Rural Arizona is seen as lacking
diversity.
Reports were made on workshops conducted at the Bar Association consisting of a daylong
program designed to educate members on the process of applying to be a superior court judge
and mentoring of minority attorneys to prepare for judgeships.
Input regarding the impact of rotation was mixed. Some see the rotation as too short (currently
reported to be 5.5 years). It was reported that although it is good for judges to move on, there is
not enough time to learn and invest. Others think rotation should be shorter with the ideal length
of time being four years. With the exception of isolated incidents, judges and commissioners
who come to juvenile court are seen as invested and excited about a common purpose and having
a significant impact on people's lives.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 48
Overall, the court is seen as more aware of issues related to diversity and cultural competence.
However, anecdotal evidence points to some individual behavior that was reported as egregious.
A Latino youth was in court, known by the worker to be overwhelmed by the process. He was
slouched in his chair, and not making eye contact. The judge was reportedly irritated at the
mother for asking for a translator. The judge yelled at the youth for mumbling and put him in
detention for 30 days. The incident looked like bias to the worker.
Question #2: Do you have a Diversity Manager?
Should state/county agencies (AOC, ADJC, DES, MCJCC) have such a position to
coordinate/monitor activities related to the over representation of minority youth?
One State agency (ADJC) and one provider agency reported having a position dedicated to
diversity issues. The ADJC has a diversity manager and the provider agency has a diversity
consultant. Both report directly to the Director/CEO.
Several respondents report that having a position dedicated to issues related to diversity and
cultural competence would be good under the following conditions:
• Position must “have teeth”, not just window dressing or busy work.
• The position must report directly to the CEO and Board of Directors, not be buried within
an organization.
In addition, the following was recommended:
A Diversity Manager within State agencies patterned after the ombudsman at DES would be
ideal to look at all the Requests for Proposals (RFP) and ensure equity in interpreting the
procurement code which is seen by some as very discriminating.
Should be part of human resources, blended with those functions to avoid infighting and
empowered to carry out a plan/strategy for attracting and retaining staff.
Serve as a resource, “not keep hammering about how racist we are”.
Position needs to be able to influence accountability, monitor appropriateness of programs, and
identify problems.
Function should not be punitive or regulatory, “we don’t need another cop.” Such a position
should focus on capacity building for providers and agencies.
Others felt that a Diversity Manager might look and sound good, but that it wouldn’t make much
difference.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 49
Question #3: Has your organization conducted an assessment of cultural competence?
Although none of the government organizations (state, county) have conducted a formalized
assessment of cultural competence, several report having surveyed staff, which is seen as part of
the process of assessment. One community based organization reports having a Diversity
Consultant who reports to the CEO. Tasks and activities include monitoring the appropriateness
of programs, identifying problem areas, and a staff survey.
Many respondents indicated this process would be staff and resource intensive and that funds are
not currently available for this.
Question #4: Has funding for multicultural or culturally specific programming increased?
In Pima County, a funding increase and new programs were reported as a result of Weed and
Seed in Tucson. The programs were described as comprehensive and include family courts, law
enforcement, employment, positive programs and education - GED, trades and stipends. The
programs cited are located in high poverty and high minority areas.
Funding for multicultural or culturally specific programming was seen as a “big issue” for many
respondents. Although an increase in such funding is perceived in Pima County, the response
was mixed for respondents in Maricopa County. Respondents see more contracts established for
these services but provider agencies do not see this as translating into increased funding under
these contracts.
In responding to this item, participants from provider agencies described the funders (State
agencies) as saying they want culturally competent and minority agencies, but they want them to
act like traditional agencies, and “jump through hoops, maintaining the bureaucracy”. Another
participant was more blunt: “They want a minority agency but they want you to act white”.
Representatives from the funding agencies tended to frame this aspect of the issue as the need to
maintain high quality standards with enough flexibility for cultural variances and find this to be
enormously challenging.
Questions #5: Is there increased sensitivity to the potential for racial bias in system referrals
among youth of color?
Overwhelmingly, participants were aware of areas for potential bias in system referrals. Issues
cited include:
■ The Safe Streets Act, which mandates at least a year in federal prison for those selling
drugs within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, or public housing area. Since public
housing tends to have a high minority population, bias was mentioned numerous times as
these housing project offenses are more severe.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 50
■ When curfew sweeps are conducted, “low-rider kids” (primarily Latino youth) are much
more likely to get picked up if sweeps are done in minority areas.
■ Building Blocks was seen as specifically addressing differential decisions for arrest and
charges
Question # 6: Is there family/youth involvement in policy development?
Limited involvement by family and youth in policy development was reported. Although
numerous youth committees were cited, their real input into policy development was seen as
narrow.
Community Justice Boards were cited as representative of family involvement, but their input
into policy development was also seen as minimal.
MCJCC reports business partnerships in neighborhoods such as those served by Garcia School.
It was reported that school/neighborhood partnerships result in lower referrals. These
partnerships were reported as designed to engage families in policy development and based on
the writings of Lizbeth Schorr in Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods
to Rebuild America. Schorr documents 22 pioneering reforms--small, experimental social
programs--that successfully make a dent in the seemingly intractable problems of child abuse,
teen pregnancy, school dropouts, juvenile crime and unemployment.
Question #7: How have policies and procedures changed to reflect a more diverse approach to
minority youth and case handling?
This question is closely related to an earlier question that asked about sensitivity to the potential
for racial bias in system referrals among youth of color. For the most part, policies and
procedures are not perceived as having significantly changed.
One policy change identified was related to changes within the behavioral health system. The
Jason K. Lawsuit settlement was seen as impacting policy and promoting internal system change.
A consultant was retained to work with the Bench and looked at decision points (detention, JIPS,
etc.) Data was examined to determine whether judges and commissioners were making different
decisions by race/ethnicity. The results were controlled for offense. The findings included the
following:
■ If the judge was minority, they were harder on minority youth.
■ No disparate decision-making was found.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 51
The consultant also looked at the impact of Proposition 102 where the offense drives the
decision. Higher poverty was found to result in differential charging. Several participants
questioned the impact of the youth who can be discretionarily direct filed, Participants
questioned the percentage they are filing with regard to race and ethnicity stating that JOLTs
reportedly has that data under 501b.
Hiring policies and procedures were also cited as policy changes. Interview panels are utilized at
MCJCC, comprised of diverse members who ask questions that assess attitudes toward diverse
populations.
Although participants see significant and institutionalized changes, they also see change as a
work in progress with continuing problem areas.
Accountability
There were numerous strong statements about accountability
coming from both funders and providers.
Funders see a problem with sustaining programs. Some
minority providers are unable to meet qualifications, licensing,
and contract requirements over a sustained period of time.
Meeting payroll and dealing with turnover/adequate staffing
were cited. The AOC reports having provided training to
agencies in meeting bureaucratic requirements but problems reportedly continue.
A significant amount of technical assistance (TA) has reportedly been delivered to minority
providers. However, it is also reported that providers have not maintained the infrastructure. TA
has been provided in the areas of billing for services, documenting services, treatment and case
planning, and demonstrating success.
Funders also cite clinical competence and programmatic competence as elements of
accountability. There is a need to maintain the same level of accountability for all providers.
There were also reports of political pressure to fund programs that “don't deliver.” This
comment was made in the context of both minority and other providers. Providers also see how
the contracting process has been politicized, stating knowledge of numerous organizations who
are not going to let go of funding bases that have been in place for years.
Minority providers recount responses from funders (government entities responsible for
payments) that they (providers) have been told “you’re not sophisticated enough, etc.” This was
seen as being a result of lack of opportunity. In the past, the Anglo agencies were reportedly
getting 200-300% more than minority agencies for the same services. The system is seen as
under-funding minority organizations for numerous years. One respondent recalled that a
particular funder had a standard rate of $80 per assessment, but was paying minority providers
$40. This practice reportedly went on for years.
They talk about holding
us, the minority service
providers,
accountable? What
about the system, who’s
going to hold the
system accountable for
over representation?
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 52
Providers also called for accountability by the system. There was recognition that some
programs continue to be funded even though the results and efficacy are questionable. As one
respondent put it, “We buy stuff that’s silly, doesn’t work. Someone’s butt should be in a sling.”
One focus group saw the need to set goals and targets. They felt that there is no apparent
consequence for Disproportionate Minority Confinement.
With regard to system accountability, numerous providers see litigation as the only recourse to
change. There is a dialogue among providers regarding a community-based approach that
includes potential litigation efforts to produce meaningful changes in the over representation of
minority youth in the justice system.
Qualitative Analysis Summary
Clearly the participants in the focus groups and interviews hold a strong, collective vision about
the need to ensure equity in the juvenile justice system. They also share common ground in their
belief that although progress has been made, problems remain.
Some are frustrated, and believe that we should be done talking about the problem and the
system should be showing more improvement. However, those who expressed anger and
frustration joined with others in providing recommendations to promote the equitable treatment
of minority youth.
Recommendations
■ Encourage and promote collaboration among the state agencies and organizations directly
involved with the juvenile justice system, including the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission, the Department of Juvenile Corrections, and other interested agencies.
● Actively engage the Minority Youth Issues Committee of the Juvenile Justice
Commission to further study the issues identified in this report.
● Collaborate with school systems to identify barriers that impact school attendance and
achievement as it relates to ethnicity and race.
■ Develop an annual “Report Card” with specific benchmarks for success each year. The
first report card should establish target rates and prioritize areas for improvement. This
report card should include the following benchmarks:
● The numbers of minority youth in the five areas (referrals, detention, probation,
commitments, transfer) of the justice system.
● Identify immediate steps that can be taken to reduce any negative changes identified
in benchmark comparisons.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 53
■ Review detention assessment instruments and identify those variables that increase
detention of minority youth in the adult criminal system.
● Review detention index used to detain children in the juvenile detention facilities.
● Review bail guidelines used by adult criminal system to set bail for children in the
adult court.
■ Address the Administrative, Staff training, Provider Services and Staffing issues
identified in the various focus groups by developing programs that:
● Increase the number of service providers in areas where minority youth referred to the
juvenile justice system reside (services).
● Analyze policies that impact the number of minority youth in the juvenile justice
system (administrative).
● Conduct forums with community members to collect their perception of changes in
the system since 1993 (administrative).
● Increase the number of service provider staff trained in culturally competent
curriculums that are relevant and experiential (training).
● Develop training programs specific to cultural competence that are relevant and
experiential (training).
● Increase the number of minorities that remain in the helping professions or enter the
helping professions after high school or college (staffing).
● Develop a plan to recruit and engage minority students in high school or community
colleges to enter and remain in the helping professions (staffing).
■ Identify and support the development and expansion of programs that work. These
programs include:
● Building Blocks Initiative that promotes rational and effective justice policies.
● Culturally appropriate family-centered wrap-around programs.
● Culturally appropriate blueprint programs such as Functional Family Therapy.
● Community based natural support systems.
● National and private sector strategies that address cultural competency in the
workforce.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 54
● Develop, support, and maintain model programs and program interventions, which
have the potential to increase effective services and decrease over-representation.
In all, there are key conclusions found throughout the quantitative and qualitative data which
indicate that:
■ If minority youth over-representation is identified as a problem, things can be done to
improve the situation. It is neither hopeless, nor useless, nor too complicated to
effectively change.
■ Things are better, but "better" is not to be confused with "good”. This means minority
youth are still over-represented, in some cases by several times their representation in the
general community. What is better is that those rates have reduced from even higher
rates of over-representation in many areas.
■ There are policies, programs, and methods that work. Support and encouragement for
these to continue and expand is critical.
■ Coordination among private and public agencies in the state that work with the juvenile
justice system is critical. A coherent and coordinated strategy should be developed
among these groups to share resources and responsibilities in an ongoing, collaborative
fashion.
■ There is the need for ongoing evaluation and assessment. Regular "report cards" and
similar evaluative tools should be continued to assess progress and keep the issues in
public awareness.
We should not give up. There can be positive change and it can continue.
Lastly, we would like to extend a special thanks to the numerous individuals and organizations
that assisted in preparing this report. Without them, this project could not have been completed.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 55
Glossary of Terms
Adjudication
Hearing
In the juvenile court, the adjudication hearing is the proceeding in which a
juvenile is found to be a delinquent or incorrigible youth. The hearing is
relatively formal and is attended by the judicial officer, county attorney,
defense attorney and the juvenile. Normally, the parents/guardians and a
juvenile probation officer also attend, along with any victims or witnesses
required. The adjudication hearing is sometimes compared to the trial process
in adult court, without the jury. In some respects, an "adjudication" for a
delinquent offense is the juvenile court's equivalent of a "criminal conviction"
in adult court.
Adult Court Adult court has been defined in statute as the appropriate justice court,
municipal court or criminal division of superior court with jurisdiction to hear
offenses committed by juveniles. The new law specifies that juveniles who
commit certain offenses, who are chronic felony offenders, or who have
historical prior convictions, must be prosecuted in the adult court and if
convicted, are subject to adult sentencing laws.
Adult
Probation
Adult probation is a function of the judicial branch of government and has as
its primary responsibility the community-based supervision of adults
convicted of criminal offenses, who are not sentenced to prison. Juveniles
prosecuted as adults and who are placed on probation, are placed on adult
probation.
AOC Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona
Department of
Juvenile
Corrections
(ADJC)
The ADJC is operated by the executive branch and is the juvenile counterpart
of the Department of Corrections (DOC). ADJC operates facilities and
programs primarily aimed at more serious juvenile offenders, ages 12 - 17,
committed to their care and custody by the juvenile courts. ADJC operates
secure correctional facilities, community-based after care programs and
juvenile parole.
Chronic Felony
Offender
A chronic felony offender is statutorily defined as a juvenile who has had two
prior and separate adjudications and dispositions for conduct that would have
been a felony offense had the juvenile been prosecuted as an adult, and who is
charged with a third felony offense. The county attorney is required by statute
to bring criminal prosecution in adult court against all juveniles 15 years of
age or older, who are charged with committing a third felony offense. The
county attorney has discretion to also indict 14-year-old juveniles as chronic
felony offenders and to prosecute them as adults.
CJC Community Justice Committee - a restorative justice model that holds youth
accountable in their communities, also known as Community Justice Board.
COJET Commission on Judicial Education and Training - education and training for
judges and court personnel.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 56
Community
Service
When used as a "diversion" consequence, community service is unpaid work
performed by a juvenile who admits to the delinquency or incorrigible
charges and is eligible to have his/her prosecution "diverted" by the county
attorney. Community service may also be a condition of juvenile probation.
Community service work may involve such things as graffiti abatement, litter
clean-up or any other public or private community assistance project under
the supervision of the county attorney or juvenile court.
Community-
Based
Alternative
Program
(CBAP)
As used in Senate Bill 1446 and the new juvenile statutes, Community-Based
Alternative Programs are not specifically defined. However, the term "CBAP"
has been used generally in reference to citizen boards established throughout
local communities by county attorneys and/or juvenile courts. In cases where
the county attorney has authorized "diversion," the juvenile and his parent(s)
or guardian(s) may be referred to a CBAP, where the panel of citizens will
review the offense, question the juvenile and issue a consequence. The
fundamental intent of this type of Community-Based Alternative Program is
to increase citizen involvement in the juvenile justice process.
Complaint By statute, a complaint is a written statement or report normally prepared by a
law enforcement officer and submitted under oath to the juvenile court or the
superior court, alleging that a juvenile has violated the law. It is also called a
"delinquency complaint" or "written referral" (paper referral).
Cultural
Competence
Cultural Competence is a combination of knowledge, attitudes, and policies
within an agency, which allows individuals to work effectively in cross-cultural
situations. This requires the willingness and ability to utilize
community-based values, traditions, and practices in developing and
evaluating interventions, communication, and other activities.
Delinquent
Juvenile
A juvenile who commits an act that if an adult had committed it, the offense
would be a criminal act.
DES Arizona Department of Economic Security
Detention Juvenile detention is specifically defined as the temporary confinement of a
juvenile in a physically restricting facility, surrounded by a locked and
physically restrictive secure barrier, with restricted ingress and egress.
Juveniles are typically held in detention pending court hearings for purposes
of public protection, their own protection or as a consequence for their
misbehavior.
Discretionary
Filings
The statutes permit the county attorney to bring criminal prosecution in adult
court if the juvenile is 14 years of age or older and is accused of the serious,
chronic and violent offenses enumerated in the law that warrant mandatory
adult prosecution for juveniles 15 years of age or older. Essentially, county
attorneys have full discretion in these instances to file a petition in juvenile
court or to seek adult prosecution.
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth 57
Disposition
Hearing
A disposition hearing is conducted following the adjudication hearing to
determine the most appropriate consequences for the juvenile. This hearing is
comparable to a "sentencing hearing" in the adult criminal court. Simply
stated, "disposition" refers to the process by which the juvenile court judge
decides what to do with the juvenile.
Diversion Diversion is a process by which formal court action (prosecution) is averted.
The diversion process is an opportunity for youth to admit their misdeeds and
to accept the consequences without going through a formal adjudication and
disposition process. By statute, the county attorney has sole discretion to
divert prosecution for juveniles accused of committing any incorrigible or
delinquent offense.
DMC Disproportionate Minority Confinement. The extent to which minority youth
are confined (detention, Department of Juvenile Corrections, transfer to adult
court) at a rate greater than their percent in the target population.
GITEM The Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Gang Intelligence and Team
Enforcement Task Force responsible for assisting criminal justice agencies
statewide in gang enforcement and investigative strategies.
Incorrigible
Youth
Juveniles who commi