Prisoners in Arizona: Truth-in-sentencing, time served and recidivism

              ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL
PRISONERS IN ARIZONA
Truth-in-Sentencing, Time Served and Recidivism
Daryl R. Fischer, Ph.D.
DECEMBER 2011
1
Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………... 2
Executive Summary….…………………………………………………………………………... 5
Chapter 1: Prison Population Growth in Arizona ……………………………………………… 11
Chapter 2: Trends in Committing Offenses ……………………………………………………. 31
Chapter 3: Trends in Commitment Categories ………………………………………………… 75
Chapter 4: Trends in Criminal Alien Commitments …………………………………………...119
Chapter 5: Crime and Arrest Trends ………………………………………………………….. 123
Chapter 6: Truth-in-Sentencing and Time Served ……………………………………………. 186
Chapter 7: Recidivism and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………….… 213
Chapter 8: The Goal of Incapacitation ……………………………………………………...… 263
Chapter 9: Recidivism and Major Sub-Populations …………………………………………... 310
Chapter 10: Violent Recidivism ………………………………………………………………. 341
Chapter 11: Special Populations …………………………………………………….………... 395
Chapter 12: Risk and Major Sub-Populations ………………………………………………... 415
Chapter 13: Home Arrest and Recidivism ……………………………………………….…… 440
Appendix A: Mean Cost Rating Calculations ………………………………………………… 445
Appendix B: Truth-in-Sentencing and Crime Rates, 1991-2010.…………..………………… 447
Appendix C: County Commitment Trends, 1985-2011………………………………………. 458
Curriculum Vitae ……………………………………………………………………………... 510
2
Introduction
This report from the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC) builds upon the
foundation of information presented in the report Prisoners in Arizona: A Profile of the Inmate
Population, released in March of 2010. That first report provided a detailed statistical examination of the
Arizona prison population as it was on September 30, 2009. Exactly one month later, on October 30,
2009, the number of inmates incarcerated in state prisons reached an all-time high of 40,778. Since that
time, however, the number of state prisoners has been declining. On November 30, 2011, the prison
population stood at 40,027, for a total loss of 751 since the peak in late 2009. As noted by Department of
Corrections Director Charles A. Ryan in a recent legislative hearing, the prison population experienced a
net yearly loss during 2010, the first time that has happened in the history of the department!
It is widely known that crime has been on a downswing both nationally and in Arizona. As documented
in this report, total reported “Part I” crime in the state declined by 27.7% from 2002 to 2010, which is
more than double the 13.0% decline experienced nationally over the same period. The decline in Arizona
has been particularly steep over the last five years, sinking by 22.7% from 2006 to 2010. As far is the
prison population is concerned, the next largest decline in state prisoners occurred during 1999 and early
2000, when the population dropped by 409 over an 8-month period. However, population growth
returned to normal levels immediately thereafter. The question that looms before us at this point in
history is whether or not the decline in crime has finally begun to impact prison population. Is the recent
drop in the number of state prisoners just an aberration or is it due to systemic factors at work that are
likely to push the population to even lower levels in the coming months and years?
One of the major findings unveiled in the first report was that most state prisoners (94.2%) are either
repeat felony offenders (83.8%) or have a history of felony violence (65.4%). Just 2,343 or 5.8% of the
prison population could be classified as “non-violent first offenders.” Among the many topics addressed
in this report is the question of what the recent drop in prisoners has done to the mix of violent and repeat
offenders in state prisons. Has the number of non-violent first offenders increased or decreased since
September 30, 2009, and is the prison population more or less violent than before?
Whenever the prison population decreases, there are three possibilities for the source of that decrease.
Either the number of incoming prisoners (admissions) has been waning, or the number of outgoing
prisoners (releases) has been on the rise, or a combination of both. If the source is a drop in admissions,
the question remains as to the source(s) of that drop. Does the drop in prisoners draw from a decline in
court commitments or other kinds of admissions, and if the former, what categories of commitments are
being impacted the most. In this report we provide detailed answers to these important questions.
As most observers are aware, Arizona followed suit with most of the rest of the nation in adopting Truth-in-
Sentencing (TIS) in 1994. This move to a more determinate system of criminal sentencing came in
response to widespread concerns with the discretion afforded parole boards nationally, but perhaps more
so from a basic uncertainty as to how much time a convicted felon would serve given the crime of
conviction. Truth-in-Sentencing addressed that issue by requiring the convicted Arizona felon to serve
six of every seven days of the sentence imposed by the court. Furthermore, Arizona was one of only two
states to apply Truth-in-Sentencing to all crimes. At this point in history, it is appropriate to look back at
Truth-in-Sentencing to determine its impact on prison population, on levels of crime, and on recidivism.
3
In this report, we provide an in-depth answer to the question of whether or not inmates are serving more
or less time for the same crimes under Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) statutes than those sentenced under the
former (Pre-TIS) law. A critical facet of this analysis is to control for differences in felony class and
sentence enhancement (e.g., dangerous and/or repetitive offender sentencing) in comparing time served
averages between the two groups. A new type of “cohort analysis” of time served patterns is unveiled
that corrects for the obvious bias toward higher time served averages associated with inmate populations
sentenced further back in time, i.e., those sentenced under Pre-TIS statutes. Sophisticated curve fitting
and data smoothing operations are put to use to smooth out the bumpiness in time served curves and to
project longer-term time served averages.
Aside from time served, there is the question of whether or not recidivism rates are the same under Truth-in-
Sentencing as they were before and what the impact any such changes have had on overall levels of
crime in the state. To help provide the best answers possible to questions regarding recidivism, it is
appropriate to determine what any individual offender’s prospects for recidivism are based on his or her
age, criminal record, gang affiliation, etc. This is referred to as a “risk assessment” or “base expectancy”
for recidivism which is independent of the statutes under which the inmate was sentenced. In this report,
we unveil a new system of offender risk assessment that provides both a general assessment of the
prospects for recidivism and a specific assessment of the risk of violence. This new instrument was
developed from a “cohort analysis” of recidivism among 288,122 inmates released from state prisons over
the period 1985-2010. This new two-pronged instrument corrects for deficiencies in the former risk
assessment model, and in so-doing provides a level playing field for comparing recidivism rates between
and among various offender populations. Specifically, we control for risk-related differences in
comparing recidivism rates between TIS and Pre-TIS release populations.
As suggested above, we took the time necessary to analysis both general and violent recidivism using the
new cohort technique, breaking out general and violent recidivism rates across follow-up periods
extending from 6 to 312 months (26 years). As with the time served analysis, curve fitting and data
smoothing operations were applied to the resulting recidivism curves to provide the best estimates of
general and violent recidivism over the long term in this state (up to 30 years following release). The
database provided by the Department of Corrections was unique in providing virtually the same
information categories for all 349,305 inmates admitted to the custody of the department from January 1,
1985 through June 30, 2011. This database was especially conducive to longitudinal analyses of time
served and recidivism and we took advantage of that opportunity.
In addition to a direct, unadorned comparison of recidivism rates, we unleash a likely first-of-its-kind
“incapacitation analysis” in which numbers and rates of new felonies committed by TIS inmates during a
5-year window after release are compared with similar results for Pre-TIS counterparts. This kind of
analysis provides estimates of the effectiveness of incarceration in preventing criminal activity by direct
incapacitation of the offender.
One of the most cogent aspects of the results drawing from the original research was the unveiling of a
new and extremely simple classification system for the inmate population that groups inmates into four
“major sub-population” categories as follows: 1) Violent Repeat Offenders, 2) Violent First Offenders, 3)
Non-Violent Repeat Offenders, and 4) Non-Violent First Offenders. In this report, we take one more step
forward by breaking out a fifth category of “Repeat Violent Offenders,” namely those with both current
and prior violent felony offenses.
4
As such, this category was formerly a sub-category of Violent Repeat Offenders, who, under this new
system, will be limited to those with current or prior violent felonies, but not both. In this report, most of
our major findings are broken out across this new classification system. Where appropriate, we also
break out results according to the general category of the most serious current offense (violent, sex,
property, etc.), and according to the applicability of dangerous and repetitive offender classifications. For
example, both general and violent recidivism rates are broken out by all three methods of inmate
classification. This provides some degree of approximation of the correlation of crime severity (and
associated penalty levels) with recidivism.
The report goes on to identify and analyze three potential target populations for early release
consideration as a cost saving measure. This includes non-violent first offenders (NVFOs), inmates
sentenced to serve one year or less, and “screened” inmates sentenced to serve two years or less.
“Screened” in this case refers to the fact that the latter population would be limited to low risk, non-violent
inmates sentenced for Class 4-6 felonies. “Low risk” in this instance would be low risk for both
general recidivism and violence. Necessarily, both of the latter two populations would include repeat
offenders. Risk assessments are provided for all three such “special populations.” In addition, current
offense profiles are provided for each group along with projected recidivism rates should they be subject
to an early release program of some type. Finally, the previous success of home arrest in reducing
recidivism rates is analyzed as input to potential deliberations regarding early release alternatives.
5
Executive Summary
For the first time in the recorded history of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), the prison
population has stopped growing. Following growth of approximately 106 per month over a 38-year
period, the population has dropped by an average of 31 per month over the last 26 months. In this report,
we trace the recent decline in the growth rate to a “shortfall” in prison commitments spreading over a
variety of offender and offense categories.
The shortfall percentage, the amount by which commitments fell below the previous trend, is greatest in
the categories of drug possession (-34.5%), Group A property offenses (theft, theft of means of
transportation, and fraud) (-44.0%), and technical probation violators committed from Maricopa County
(-45.5%). Across seven offense categories and 19 quarters, commitments fell short of projected levels
based on previous trends by a total of 16,400 or 25.1%. Similarly, over 15 quarters and across four
commitment categories (direct court, technical and new offense probation violators, and condition of
probation), commitments fell short of projected levels by 14,984 or 27.3%. The latter shortfall of 14,984
was sorted across the six felony classes and correlated with time served patterns, which suggest that the
shortfall reduced the prison population by a total of 7,984 as of June 30, 2011. The shortfall is estimated
to have reduced prison operating expenses by $197,679,932.
The commitment shortfall is also correlated with: 1) a 13.1% drop in criminal alien admissions, 2) a
22.7% decline in reported crime from 2006 to 2010, 3) a decline in arrests from 2008 to 2010 in 22 of 26
crime categories, and most particularly 4) a 41.6% drop in arrests for motor vehicle theft from 2008 to
2010. From 2006 to 2010, commitments for motor vehicle theft dropped by 58.4%, most likely the result
of a corresponding decline of 61.9% in reported motor vehicle thefts.
The net result of these shortfalls is that the prison population has become more violent. Comparing the
population profile between September 30, 2009, the date of the original profile, and March 31, 2011, we
find that the percentage of inmates classified as “violent offenders” has increased from 65.4% to 69.1%.
This is mostly due to a decline in commitments of non-violent offenders. As a consequence, the portion
of the prison population classified as non-violent first offenders (NVFOs) dropped from 2,343 or 5.4% to
1,966 or 4.9%. Additional analysis of the NVFO population shows 23%+ declines in the numbers of
NVFOs with ICE detainers, with mandatory sentences, and committed as technical probation violators.
One of the goals of the current update was to compare time served between inmates sentenced pursuant to
Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) requirements, and inmates sentenced under the former (Pre-TIS) code. Time
served results show that, without controlling for the characteristics of the offender or the offense, TIS
inmates served an average of 3.32 years or 10.0% more time than did Pre-TIS inmates (3.02 years).
Combined, the two groups served an average of 3.07 years. Controlling for felony class and sentence
enhancement, TIS inmates served 10.7% more time, including: 1) 35.0% more time for dangerous crimes
against children, 2) 58.5% more time as dangerous/repetitive-2 offenders (2 priors), 3) 11.9% more time
as non-dangerous/repetitive-2 offenders (2 priors), 4) 11.8% more time as non-dangerous/non-repetitive
offenders, 5) 15.1% more time for Class 1 felonies, 6) 17.0% more time for Class 2 felonies, 7) 8.7%
more time for Class 3 felonies, along with more time in all other categories except “offense committed
while released from confinement,” for which TIS offenders served 8.5% less time.
6
Recidivism Study
In addition to the time served study, a detailed recidivism study was conducted to compare patterns of
recidivism between TIS inmates and Pre-TIS counterparts. In conjunction with this study, a new and
improved risk assessment instrument was developed to control for differences in risk between the two
populations. The best predictors of recidivism were found to include age at release, gang affiliation,
number of prior felonies, and other criminal history factors.
Preliminary analysis revealed that controlling for risk would be necessary due to the fact that TIS inmates
exhibited a higher frequency of many of the factors that most strongly correlate with recidivism, including
gang affiliation, multiple priors, and other criminal history factors. In fact, using the new instrument as a
guide, TIS inmates were found to be pre-disposed to 10.1% higher recidivism rates.
Without controlling for risk, TIS inmates recorded 7.5% higher recidivism rates. However, in controlling
for the 10.1% difference in risk, TIS inmates actually recorded 3.8% lower recidivism rates. Differences
were particularly great across the six highest risk levels, within which TIS recidivism rates were 5.75
percentage points lower on average.
An additional focus of the current study was to gauge the success of incarceration in reducing crime
through the incapacitation of the convicted felon. Accordingly, crimes committed by released inmates
during the 5-year period following release were counted and expressed as rates of: 1) new felonies per
1,000 releases, and 2) new felonies per 1,000 years of street time. TIS releasees were found to have
served 3.6% less prison time during the 5-year period.
However, TIS releases recorded a 10.0% higher rate of new felonies per 1,000 releases and a 9.3% higher
rate of new felonies per 1,000 years of street time. These differences were found to be due to: 1) a higher
risk profile for TIS releasees, and 2) new offenses added to the criminal code during the TIS era.
When controlling for differences in risk, and without reference to new offenses added to the criminal
code, TIS releasees recorded a 2.7% lower rate of new felonies per 1,000 releases and an 8.3% lower rate
of new felonies per 1,000 years of street time. In addition, new felonies committed by TIS releasees
tended to be less serious. Without controlling for risk, the time-base rate of new Class 1 felonies was
9.3% less for TIS releasees, while the rate of new Class 2 felonies was 7.2% less. However, this was
countered by a 14.4% higher rate of new Class 4-6 felonies among TIS releasees.
Major Violent and Sex Crimes
In order to factor in additions to the criminal code, focus was placed on 22 major violent and sex crimes
that had been in place throughout the Pre-TIS and TIS eras, and that anyone would agree are serious
crimes. This included all categories of homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, kidnapping, most sex
crimes, and several others. Within the major offense category, and while controlling for risk, TIS inmates
were found to have recorded 13.5% fewer new felonies per 1,000 releases and 19.3% fewer new felonies
per 1,000 years of street time.
The extrapolated totals of crimes prevented by lower commission rates among TIS releasees include
6,685 fewer larceny-thefts, 3,545 fewer burglaries, 225 fewer robberies, 216 fewer murders/non-negligent
manslaughters, and 219 fewer forcible rapes. These were balanced out to an extent by 1,571 more
aggravated assaults and 8,377 more motor vehicle thefts.
7
In addition to reductions due to lower commission rates, crimes prevented by direct incapacitation of TIS
inmates during the 0.30 years of extra prison time were estimated. This included 1,674 drug possessions,
746 burglaries, 657 motor vehicle thefts, 638 DUIs, 620 aggravated assaults, 462 drug trafficking
offenses, 435 weapons offenses, 426 forgeries, 350 larceny-thefts, 293 robberies, 176 other assaults, 117
stolen property offenses, 112 fraud and embezzlement, 83 vandalism, 68 offenses against family and
children, and 522 other offenses. Combining the two categories shows a net of 7,035 fewer larceny-thefts,
4,291 fewer burglaries, 517 fewer robberies, 277 fewer murders/non-negligent manslaughters, 239
fewer forcible rapes, 951 more aggravated assaults and 7,720 more motor vehicle thefts.
To judge the impact of Truth-in-Sentencing, study results were extrapolated to overall crime levels in the
state by applying the so-called “funnel effect,” which measures the ratio of crimes reported to prison
commitments. Over the period from 1995 through 2010 the move to Truth-in-Sentencing resulted in 476
fewer murders/non-negligent manslaughters, 8,781 fewer forcible rapes, 7,787 fewer robberies, 223,998
fewer burglaries, 846,517 fewer thefts (including motor vehicle), and 14,559 more aggravated assaults.
We estimate that over 1 million crimes were prevented by the move to Truth-in-Sentencing in 1994.
The recidivism portion of the study also generated recidivism rates for a wide range of offender and
offense categories. The following ranks average recidivism rates across a number of these categories:
 Repeat Violent Offender (62.2%)
 Offense Committed while Released from Confinement (60.1%)
 Dangerous/Repetitive Offender (59.9%)
 Repetitive Offender (54.4%)
 Non-Dangerous/Repetitive Offender (54.0%)
 Violent Repeat Offender (52.6%)
 Escape or Related Offense (52.6%)
 Violent Offender (51.9%)
 Repeat Offender (50.7%)
 Property Offense (49.4%)
 Drug Possession (48.4%)
 All Releases (47.8%)
 Non-Violent Repeat Offender (45.4%)
 Violent Offense (43.1%)
 Non-Dangerous/Non-Repetitive Offender (42.5%)
 Non-Violent Offender (41.5%)
 Dangerous Offender (39.6%)
 Public Order/Morals Offense (39.5%)
 DUI (36.0%)
 Drug Trafficking (35.8%)
 Dangerous/Non-Repetitive Offender (34.5%)
 Non-Violent First Offender (33.0%)
 First Offender (31.8%)
 Violent First Offender (28.6%)
 Sex Offense (27.1%)
 Dangerous Crime against Children (12.9%)
8
The following provides a ranking of the same categories according to the magnitude of the average
violent recidivism rate:
 Repeat Violent Offender (30.3%)
 Offense Committed while Released from Confinement (23.8%)
 Dangerous/Repetitive Offender (23.1%)
 Violent Offender (21.2%)
 Violent Offense (21.0%)
 Violent Repeat Offender (19.9%)
 Escape or Related Offense (19.8%)
 Sex Offense (19.7%)
 All Releases (18.6%)
 Dangerous Offender (17.7%)
 Repeat Offender (17.4%)
 Repetitive Offender (17.3%)
 Non-Dangerous/Repetitive Offender (16.9%)
 Dangerous/Non-Repetitive Offender (16.3%)
 Property Offense (16.1%)
 Public Order/Morals Offense (14.6%)
 Drug Possession (13.7%)
 Violent First Offender (12.7%)
 Non-Violent Repeat Offender (12.0%)
 Non-Violent Offender (10.6%)
 Dangerous Crimes against Children (9.8%)
 Drug Trafficking (9.7%)
 Non-Dangerous/Non-Repetitive Offender (9.3%)
 First Offender (8.9%)
 Non-Violent First Offender (7.5%)
 DUI (6.9%)
As input to possible deliberations regarding early release alternatives, three special populations were
profiled, including: 1) Non-Violent First Offenders (NVFOs), 2) inmates serving one year or less, and 3)
low risk, non-violent Class 4-6 felons serving two years or less. All information presented regarding
these groups applies to the inmate population as it was on March 31, 2011.
Among 1,966 NVFOs in custody, the vast majority (80.4%) were committed either for drug trafficking
(62.6%) or a property offense (17.8%) as their most serious current offense. In addition, most (89.7%)
were committed for a Class 2-4 felony as their most serious current offense. The top five individual
offenses were all substance-abuse related, e.g., trafficking in dangerous drugs, trafficking in marijuana,
trafficking in narcotic drugs, DUI, and possession of marijuana. Approximately half of NVFOs (47.1%)
were serving less than two years. Just 13.0% were serving five years or more. As of March 31, 2011,
more than half of NVFOs (57.2%) had served at least 50% of their total-time-to-be-served.
9
Due primarily to a lack of criminal history, 87.9% of NVFOs would pose a low risk of recidivism if
released early and 90.7% a low risk of violence. Just 4.5% would pose a high risk of recidivism and just
3.9% a high risk of violence. Based on these risk assessments, no more than 15.1% of NVFOs would be
expected to commit a new felony within three years of release that would return them to ADC custody,
and no more than 3.7% for a new violent felony. These rates are substantially less than the corresponding
rates for all releasees (30.3% and 8.6%).
As of March 31, 2011, 1,702 or 4.3% of inmates were serving one year or less. Categories of the most
serious current offense for this population included drug possession (26.3%), property offense (25.1%),
DUI (20.7%), and violent offense (17.2%). Just 1.7% of this population consisted of current sex
offenders. The five most frequent individual offenses included DUI, possession of drug paraphernalia,
marijuana possession, aggravated assault, and theft. Due primarily to the recent shortfall in commitments,
71.9% of this sub-population had served at least 50% of the total time they will serve.
Approximately one-half (48.9%) of this group would pose a low risk of recidivism if released early, and
57.3% a low risk of violent recidivism. About one-fifth (19.6%) would pose a high risk of recidivism and
21.7% a high risk of violent recidivism. Slightly more than one-quarter of this group (25.9%) would be
projected to commit a new felony within three years of release that would return them to custody,
including 7.5% for a new violent felony.
To correct for risk-related problems with the one year or under population without seriously depleting the
numbers, the group of inmates serving two years or less were screened for risk, for a history of violence,
and for severity of the current offense as measured by the felony class of the most serious current offense.
The resulting group of low risk, non-violent, Class 4-6 felons serving two years or less totals to 1,671 or
4.2% of the inmate population.
Regarding the category of the most serious current offense, this group of screened inmates serving two
years or less is about equally balanced between property offenses (27.0%), drug possession (26.9%), and
DUI (26.5%), with about one-sixth serving time for drug trafficking (16.5%). By definition, none are
committed for violent or sex offenses.
About one-third of this group consists of NVFOs (33.2%), with the remaining inmates in the group being
non-violent repeat offenders (NVROs) (66.8%). Again, due to the recent commitment shortfall, 63.3% of
this special population consists of inmates who have served at least 50% of the total time they will serve.
By definition, all inmates in this group pose a low risk of recidivism, but as many as 54.6% pose at most a
very-low risk of recidivism and 61.7% at most a very-low risk of violence. Based on their risk
distributions, we project that if released early, 14.2% of these inmates would commit a new felony within
three years of release that would return them to custody, and 2.6% for a new violent felony. Again, these
rates are substantially less than the corresponding rates for all releasees (30.3% and 8.6%).
Again as input to possible deliberations regarding early release alternatives, short-term general and
violent recidivism rates for home arrest releasees were compared with similar rates for inmates at the
same level of risk released by other Pre-TIS mechanisms, i.e., parole, work furlough, mandatory release,
etc. The results show that home arrest releasees recorded significantly lower recidivism rates of both
types, and especially so for violent recidivism and for short follow-up periods
10
For follow-ups ranging from 6 to 36 months, home arrest recidivism rates averaged 13.2% less than rates
for other Pre-TIS releasees of similar general risk. However, the differences were greater for follow-ups
from 6 to 18 months: 21.1% less after 6 months, 23.8% less after 12 months, and 18.2% after 18 months.
The differences in violent recidivism rates were even greater. Across six follow-up periods up to 36
months, home arrest violent recidivism rates averaged 29.4% less, including 58.0% less after 6 months,
43.0% less after 12 months, and 30.5% less after 18 months.
Additionally, the comparisons were particularly favorable to home arrest releasees in the higher risk
categories, where recidivism is of greatest concern. After 12 months, general recidivism rates were less
by 30% or more across all five of the highest general risk levels (very-high and ultra-high risk). Even
more striking is the fact that violent recidivism rates were less by 40% or more across the eight highest
violence risk levels, including 60% or greater reductions in five of the eight highest risk levels.
These results suggest that home arrest offers a viable alternative to regular community supervision for
inmates released early to reduce state expenditures.
Bonus finding regarding the national move to Truth-in-Sentencing:
A crime-by-crime comparison of declines in crime rates between states moving to Truth-in-Sentencing
(TIS) during the eighties or nineties with states not making such a move (Non-TIS) reveals the following:
Appendix B: Percentage Declines in Crime Rates (1991-2010)
 All Reported Crime: TIS (-44.6%); Non-TIS (-39.3%)
 Violent Crime: TIS (-49.1%); Non-TIS (-37.7%)
 Property Crime: TIS (-43.9%); Non-TIS (-39.5%)
 Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter: TIS (-50.6%); Non-TIS (-53.1%)
 Forcible Rape: TIS (-37.9%); Non-TIS (-26.9%)
 Robbery: TIS (-58.7%); Non-TIS (-43.8%)
 Aggravated Assault: TIS (-43.7%); Non-TIS States (-35.7%)
 Burglary: TIS (-45.1%); Non-TIS (-41.3%)
 Larceny-Theft: TIS (-39.1%); Non-TIS (-34.7%)
 Motor Vehicle Theft: TIS (-64.2%); Non-TIS (-62.0%)
Across four (4) violent crime categories, the average difference in the percentage decline came to 7.9%.
In comparison, across three (3) property crime categories, the average difference in the percentage decline
was 3.5%. This difference is consistent with the fact that most TIS states adopted the 85% rule only with
regard to Part I violent crimes.
11
Chapter 1: Prison Population Growth in Arizona
For the first time in recorded history the Arizona prison population has stopped growing and the question
is simply this -- why?! Following 29 years of growth averaging 106 per month, the number of state
prisoners has taken a “nose-dive,” falling by an average of 31 per month since October of 2009. If
current trends in prison admissions and releases continue, the prison population is expected to continue its
current downslide by approximately 26 per month.
In Chapter 1, we trace the drop in prisoners to a “shortfall” in court commitments beginning in the third
quarter of 2009. By “shortfall” we mean the deficit in actual commitments below the level called for by
the previous upward trend. Using statistical techniques, it is possible to project what the number of
commitments would have been had the previous growth level been maintained. By subtracting actual
from projected commitments, we obtain the “shortfall” or the amount by which commitments have “fallen
short” of projected or expected levels. We calculate a total commitment shortfall of 8,770 over the two-year
period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011. This is the difference between projected
commitments of 41,508 for the two years and the actual total of 32,738, a 21.1% difference. Furthermore,
analysis reveals that the shortfall has been greater in the category of non-violent offenders (23.3%) than in
the category of violent counterparts (12.0%).
One of the major consequences of this difference is that the Arizona prison population has become
increasingly violent. Comparing the prisoner profile for March 31, 2011 with the profile for September
30, 2009 reveals that the percentage of the population that may be classified as “violent offenders”
increased from 65.4% to 69.1%. From the first date to the second date, the number of violent inmates
increased by 1,115 or 5.5%, while the number of non-violent counterparts decreased by 1,650 or 7.3%. In
addition, the number of incarcerated Class 1 and Class 2 felons increased by 1,012 or 7.0%, while the
number of Class 4, 5 and 6 counterparts fell by 1,348 or 9.8%.
Chapter 1 Summary
 Prison population declining for the first time in recorded history (down by 30 per month)
 Decline draws from a commitment shortfall of 8,770 (21.1%) over recent 24-month period
 Shortfall greater for non-violent offenders (23.3%) than for violent counterparts (12.0%)
 Violent portion of prison population up by 5.5%
 Non-violent portion of prison population down by 7.3%
 Class 1 and 2 felon population up by 7.0%
 Class 4, 5 and 6 felon population down by 9.8%
 Violent portion of prison population up from 65.4% to 69.1%
12
Growth Trends
As illustrated in Figure 1 below, Arizona’s prison population has been on a relatively steady upward
growth trend since October of 1971, the point in time of the earliest recorded data kept by the Department
of Corrections. However, following a peak of 40,778 on October 30, 2009, the population began
declining. Figure 2 below documents average monthly population growth over four periods of relatively
steady growth. The highest rate of growth occurred over the period from January 2006 through October
2009, during which population increased by an average of 158.59 per month. However, since that time
monthly growth has averaged -31.08 per month, the first sustained period of negative growth in the
recorded history of the department. As indicated in Figure 3, prison population has dropped during 16 of
the last 25 months, with six of the 16 declines exceeding 100 per month. The number of state prisoners
dropped by 414 during 2010, the first full calendar year of net negative growth ever. If the recent
downturn continues, further additions to prison bed capacity may not be necessary.
Figure 1: Arizona Prison Population, October 1971-December 2011
As of December 30, 2011, the prison population stood at 39,958, culminating a total decline of 820 since
October 30, 2009. The question arises as to what has driven the recent drop in population and what the
prospects are for a continuation of the recent downtrend. Plans for prison bed additions are usually made
well in advance of the actual need. Accordingly, it is critical to determine if the population has stopped
growing and if additional prison beds will not need to be added to current capacity.
In the material to follow, we will take a close look at the factors associated with the recent decline in
population. If there are systematic factors at work rather than a simple drop in the numbers of inmates
coming to the department, it is important to isolate and identity those factors and associated growth
prospects. Accordingly, we will examine a wide range of contributors to population growth.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
6/73
6/78
6/83
6/88
6/93
6/98
6/03
6/08
13
Figure 2: Average Monthly Population Growth, October 1971-November 2011
Figure 3: Monthly Population Growth, November 2009-December 2011
Prison population growth is a function of two basic factors, admissions and releases, with net growth
during any time interval being the excess of admissions over releases during the interval. That the prison
population has dropped since October 2009 means that releases have exceeded admissions over the
intervening 26 months. Figures 4 and 5 below illustrate the yearly level of admissions and releases as far
back as 1985. Note that admissions peaked in 2008 and have since dropped for three consecutive years.
21.36
98.71
158.59
‐31.08
79.77
‐50
0
50
100
150
200
October 1971 to
December 1980
January 1981 to
December 2005
January 2006 to
October 2009
November 2009 to
December 2011
Composite Growth
(1971‐2011)
‐76
‐146
‐41
‐123
128 126
‐23
‐134
‐28
‐245
75 80
‐80
‐149
‐102
2
122
59
7
‐37 ‐40
‐25
‐87
74
‐76 ‐69
‐300
‐250
‐200
‐150
‐100
‐50
0
50
100
150
200
Nov‐09
Dec‐09
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
14
Figure 4: Arizona Yearly Prison Admissions, 1985-2011*
*The 2011 figure is extrapolated from data through November.
Figure 5: Arizona Yearly Prison Releases, 1985-2011*
*The 2011 figure is extrapolated from data through November.
From the figures above, it is clear that a decline in admissions has driven the recent drop in population
rather than the alternative, an increase in releases. In fact, prison population has dropped despite a
similar, but less pronounced, decline in releases. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the trend in monthly
admissions and releases over the 40-month period ending in December 2011.
4,301
5,009
5,838
6,429
7,116
7,634
7,764
8,385
9,429
10,756
11,108
11,995
12,866
14,622
13,697
13,865
14,844
16,295
17,462
17,280
18,174
20,741
21,078
22,026
21,847
19,431
18,356
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
3,616
4,101
4,094
5,124
6,328
6,689
6,613
7,277
8,033
8,860
9,309
10,961
11,697
12,776
13,406
13,121
13,532
14,995
15,651
15,935
17,218
18,417
19,127
20,270
20,805
19,845
18,472
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
15
Figure 6: Arizona Monthly Prison Admissions, September 2008-December 2011*
*Figure for December 2011 is estimated.
Figure 7: Arizona Monthly Prison Releases, September 2008-December 2011*
*Figure for December 2011 is estimated.
The lines superimposed upon the trends constitute “lines of best fit” developed using linear regression and
may be used to forecast future monthly prison admissions and releases as exhibited in Figures 8 and 9
below. This forecasting model projects monthly declines of 11.75 in admissions and 6.85 in releases, for
a net monthly drop in the population growth rate of 4.90. That is, if the trends identified above continue,
the population would continue dropping at an accelerated pace as time progresses.
1,934
1,992
1,652
1,863
1,800
1,719
1,962
1,945
1,861
1,923
1,968
1,719
1,907
1,785
1,581
1,677
1,584
1,477
1,936
1,751
1,579
1,642
1,601
1,604
1,681
1,570
1,481
1,525
1,464
1,414
1,745
1,600
1,516
1,574
1,457
1,624
1,475
1,566
1,391
1,465
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Sep‐08
Oct‐08
Nov‐08
Dec‐08
Jan‐09
Feb‐09
Mar‐09
Apr‐09
May‐09
Jun‐09
Jul‐09
Aug‐09
Sep‐09
Oct‐09
Nov‐09
Dec‐09
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
1,738
1,778
1,691
1,843
1,566
1,593
1,776
1,833
1,700
1,766
1,859
1,696
1,738
1,724
1,697
1,770
1,635
1,590
1,766
1,631
1,632
1,755
1,674
1,737
1,614
1,543
1,544
1,655
1,595
1,395
1,612
1,511
1,546
1,563
1,497
1,649
1,546
1,492
1,467
1,534
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Sep‐08
Oct‐08
Nov‐08
Dec‐08
Jan‐09
Feb‐09
Mar‐09
Apr‐09
May‐09
Jun‐09
Jul‐09
Aug‐09
Sep‐09
Oct‐09
Nov‐09
Dec‐09
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
16
By calculating the difference between projected admissions and projected releases, one can obtain
projected monthly population growth, and thereby a new prison population forecast. However, this kind
of forecast dovetails two uncertainties.
Figure 8: Actual & Projected Monthly Prison Admissions, September 2008-December 2013*
*Fitted/projected admissions for month x = -11.75x + 1,916.1, x = 1 to 63.
Figure 9: Actual & Projected Monthly Prison Releases, September 2008-December 2013*
*Fitted/projected releases for month x = -6.8538x + 1,789.3, x =1 to 63.
1,934
1,992
1,652
1,863
1,800
1,719
1,962
1,945
1,861
1,923
1,968
1,719
1,907
1,785
1,581
1,677
1,584
1,477
1,936
1,751
1,579
1,642
1,601
1,604
1,681
1,570
1,481
1,525
1,464
1,414
1,745
1,600
1,516
1,574
1,457
1,624
1,475
1,566
1,391
1,465
1,434
1,423
1,411
1,399
1,387
1,376
1,364
1,352
1,340
1,329
1,317
1,305
1,293
1,282
1,270
1,258
1,246
1,235
1,223
1,211
1,199
1,188
1,176
1,164
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Sep‐08
Oct‐08
Nov‐08
Dec‐08
Jan‐09
Feb‐09
Mar‐09
Apr‐09
May‐09
Jun‐09
Jul‐09
Aug‐09
Sep‐09
Oct‐09
Nov‐09
Dec‐09
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
Jan‐12
Feb‐12
Mar‐12
Apr‐12
May‐12
Jun‐12
Jul‐12
Aug‐12
Sep‐12
Oct‐12
Nov‐12
Dec‐12
Jan‐13
Feb‐13
Mar‐13
Apr‐13
May‐13
Jun‐13
Jul‐13
Aug‐13
Sep‐13
Oct‐13
Nov‐13
Dec‐13
1,738
1,778
1,691
1,843
1,566
1,593
1,776
1,833
1,700
1,766
1,859
1,696
1,738
1,724
1,697
1,770
1,635
1,590
1,766
1,631
1,632
1,755
1,674
1,737
1,614
1,543
1,544
1,655
1,595
1,395
1,612
1,511
1,546
1,563
1,497
1,649
1,546
1,492
1,467
1,534
1,508
1,501
1,495
1,488
1,481
1,474
1,467
1,460
1,453
1,447
1,440
1,433
1,426
1,419
1,412
1,405
1,399
1,392
1,385
1,378
1,371
1,364
1,358
1,351
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Sep‐08
Oct‐08
Nov‐08
Dec‐08
Jan‐09
Feb‐09
Mar‐09
Apr‐09
May‐09
Jun‐09
Jul‐09
Aug‐09
Sep‐09
Oct‐09
Nov‐09
Dec‐09
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
Jan‐12
Feb‐12
Mar‐12
Apr‐12
May‐12
Jun‐12
Jul‐12
Aug‐12
Sep‐12
Oct‐12
Nov‐12
Dec‐12
Jan‐13
Feb‐13
Mar‐13
Apr‐13
May‐13
Jun‐13
Jul‐13
Aug‐13
Sep‐13
Oct‐13
Nov‐13
Dec‐13
17
To minimize the error, it is better to forecast prison population based on the trend in the population itself.
Figures 10 and 11 below display just such a forecast, again formulated with linear regression, with actual
population numbers from October 2009 (peak month-ending population of 40,766) through December of
2011, and with forecasted numbers through December 2013.
Figure 10: Actual & Projected Prison Population, October 2009-December 2013*
*Fitted/projected population for month x = -26.048x + 40,661, x =1 to 51.
Figure 11: Actual & Projected Prison Population, October 1971-December 2013
40,766
40,690
40,544
40,503
40,380
40,508
40,634
40,611
40,477
40,449
40,204
40,279
40,359
40,279
40,130
40,028
40,030
40,152
40,211
40,218
40,181
40,141
40,116
40,029
40,103
40,027
39,958
39,932
39,906
39,880
39,854
39,827
39,801
39,775
39,749
39,723
39,697
39,671
39,645
39,619
39,593
39,567
39,541
39,515
39,489
39,463
39,437
39,411
39,385
39,359
39,333
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Oct‐09
Nov‐09
Dec‐09
Jan‐10
Feb‐10
Mar‐10
Apr‐10
May‐10
Jun‐10
Jul‐10
Aug‐10
Sep‐10
Oct‐10
Nov‐10
Dec‐10
Jan‐11
Feb‐11
Mar‐11
Apr‐11
May‐11
Jun‐11
Jul‐11
Aug‐11
Sep‐11
Oct‐11
Nov‐11
Dec‐11
Jan‐12
Feb‐12
Mar‐12
Apr‐12
May‐12
Jun‐12
Jul‐12
Aug‐12
Sep‐12
Oct‐12
Nov‐12
Dec‐12
Jan‐13
Feb‐13
Mar‐13
Apr‐13
May‐13
Jun‐13
Jul‐13
Aug‐13
Sep‐13
Oct‐13
Nov‐13
Dec‐13
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
6/73
6/78
6/83
6/88
6/93
6/98
6/03
6/08
6/13
18
This forecast projects a monthly decline in population of 26.05, culminating in a drop to 39,333 by
December 31, 2013. Note that the forecasted values blend right into the previous trend, making it
impossible without foreknowledge to determine where the actual values give way to the projected ones.
Two things are important to note about this forecast. The first is that the forecast is only as good as the
assumption on which it is based, i.e., on a continuation of the trend displayed in the Figure 10. If, for
some reason, whatever is responsible for this trend either abates or evaporates, the accuracy of the
forecast will likewise abate or evaporate.
Secondly, the particular forecast illustrated immediately above is very unlikely to be accurate in the long
term. By their very nature, linear downtrends are never sustainable since any straight line with negative
slope will eventually reach negative values, which is simply impossible in this context. It is precisely for
this reason that the forecast is not extended beyond December 2013. At some point in the future, prison
population will level off and/or revert to an upward trend. Either one or both of these eventualities is
inevitable. In the meantime, it is advantageous to determine what has contributed to the observed
abatement of prison population growth in Arizona. That is the topic we now address in detail.
Sources of the Current Drop in Admissions
It is likely that the drop in releases displayed in Figure 7 represents the ripple effect of the drop in
admissions indicated in Figure 6. In particular, a significant percentage of inmates admitted to prison in
Arizona stay in prison for short time periods. Thus, there would be a relatively short delay between a
drop in admissions and a resulting drop in releases. To quantify this, we need to look at figures on length
of stay in department custody over an extended period of time. Over the period from January 1, 1985
through June 30, 2011, there were a total of 349,305 admissions to the custody of the Arizona Department
of Corrections (ADC). The graph below shows the distribution of time served in ADC custody for these
inmates. Although the distribution stops at 120 months (10 years), some inmates served as much as 26
years (data not shown).
Before proceeding, it needs to be clarified that the time served figures considered in this chapter are from
the date of admission to the date of release. This obviously excludes days served on current sentences
while in jail awaiting transfer to ADC custody. Another type of time served will be considered later,
namely the difference between the “sentence begin date,” the date when the inmate first began serving
time on current sentences, and the release date. This category of time served will prove important when
considering penalty levels.
From the graph, we can see that 34.4% of admitted offenders will serve 6 months or less, 49.5% 12
months or less, 57.9% 18 months or less, and 66.6% 24 months or less. This establishes conclusively the
contention made above concerning the ripple effect on releases of any drop in admissions. Short-term
inmates include, but are not limited to, technical release violators and inmates serving a short flat term as
a condition of probation for the crime of driving under the influence.
19
Figure 12: Time Served Distribution, Admissions, January 1, 1985-June 30, 2011 (349,305)
Figure 13: Total Admissions by Quarter, 2005-2011
As shown in Figure 13 above, total admissions reached an all-time peak level of 5,729 during the second
quarter of 2009. Following this high point, admissions dropped by 2.4% during the third quarter of the
year, by a total of 12.2% through the fourth quarter, and eventually dropped by a total of 22.8% through
the fourth quarter of 2011. Admissions for the latter quarter (4,422) were at the lowest level since the
second quarter of 2005 (4,295).
34.4%
15.2%
8.3%
8.8%
5.4%
3.9%
2.7%
2.4%
1.3%
1.3%
0.9%
0.7%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
11.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
0‐6 Months
6‐12 Months
12‐18 Months
18‐24 Months
24‐30 Months
30‐36 Months
36‐42 Months
42‐48 Months
48‐54 Months
54‐60 Months
60‐66 Months
66‐72 Months
72‐78 Months
78‐84 Months
84‐90 Months
90‐96 Months
96‐102 Months
102‐108 Months
108‐114 Months
114‐120 Months
No Release
4,162
4,295
4,704
5,013
4,986
5,380
5,193
5,182
5,142
5,424
5,401
5,111
5,363
5,542
5,614
5,507
5,481
5,729
5,594
5,043
4,997
4,972
4,886
4,576
4,623
4,690
4,556
4,422
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
2009‐4th
2010‐1st
2010‐2nd
2010‐3rd
2010‐4th
2011‐1st
2011‐2nd
2011‐3rd
2011‐4th
20
The drop in admissions from the second quarter (5,729) to the third quarter (5,594) of 2009 was not
significant. However, the additional precipitous drop to 4,576 by the fourth quarter of 2010 was highly
significant. Since this drop was the major contributing factor in the recent decline in prison population, it
is important to track down the source of the drop in admissions in order to determine the likelihood of a
continuing decline in the number in state prisoners. A quick glance at Figure 5 confirms the fact of a
long-term upward trend in admissions all the way back to 1985. Figure 14 below truncates that trend at
the point in time after which the recent decline became significant, i.e., the third quarter of 2009. It also
overlays a trend line of best fit to the preceding long-term trend. The linear equation used to graph the
trend line appears on the graph along with value of R2, the square of the correlation coefficient R (0.987)
that measures the degree of closeness of the fitted curve values to the actual values of admissions. A
perfect fit would yield an R (and R2) of 1.00. That R2 equals 0.974 in this case means that 97.4% of the
variation in admissions is accounted for by the values along the trend line. The remaining 2.6% is a
measure of the magnitude of the peaks and valleys above and below the trend line. While R2 is very high,
the line clearly does not fit the curve as well over recent quarters as it did during the early quarters.
Figure 14: Total Admissions by Quarter, 1985-2009
Figure 15 below was constructed to deal with that particular problem. It gauges the trend over a more
recent period, beginning with the first quarter of 2000, during which the rise in admissions was
particularly steep. The value of the a-coefficient, 62.212, is the slope of the trend line, which means that
admissions were rising by 62.212 per quarter during the period from the first quarter of 2000 through the
third quarter of 2009, the period of coverage for Figure 15. That the slope of this trend line is 32.4%
higher than the slope of the trend line for Figure 14 (46.971) means that the admissions were rising at a
32.4% higher rate during the more recent period than over the longer-term period reflected in Figure 14.
By comparing the so-called “future values” off the trend line for quarters beyond the third quarter of
2009, we can obtain a measure of the degree of “shortfall” in admissions, i.e., the degree to which they
“fall short” of expected or “projected” levels based on the previous trend.
y = 46.971x + 838.48
R² = 0.974
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
21
Figure 15: Total Admissions by Quarter, 2000-2009
To illustrate how well the trend line works, the sum of all “fitted” values off the line from 2000-1st to
2009-3rd is 178,567, while the sum of all actual values of admissions over the same period is 178,569, an
“error” of just 2 over a 39-quarter period. At this point the actual numbers begin to fall uniformly below
the line, or start falling short of expected or projected levels. Table 1 below indicates, for each quarter
from 2009-4th to 2011-2nd: 1) the projected value off the trend line, 2) the actual value, 3) the difference
or “shortfall” in admissions, and 4) the percentage difference between projected and actual values. We’ve
elected to represent all shortfalls as negative numbers to indicate they are, in effect, “missing values.”
Over the course of the 7-quarter period in question, admissions fell short of projected or expected levels
by 19.7% or by a total of 8,280. The average quarterly shortfall came to 1,183. Note, as well, that the
degree of shortfall generally becomes larger as time progresses, peaking at 1,511 or 24.6% during 2011-
1st. The projected values (trend line) continue on upward, but the actual values cannot keep pace. Most
of the rest of Chapter 1, as well as Chapters 2 and 3, will be devoted to tracking down the source(s) of
the shortfall in prison admissions. Please note that the total shortfall may change as we progress.
Table 1: Shortfall in Admissions, October 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011
Quarter
Projected
Admissions
Actual
Admissions
Difference =
Shortfall
%
Difference
2009‐4th 5,823 5,043 ‐780 ‐13.4%
2010‐1st 5,885 4,997 ‐888 ‐15.1%
2010‐2nd 5,947 4,972 ‐975 ‐16.4%
2010‐3rd 6,010 4,886 ‐1,124 ‐18.7%
2010‐4th 6,072 4,576 ‐1,496 ‐24.6%
2011‐1st 6,134 4,623 ‐1,511 ‐24.6%
2011‐2nd 6,196 4,690 ‐1,506 ‐24.3%
Total 42,067 33,787 ‐8,280 ‐19.7%
Per Quarter 6,010 4,827 ‐1,183 ‐‐‐
y = 62.212x + 3334.4
R² = 0.9155
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
22
Since the shortfall consists of “missing” admissions, we don’t know what offenses the offenders in
question would have been committed for or what categories of admissions were involved, without further
analysis that is. The general approach to the analysis will be to repeat the original procedure for more
specific groups of admissions. We will look at both specific offense categories and specific admission
types. We begin with the general distinction between court commitments and other admissions. “Other
admissions” include ADC technical release violators, returns from escape, returns from deportation at ½
sentence, and interstate compact admissions, none accompanied by a new felony conviction.
Figure 16: Court Commitments, 1985-2011 (291,052)
Figure 17: Other Admissions, 1985-2011 (58,253)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
23
Figure 18: Court Commitments, 2000-2009 (291,052)
Evidently, a decline in court commitments subsumes the source(s) of the shortfall, as other admissions
have displayed neither an uptrend nor a downtrend since the late nineties. Repeating the earlier trend
analysis for the category of court commitments yields the following results, as depicted in Figure 18
above. Clearly, the trend in total admissions carries over to court commitments. However, the
commitment shortfall began a quarter earlier, during the third quarter of 2009. Note that R2 is higher than
before, meaning that the linear relationship is stronger and hence more predictive of future values. It is
also the case that, in narrowing our focus from all admissions to court commitments, the total shortfall
actually grows from 8,280 to 8,770. This happens because we are fine-tuning our perspective and
weeding out the “noise” caused by mixing in the trendless category of “other admissions.” This time, the
percentage shortfall is a little higher at 21.1% (up from 19.7%), with the average quarterly shortfall
amounting to 1,096 over eight quarters.
Table 2: Shortfall in Court Commitments
Quarter
Projected
Commitments
Actual
Commitments
Difference =
Shortfall
%
Difference
2009‐3rd 4,969 4,720 ‐249 ‐5.0%
2009‐4th 5,031 4,219 ‐812 ‐16.1%
2010‐1st 5,094 4,176 ‐918 ‐18.0%
2010‐2nd 5,157 4,087 ‐1,070 ‐20.7%
2010‐3rd 5,220 4,071 ‐1,149 ‐22.0%
2010‐4th 5,283 3,788 ‐1,495 ‐28.3%
2011‐1st 5,346 3,820 ‐1,526 ‐28.5%
2011‐2nd 5,408 3,857 ‐1,551 ‐28.7%
Total 41,508 32,738 ‐8,770 ‐21.1%
Per Quarter 5,188 4,092 ‐1,096 ‐
y = 62.818x + 2518.7
R² = 0.9399
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
24
Population Comparison
As planned, a portion of the current study was devoted to an update of the findings from the original
study. That study found that 65.4% of the inmate population had a history of felony violence, that 83.8%
were repeat felony offenders, and that just 5.8% were non-violent first offenders. That was as of
September 30, 2009, after which we know that commitments began falling off. It is appropriate, then, to
check to see what changes have occurred in the makeup of the prison population as of March 31, 2011.
That could help us track down the source(s) of the shortfall in commitments. The table below compares
the two populations according to the most critical categories examined in the first study.
Table 3: Prison Population Comparison, September 30, 2009 and March 31, 2011
Inmate
Category
September 30,
2009 Population
%
of Total
March 31,
2011 Population
%
of Total
Violent Offender 26,457 65.4% 27,572 69.1%
Non‐Violent Offender 13,974 34.6% 12,324 30.9%
Repeat Offender 33,896 83.8% 33,072 82.9%
First Offender 6,535 16.2% 6,824 17.1%
Violent Repeat Offender 22,265 55.1% 22,714 56.9%
Violent First Offender 4,192 10.4% 4,858 12.2%
Non‐Violent Repeat Offender 11,631 28.8% 10,358 26.0%
Non‐Violent First Offender 2,343 5.8% 1,966 4.9%
Violent and/or Repeat Offender 38,088 94.2% 37,930 95.1%
Total 40,431 100.0% 39,896 100.0%
The following conclusions may be drawn from a close look at Table 3.
As a percentage of the total inmate population:
1) Violent offenders increased from 65.4% to 69.1%.
2) Non-violent offenders fell from 34.6% to 30.9%.
3) Repeat offenders fell from 83.8% to 82.9%.
4) First offenders increased from 16.2% to 17.1%.
5) Violent and/or repeat offenders increased from 94.2% to 95.1%.
6) Non-violent first offenders decreased from 5.8% to 4.9%.
In addition, the raw numbers of inmates in the various categories changed as follows:
1) Violent offenders increased by 4.2%, from 26,457 to 27,572.
2) Non-violent offenders decreased by 11.8%, from 13,974 to 12,324.
3) Repeat offenders decreased by 2.4%, from 33,896 to 33,072.
4) First offenders increased by 4.4%, from 6,535 to 6,824.
5) Violent and/or repeat offenders fell by 0.4%, from 38,088 to 37,930.
6) Non-violent first offenders fell by 16.1%, from 2,343 to 1,966.
In short, as a result of various causes not yet identified, the prison population is more violent than before,
and there are even fewer of the least serious inmates, non-violent first offenders.
25
Allocating the Shortfall to Violent and Non-Violent Offenders
The reader should refer to the original report to obtain the precise definitions of the categories used in the
above comparison. However, we would clarify that the category “violent offender” includes sex
offenders. In other analyses beginning in Chapter 2, we will put sex offenders in their own category, but
for now we identify them with all other violent offenders. With the above information in hand, we depart
by examining separate trends in commitments of violent and non-violent offenders.
Figure 19: Court Commitments, Violent Offenders, 1985-2011 (136,255)
Figure 20: Court Commitments, Non-Violent Offenders, 1985-2011 (154,797)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
26
From Figures 19 and 20 above, we can see that the recent shortfall in commitments is far greater for non-violent
offenders than it is for violent offenders. Most interesting is the fact that when we break out
commitments into these two categories, the shortfall goes back further in time, i.e., when the categories
are combined, that fact is masked or hidden. The non-violent offender shortfall goes back to the first
quarter of 2009, while the violent offender shortfall goes all the way back to the second quarter of 2007.
Figures 21 and 22 below identify the preceding trends tracking back to the first quarter of 2000.
Figure 21: Court Commitments, Violent Offenders, 2000-2007
Figure 22: Court Commitments, Non-Violent Offenders, 2000-2008
y = 19.364x + 1434.2
R² = 0.6403
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
y = 48.419x + 1027.9
R² = 0.9443
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
27
Table 4: Shortfall in Court Commitments, Violent Offenders
Quarter
Projected
Commitments
Actual
Commitments
Difference =
Shortfall
%
Difference
2007‐2nd 2,015 1,863 ‐152 ‐7.5%
2007‐3rd 2,034 1,863 ‐171 ‐8.4%
2007‐4th 2,054 1,914 ‐140 ‐6.8%
2008‐1st 2,073 1,913 ‐160 ‐7.7%
2008‐2nd 2,093 2,020 ‐73 ‐3.5%
2008‐3rd 2,112 1,959 ‐153 ‐7.2%
2008‐4th 2,131 1,942 ‐189 ‐8.9%
2009‐1st 2,151 1,949 ‐202 ‐9.4%
2009‐2nd 2,170 2,109 ‐61 ‐2.8%
2009‐3rd 2,189 2,036 ‐153 ‐7.0%
2009‐4th 2,209 1,910 ‐299 ‐13.5%
2010‐1st 2,228 1,859 ‐369 ‐16.6%
2010‐2nd 2,247 1,902 ‐345 ‐15.4%
2010‐3rd 2,267 1,852 ‐415 ‐18.3%
2010‐4th 2,286 1,756 ‐530 ‐23.2%
2011‐1st 2,306 1,834 ‐472 ‐20.5%
2011‐2nd 2,325 1,770 ‐555 ‐23.9%
Total 36,891 32,451 ‐4,440 ‐12.0%
Per Quarter 2,170 1,909 ‐261 ‐‐‐
Table 5: Shortfall in Court Commitments, Non-Violent Offenders
Quarter
Projected
Commitments
Actual
Commitments
Difference =
Shortfall
%
Difference
2009‐1st 2,819 2,681 ‐138 ‐4.9%
2009‐2nd 2,868 2,782 ‐86 ‐3.0%
2009‐3rd 2,916 2,684 ‐232 ‐8.0%
2009‐4th 2,965 2,309 ‐656 ‐22.1%
2010‐1st 3,013 2,317 ‐696 ‐23.1%
2010‐2nd 3,061 2,185 ‐876 ‐28.6%
2010‐3rd 3,110 2,219 ‐891 ‐28.6%
2010‐4th 3,158 2,032 ‐1,126 ‐35.7%
2011‐1st 3,207 1,986 ‐1,221 ‐38.1%
2011‐2nd 3,255 2,087 ‐1,168 ‐35.9%
Total 30,373 23,282 ‐7,091 ‐23.3%
Per Quarter 3,037 2,038 ‐709 ‐‐‐
The violent offender shortfall totals 4,440 over 17 quarters, averaging 261 per quarter. In comparison, the
non-violent offender shortfall totals 7,091 over 10 quarters, averaging 709 per quarter. Taken together,
we have a total shortfall of 11,531, averaging 678 over 17 quarters. Although the drop-off is over a
shorter period, the total shortfall for non-violent offenders is greater. More importantly, violent offender
commitments are down by 12.0% while non-violent counterparts are down by 23.3%. Table 6 below
compares the two prison populations in question, namely all inmates in custody as of September 30, 2009
and March 31, 2011, as to the nature of the most serious current committing offense. This will give some
idea of the relative impacts of the two shortfalls discussed above.
28
Table 6: Prison Population Comparison, Most Serious Current Offense
Most Serious
Current Offense
September 30,
2009 Population
March 31,
2011 Population
%
Difference
Felony Class 1 2,217 2,355 6.2%
Felony Class 2 12,191 13,065 7.2%
Felony Class 3 12,163 11,977 ‐1.5%
Felony Class 4 10,362 9,580 ‐7.5%
Felony Class 5 1,258 1,080 ‐14.1%
Felony Class 6 2,136 1,748 ‐18.2%
Old Code 104 91 ‐12.5%
Violent Offense 14,853 15,606 5.1%
Sex Offense 4,047 4,313 6.6%
Property Offense 9,408 8,895 ‐5.5%
Drug Trafficking 6,005 5,751 ‐4.2%
Drug Possession 2,563 2,189 ‐14.6%
DUI 2,834 2,547 ‐10.1%
Escape or Related Offense 670 540 ‐19.4%
Public Order/Morals Offense 51 55 7.8%
Organized Retail Theft 0 66 1000.0%
Possession of Marijuana* 190 461 142.6%
Threatening or Intimidating 28 57 103.6%
Participating in or Assisting a Criminal Street Gang 28 48 71.4%
Trafficking in the Identity of Another Person/Entity 66 91 37.9%
Kidnapping 970 1,331 37.2%
Escape in the Third Degree 9 12 33.3%
Sexual Assault 442 573 29.6%
Discharging a Firearm at a Structure 88 112 27.3%
Arson of a Structure or Property 15 19 26.7%
Arson of an Occupied Structure 69 84 21.7%
Child Prostitution 33 40 21.2%
Dangerous or Deadly Assault by Prisoner or Juvenile 48 58 20.8%
Shoplifting 155 181 16.8%
Theft by Extortion 13 15 15.4%
Criminal Damage 68 78 14.7%
Aggravated Robbery 203 232 14.3%
Stalking 22 25 13.6%
Aggravated Harassment 23 26 13.0%
Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child 33 37 12.1%
Burglary in the Third Degree 1,051 1,158 10.2%
Illegal Control of or Illegally Conducting an Enterprise 46 50 8.7%
Burglary in the Second Degree 1,339 1,453 8.5%
Molestation of a Child 1,452 1,575 8.5%
Resisting Arrest 73 79 8.2%
Theft of a Credit Card/Obtaining Credit Card by Fraud 78 84 7.7%
Second Degree Murder 1,210 1,302 7.6%
Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs 2,412 2,582 7.0%
Sexual Exploitation of a Minor 213 228 7.0%
First Degree Murder 1,356 1,445 6.6%
Aggravated Taking Identity of Another Person/Entity 178 187 5.1%
Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injuries 41 43 4.9%
Sexual Conduct with a Minor 1,362 1,413 3.7%
*Some offenses previously classified as trafficking in marijuana were re-classified as possession. This accounts for the increase.
29
Table 6: Prison Population Comparison, Current Offense (continued)
Most Serious
Current Offense
September 30,
2009 Population
March 31,
2011 Population
%
Difference
Robbery 299 310 3.7%
Armed Robbery 2,767 2,861 3.4%
Trafficking in Stolen Property 730 754 3.3%
Drive by Shooting 230 236 2.6%
Manslaughter 775 795 2.6%
Aggravated Domestic Violence 118 121 2.5%
Aggravated Assault 4,017 4,118 2.5%
Criminal Trespass in the First Degree 93 95 2.2%
Child or Vulnerable Adult Abuse 220 223 1.4%
Participating in or Assisting a Criminal Syndicate 88 89 1.1%
Money Laundering 28 28 0.0%
Luring a Minor for Sexual Exploitation 23 23 0.0%
Misconduct Involving Weapons 1,361 1,331 ‐2.2%
Negligent Homicide 71 68 ‐4.2%
Rape (Old Code) 18 17 ‐5.6%
Failure to Appear in the First Degree 15 14 ‐6.7%
Sexual Abuse 153 142 ‐7.2%
Involving or Using Minors in Drug Offenses 26 24 ‐7.7%
Burglary in the First Degree 475 434 ‐8.6%
DUI 2,834 2,547 ‐10.1%
Taking/Knowingly Accepting Identity of Another Person/Entity 251 225 ‐10.4%
Theft 806 721 ‐10.5%
Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs 2,069 1,832 ‐11.5%
Trafficking in Marijuana 1,477 1,295 ‐12.3%
Sex Offender Registration Violation 286 250 ‐12.6%
Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices 452 378 ‐16.4%
Conducting a Chop Shop 35 29 ‐17.1%
Theft of Means of Transportation 2,676 2,217 ‐17.2%
Forgery 884 731 ‐17.3%
Possession of Burglary Tools 79 64 ‐19.0%
Murder (Old Code) 72 58 ‐19.4%
Promoting Prison Contraband 209 168 ‐19.6%
Prisoners who Commit Assault with Intent to Incite to Riot 24 19 ‐20.8%
Possession of Dangerous Drugs 1,199 944 ‐21.3%
Endangerment 109 83 ‐23.9%
Criminal Impersonation 35 26 ‐25.7%
Disorderly Conduct (Reckless Use of Weapon) 85 61 ‐28.2%
Unlawful Discharge of Firearms 14 10 ‐28.6%
Unlawful Imprisonment 14 10 ‐28.6%
Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree 20 14 ‐30.0%
Unlawful Flight from Pursuing Law Enforcement Vehicle 201 140 ‐30.3%
Use of Wire/Electronic Communication in Drug Transactions 16 11 ‐31.3%
Possession, Manufacture, etc. of Drug Paraphernalia 458 311 ‐32.1%
Possession of Narcotic Drugs 708 471 ‐33.5%
Smuggling 28 18 ‐35.7%
Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation 207 130 ‐37.2%
Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device 67 42 ‐37.3%
Prostitution 21 13 ‐38.1%
Total 40,431 39,896 ‐1.3%
30
From Table 6, it may be calculated that the Class 1 and 2 portion of the prison population is up by 7.0%,
while the Class 4, 5 and 6 portion of the population is down by 9.8%. On top of this, the number of
inmates with a violent or sex crime as their most serious current offense is up by 5.4%, while the number
with another kind of offense as most serious is down by 7.2%. To provide a more detailed view of the
changes in the makeup of the prison population, a special kind of analysis was conducted.
Every individual A.R.S. section constituting a most serious current offense in either of the two prison
populations was first classified as either violent or non-violent, with all sex crimes counted as violent. It
may be observed that the resulting number of offenders classified as violent is less than before because
we are only dealing with the most serious current offense, not with the inmate’s complete history of
violent behavior. In any case, with regard to any change in the numbers from September 30, 2009 to
March 31, 2011, all 166 of these sections were classified as being a category of: 1) increase, 2) decrease,
or 3) no change. The results of this analysis are given in Table 7 below.
Table 7: A.R.S. Sections Showing Increase, Decrease or No Change in the Inmate Population
Offense Type/
Change Category
September 30,
2009 Population
March 31,
2011 Population
%
Change
Sections
Represented
Violent (Increase) 16,137 17,403 7.8% 36
Violent (Decrease) 2,728 2,509 ‐8.0% 23
Violent (No Change) 35 35 0.0% 6
Violent (Total) 18,891 19,937 5.5% 65
Non‐Violent (Increase) 6,563 7,466 13.8% 41
Non‐Violent (Decrease) 14,930 12,445 ‐16.6% 50
Non‐Violent (No Change) 38 38 0.0% 10
Non‐Violent (Total) 21,540 19,959 ‐7.3% 101
Increase 22,700 24,869 9.6% 77
Decrease 17,658 14,954 ‐15.3% 73
No Change 73 73 0.0% 16
Total 40,431 39,896 ‐1.3% 166
To illustrate what the table says, inmates represented by 36 A.R.S. sections classified as violent offenses
increased in numbers from September 30, 2009 to March 31, 2011. These inmates totaled 16,137
increasing to 17,403, an overall 7.8% increase. In contrast, inmates represented by 23 A.R.S. sections
classified as violent offenses decreased in numbers from the one date to the other. These inmates totaled
2,728 decreasing to 2,509, an overall 8.0% decrease. It may be calculated from the table that a much
higher percentage of violent inmates (86.3%) were represented by A.R.S. categories involving an increase
than was the case for non-violent inmates (33.8%). Note that there was a net increase in violent inmates
(5.5%) and a net decrease in non-violent counterparts (-7.3%). This data clearly establishes the greater
impact of the shortfall on the non-violent portion of the inmate population. The net effect is that the
inmate population has become increasingly violent!
31
Chapter 2: Trends in Committing Offenses
In this chapter, we take a closer look at the commitment shortfall identified in Chapter 1. Specifically,
commitments classified by the most serious current offense for each of seven major offense categories are
individually subjected to the same type of trend analysis as that conducted for all commitments.
Additionally, in categories where the calculated shortfall is more substantial, trend analyses are conducted
for more specific categories such as burglary and forgery. Generally, when commitments are broken out
into more specific categories, hidden trends are revealed and the calculated shortfall becomes greater. For
instance, the commitment shortfall for property offenses grows when we break the category out into sub-categories
such as burglary, theft, forgery, etc.
As was the case with the “violent/non-violent” distinction examined in Chapter 1, shortfalls began earlier
for some offenses and later for others; the shortfall in property offense commitments began as early as the
fourth quarter of 2006 lasting for 19 quarters, while the violent offense commitment shortfall only settled
in during 2010 and 2011. Other shortfall periods fall somewhere between these two extremes.
On a percentage basis, the greatest shortfall was in drug possession, with commitments falling short of
projected levels by 34.5% over a period of 16 quarters beginning in the third quarter of 2007-- peaking at
56.1% during the fourth quarter of 2010. A closer look reveals a larger percentage shortfall in the case of
possession of dangerous drugs (41.2%), possession of narcotic drugs (45.4%), possession of drug
paraphernalia (41.2%), and other drug possession offenses (74.5%). However, these shortfalls were
mitigated to some extent by a smaller shortfall in commitments for possession of marijuana (22.9%).
The second greatest shortfall on a percentage basis occurred in drug trafficking commitments, which fell
short of projected levels by 24.9% beginning in the third quarter of 2009 and peaking at 36.6% during the
second quarter of 2011. Among the “trafficking” groups, narcotic drugs saw the greatest shortfall
percentage at 32.6%, with marijuana at 25.6%, and dangerous drugs even less at 18.6%. Other drug
trafficking commitments show no significant shortfall.
Trend analyses of property offense commitments reveal an overall commitment shortfall of 24.0%,
peaking at 44.6% during the second quarter of 2011. Based on this result, we separated property offenses
into three groups: Group A - offenses that fell short of projected levels beginning in the fourth quarter of
2006 (theft, theft of means of transportation, and fraud) – commitments were off the previous trend by
44.0% over 19 quarters and peaked at 67.9% during the second quarter of 2011.
Group B property offenses, which began to fall off the previous trend only during 2009 and 2010,
includes unlawful use of means of transportation, criminal trespass, possession of burglary tools, criminal
damage, forgery and related offenses (e.g., identity theft), and other property offenses - commitments fell
short of projected levels by 29.6%, with a peak shortfall of 48.4% during the second quarter of 2011.
Group C - property offenses of burglary, shoplifting, organized retail theft, credit card fraud, and
trafficking in stolen property, individually and collectively show no significant shortfall.
DUI commitments began falling off the previous trend during the fourth quarter of 2009, just when the
prison population began descending. Over seven (7) quarters, DUI commitments fell short of projected
levels by 22.5%, peaking at 30.0% during the fourth quarter of 2010.
32
Other offense commitments, escape and related offenses, public order offenses, and morals offenses, were
off by a similar percentage (22.9%) over nine (9) quarters, peaking at 32.4% during the third quarter of
2009.
The lowest percentage shortfalls occurred in commitments for sex (15.5%) and violent (15.8%) offenses,
with the violent offense shortfall peaking at 22.7% during the fourth quarter of 2010, and the sex
offense shortfall peaking at 36.5% during the first quarter of 2011.
Across all seven current offense categories and over 19 quarters beginning in the fourth quarter of
2006, the total calculated shortfall comes to 25.1%! In terms of absolute numbers (which translate more
directly into prison population impact) the greatest shortfall occurred in property offenses, which were off
the previous trend by 7,084 over 19 quarters. The second greatest numerical shortfall occurred in drug
possession commitments, which were off the trend by 4,961 over 16 quarters. The remaining absolute
shortfalls totaled 1,420 for drug trafficking, 1,135 for DUI, 1,124 for violent offenses, 339 for sex
offenses, and 337 for other offenses. The shortfall across all seven categories totals 16,400, approaching
double the original calculated commitment shortfall of 8,770. Again, as noted, our analyses revealed
trends otherwise hidden from view.
As a result of the mix of trends discussed in this chapter, the percentage of total commitments that are for
violent and/or sex offenses is on the rise. That percentage, which stood at 26.5% over the preceding four
years, began increasing during the second quarter of 2009. From that quarter through the second quarter
of 2011, the percentage in question has climbed to 29.2%, a jump of over 10%.
Since the prison population only began to fall during the fourth quarter of 2009, a detailed analysis was
conducted to drill down into changes in commitment patterns from that quarter onward. A chart by
A.R.S. section of the percentage change in commitments from Period A to Period B, where Period B
extends from the fourth quarter of 2009 through the second quarter of 2011 (7 quarters) and Period A
consists of the immediately preceding seven (7) quarters, shows that 49 of the 69 offenses (71.0%)
decreased from Period A to Period B, while 10 of the 19 offenses showing an increase are low volume
offenses such as smuggling and aggravated harassment. Moreover, 37 of the 49 offenses showing
decreases (75.5%) exhibited double-digit decreases. In addition, many of these decreases were high
volume and quite substantial:
 Unlawful use of means of transportation (-43.1%)
 Theft of means of transportation (-39.7%)
 Forgery (-36.6%)
 Possession of narcotic drugs (-36.0%)
 Theft (-31.4%)
 Possession of drug paraphernalia (-27.3%)
 Trafficking in narcotic drugs (-23.6%)
 Identity theft (-22.0%)
 DUI (-20.8%)
 Possession of dangerous drugs (-19.0%)
 Fraudulent schemes and artifices (-18.6%)
33
Chapter 2 Summary
 The commitment shortfall identified in Chapter 1 was broken out according to the category of the
most serious current offense.
 Across seven (7) categories, the greatest percentage shortfall occurred in the case of drug
possession commitments, which were off the previous trend by 4,961 or 34.5%.
 The second greatest percentage shortfall occurred among drug trafficking commitments, which
were off the previous trend by 1,420 or 24.9%.
 The greatest absolute shortfall occurred in property offense commitments, which were off the
previous trend by 7,084 or 24.0%.
 Over 19 quarters, “Group A” property offenses, consisting of theft, theft of means of
transportation, and fraud, were off the previous trend by 5,401 or 44.0%.
 Consistent with Chapter 1 findings, the lowest percentage shortfalls occurred in the case of sex
offense (15.5%) and violent offense (15.8%) commitments.
 Overall 19 quarters, actual commitments (49,034) fell short of projected commitments (65,434)
based on preceding trends by 16,400 or 25.1%.
 The percentage of total commitments for violent and/or sex offenses is on the rise, increasing
from 26.5% over a recent 4-year period to 29.2% over the last nine quarters.
 Over the last seven quarters in comparison to the previous seven, commitments are down in 49 of
69 A.R.S. offense categories (71.0%). Many of these decreases (37 or 75.5%) are double-digit.
34
Committing Offense Categories
In Chapter 1, we identified a shortfall in court commitments as a major source of the drop in prison
population beginning during the fourth quarter of 2009. Furthermore, we were able to establish that the
shortfall was greater for commitments of non-violent offenders than it was for violent counterparts. In
this chapter, we consider that general theme in more detail, allocating the total shortfall across seven
offense categories. We do know that from September 30, 2009 to March 31, 2011, the number of violent
offenders in prison increased by 5.5%, while the number of non-violent offenders decreased by 7.3%.
Chances are that this difference was fueled by differing commitment patterns across the seven categories.
We begin by breaking out the seven categories as they apply to the most serious current offense for all
court commitments over the period under study, namely from January of 1985 through June of 2011.
Figure 23: Committing Offense Category, Court Commitments, 1985-2011 (291,052)
On a percentage basis, total commitments break out as 22.2% violent offenses, 4.2% sex offenses, 29.4%
property offenses, 11.7% drug trafficking, 12.4% drug possession, 16.7% DUI, and 3.5% other offenses.
Note that the total percentage of violent and/or sex offenses (26.4%) is well less than the percentage of
committed offenders classified as violent in Chapter 1 (136,255 of 291,052 or 46.8%). This is due to the
fact that several factors play into the definition of a violent offender, including all current offenses, prior
felonies, the use of a weapon or injury to a victim, prosecution as a dangerous offender, etc. Thus the
category of the most serious current offense is one of several, albeit a major one. The reader should see
Prisoners in Arizona: A Profile of the Inmate Population for the precise description of these factors.
64,476
12,224
85,434
33,986
36,209
48,626
10,097
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Violent
Offense
Sex Offense Property
Offense
Drug
Trafficking
Drug
Possession
DUI Other Offenses
35
Table 8: Court Commitments by Offense Category, 1985-2011
Quarter
Violent
Offense
Sex
Offense
Property
Offense
Drug
Trafficking
Drug
Possession DUI
Other
Offense
Grand
Total
1985‐1st 167 55 320 48 73 131 45 839
1985‐2nd 217 75 392 50 77 127 54 992
1985‐3rd 209 78 356 50 110 129 33 965
1985‐4th 199 78 413 66 76 139 58 1,029
1986‐1st 211 79 376 63 87 135 50 1,001
1986‐2nd 242 69 473 67 110 188 43 1,192
1986‐3rd 169 54 359 63 80 153 41 919
1986‐4th 251 73 420 75 85 262 37 1,203
1987‐1st 280 91 565 112 161 283 50 1,542
1987‐2nd 245 77 499 114 122 241 51 1,349
1987‐3rd 224 71 423 83 115 218 42 1,176
1987‐4th 199 64 391 92 110 230 33 1,119
1988‐1st 239 111 464 84 129 290 31 1,348
1988‐2nd 284 101 648 91 188 237 59 1,608
1988‐3rd 181 53 397 113 124 217 47 1,132
1988‐4th 272 90 572 147 210 214 62 1,567
1989‐1st 310 107 631 194 211 229 59 1,741
1989‐2nd 223 61 461 136 159 217 45 1,302
1989‐3rd 274 79 617 171 256 198 62 1,657
1989‐4th 266 91 518 176 210 231 50 1,542
1990‐1st 296 77 604 173 235 233 52 1,670
1990‐2nd 287 80 565 217 226 239 49 1,663
1990‐3rd 287 85 609 222 211 261 59 1,734
1990‐4th 307 95 548 194 179 256 61 1,640
1991‐1st 307 86 560 202 201 268 51 1,675
1991‐2nd 342 75 564 187 187 312 44 1,711
1991‐3rd 290 81 572 186 164 268 45 1,606
1991‐4th 331 90 612 193 192 341 43 1,802
1992‐1st 295 86 501 211 186 384 44 1,707
1992‐2nd 356 96 602 240 207 365 57 1,923
1992‐3rd 364 100 560 231 227 309 55 1,846
1992‐4th 364 107 555 248 232 379 48 1,933
1993‐1st 326 102 587 253 239 420 53 1,980
1993‐2nd 386 103 643 240 264 389 51 2,076
1993‐3rd 404 107 674 244 260 357 58 2,104
1993‐4th 442 104 652 246 294 370 49 2,157
1994‐1st 424 107 656 264 336 441 65 2,293
1994‐2nd 448 119 655 262 340 417 54 2,295
1994‐3rd 472 88 711 268 345 362 60 2,306
1994‐4th 472 92 663 252 319 362 67 2,227
1995‐1st 451 90 655 213 350 430 64 2,253
1995‐2nd 558 105 711 294 425 393 73 2,559
1995‐3rd 419 76 715 284 430 359 100 2,383
1995‐4th 439 89 587 221 352 353 74 2,115
1996‐1st 530 86 663 276 349 474 81 2,459
1996‐2nd 535 91 656 258 355 430 53 2,378
1996‐3rd 511 72 684 300 416 492 59 2,534
1996‐4th 540 77 653 283 453 477 68 2,551
1997‐1st 524 82 659 286 372 490 83 2,496
36
Table 8: Court Commitments by Offense Category, 1985-2011 (continued)
Quarter
Violent
Offense
Sex
Offense
Property
Offense
Drug
Trafficking
Drug
Possession DUI
Other
Offense
Grand
Total
1997‐2nd 601 81 723 292 396 555 72 2,720
1997‐3rd 602 99 705 309 371 507 72 2,665
1997‐4th 647 105 741 332 388 511 73 2,797
1998‐1st 640 88 681 306 353 566 97 2,731
1998‐2nd 686 99 822 325 450 591 98 3,071
1998‐3rd 621 91 778 326 424 545 88 2,873
1998‐4th 723 108 830 367 487 585 94 3,194
1999‐1st 580 101 715 301 370 584 80 2,731
1999‐2nd 654 118 696 333 378 519 93 2,791
1999‐3rd 605 100 705 287 322 514 93 2,626
1999‐4th 612 106 677 299 362 399 101 2,556
2000‐1st 550 80 642 266 297 484 83 2,402
2000‐2nd 635 116 756 341 282 483 111 2,724
2000‐3rd 692 119 724 308 268 472 126 2,709
2000‐4th 622 118 739 329 229 526 113 2,676
2001‐1st 607 101 721 372 228 534 101 2,664
2001‐2nd 764 126 814 353 253 553 136 2,999
2001‐3rd 637 112 792 349 251 563 121 2,825
2001‐4th 821 110 912 384 247 610 138 3,222
2002‐1st 696 110 857 331 234 547 119 2,894
2002‐2nd 788 156 1,067 377 264 619 146 3,417
2002‐3rd 757 122 1,013 344 297 620 138 3,291
2002‐4th 833 145 1,012 370 250 616 157 3,383
2003‐1st 841 136 1,162 377 275 590 148 3,529
2003‐2nd 857 181 1,252 404 312 676 170 3,852
2003‐3rd 805 139 1,088 402 326 590 153 3,503
2003‐4th 773 154 1,035 391 315 593 141 3,402
2004‐1st 784 131 1,022 320 308 588 143 3,296
2004‐2nd 851 146 1,057 382 328 594 152 3,510
2004‐3rd 808 140 1,207 376 390 683 155 3,759
2004‐4th 929 131 1,220 394 405 569 155 3,803
2005‐1st 762 111 1,099 342 394 606 127 3,441
2005‐2nd 822 136 1,051 348 438 593 142 3,530
2005‐3rd 849 143 1,207 407 490 663 144 3,903
2005‐4th 928 176 1,238 446 544 627 173 4,132
2006‐1st 926 155 1,288 407 504 681 142 4,103
2006‐2nd 1,072 196 1,310 472 640 643 146 4,479
2006‐3rd 928 174 1,263 421 647 681 145 4,259
2006‐4th 991 190 1,299 443 637 601 163 4,324
2007‐1st 1,015 160 1,225 453 682 546 146 4,227
2007‐2nd 984 179 1,292 510 719 634 160 4,478
2007‐3rd 1,000 167 1,230 577 700 720 171 4,565
2007‐4th 1,053 166 1,249 554 648 680 139 4,489
2008‐1st 1,009 178 1,331 595 693 705 170 4,681
2008‐2nd 1,093 191 1,279 635 699 704 143 4,744
2008‐3rd 1,049 185 1,288 605 731 725 175 4,758
2008‐4th 1,038 172 1,369 669 684 663 171 4,766
2009‐1st 1,097 167 1,301 626 567 707 165 4,630
2009‐2nd 1,222 158 1,278 770 584 736 143 4,891
37
Table 8: Court Commitments by Offense Category, 1985-2011 (continued)
Quarter
Violent
Offense
Sex
Offense
Property
Offense
Drug
Trafficking
Drug
Possession DUI
Other
Offense
Grand
Total
2009‐3rd 1,131 180 1,183 727 650 706 143 4,720
2009‐4th 1,128 159 1,092 664 504 547 125 4,219
2010‐1st 1,032 193 1,065 624 539 605 118 4,176
2010‐2nd 1,088 155 988 683 486 567 120 4,087
2010‐3rd 1,006 174 1,009 674 479 618 111 4,071
2010‐4th 921 175 991 605 457 508 131 3,788
2011‐1st 989 132 992 571 475 548 113 3,820
2011‐2nd 953 178 981 568 519 526 132 3,857
Total 64,476 12,224 85,434 33,986 36,209 48,626 10,097 291,052
In this second chapter, we will consider trends in each of the seven committing offense categories,
beginning with violent offenses. The quarterly commitment totals are given in Table 8 above. As shown
in Figure 24 below, commitments for violent offenses had been on a relatively steady upward trend,
almost without interruption, until a recent drop-off beginning in the first quarter of 2010. Commitments
in this category peaked at 1,222 during the second quarter of 2009, but then dropped to 921 by the fourth
quarter of 2010, a decline of 24.6%.
Figure 24: Court Commitments, Violent Offenses, 1985-2011 (64,476)
Had the linear trend displayed in Figure 25 below continued beyond the fourth quarter of 2009, there
would have been 1,124 additional commitments for violent offenses. From the first quarter of 2010
through the second quarter of 2011, there were 5,989 violent offense commitments, falling short of the
projected total of 7,113 based on the previous trend. The percentage shortfall came to 15.8%.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
38
Figure 25: Court Commitments, Violent Offenses, 2000-2009
The upward trend in sex offense commitments shown in Figure 26 below began tailing off in the fourth
quarter of 2008, fifteen months ahead of the downturn in violent offense commitments. Total sex offense
commitments from that quarter through the second quarter of 2011 came to 1,843, 339 short of the
projected total of 2,182 based on the trend shown in Figure 27. The percentage shortfall came to 15.5%.
Figure 26: Court Commitments, Sex Offenses, 1985-2011 (12,224)
y = 13.338x + 605.24
R² = 0.8868
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
2009‐4th
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
39
Figure 27: Court Commitments, Sex Offenses, 2000-2008
Commitments for property offenses reached a peak of 1,369 during the fourth quarter of 2008, but then
dropped sharply (27.8%) to 988 by the second quarter of 2010. Since that time, however, commitments
in this category have leveled off. The previous uptrend in property offense commitments (Figure 29)
began a few months later than the uptrend in violent and sex offenses, during the second quarter of 2002.
On the other hand, the following downturn began in the second quarter of 2009, a quarter before the first
significant drop in the prison population. The total commitment shortfall came to 2,973 or 23.7%.
Figure 28: Court Commitments, Property Offenses, 1985-2011 (85,434)
y = 2.3515x + 101.93
R² = 0.6685
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
40
Figure 29: Court Commitments, Property Offenses, 2002-2009
In light of the higher percentage shortfall in this category, and due to “the need to know,” we take the
additional step of breaking out the property offense category into specific components that detailed
analysis shows are worth considering individually. In the case of burglary (Figure 30), we see a
significantly lower shortfall (11.7%) than was the case for all property crimes (23.7%). Burglary
commitments fell short of the projected level by 193 and then only during 2010 and 2011.
Figure 30: Court Commitments, Burglary,* 1985-2011 (20,428)
*Excluding first degree burglary, a violent crime.
y = 10.802x + 1038.2
R² = 0.6391
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
41
Figure 31: Court Commitments, Burglary,* 2002-2009
*Excluding first degree burglary, a violent crime.
Figure 32: Court Commitments, Criminal Trespass, 1985-2011 (2,905)
Commitments for criminal trespass have off the previous trend since the third quarter of 2009. The total
shortfall in this category came to 122 or 28.0%.
y = 2.4919x + 186.26
R² = 0.6229
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
2009‐4th
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
42
Figure 33: Court Commitments, Criminal Trespass, 2002-2009
Figure 34: Court Commitments, Possession of Burglary Tools, 1985-2011 (1,368)
As was the case with burglary, commitments for possession of burglary tools have been off the previous
trend only during 2010 and 2011. The total shortfall came to 128 or 37.4% of the projected total of 343.
y = 0.7408x + 28.984
R² = 0.4607
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
43
Figure 35: Court Commitments, Possession of Burglary Tools, 2005-2009
Figure 36: Court Commitments, Criminal Damage to Property, 1985-2011 (2,393)
Commitments for criminal damage to property (vandalism) followed a general uptrend from 2002 through
2008, but then fell off by a total of 123 or 29.1% beginning in the first quarter of 2009. The shortfall in
this category peaked at 49.3% during the fourth quarter of 2010.
y = 2.0316x + 9.4684
R² = 0.8027
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
2009‐4th
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
44
Figure 37: Court Commitments, Criminal Damage to Property, 2002-2008
Figure 38: Court Commitments, Theft/Theft of Means of Transportation, 1985-2011 (30,474)
Due to the fact that theft of means of transportation was previously prosecuted as simple theft in Arizona,
we need to combine these two categories in order to isolate the appropriate trend. The results show that
commitments under this combination category have been well off the previous trend since the fourth
quarter of 2006. Over 19 quarters, the total commitment shortfall comes to 5,142 or 44.4%. The shortfall
peaked at 485 or 69.2% during the second quarter of 2011. Here, we see no upturn whatsoever!
y = 0.425x + 28.087
R² = 0.297
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
45
Figure 39: Court Commitments, Theft/Theft of Means of Transportation, 2000-2006
Figure 40: Court Commitments, Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation, 1985-2011 (4,536)
As illustrated by Figure 40 above, commitments for unlawful use of means of transportation have only
fallen off the previous trend during 2009, 2010 and 2011. The total shortfall over 10 quarters came to 413
or 41.8%, with a peak shortfall percentage of 58.1% during the fourth quarter of 2010. Both this crime
and theft of means of transportation have seen dramatic drops in commitments in recent years!
Combined, these two crimes were off the previous trend by 3,375 or 44.9% over 18 quarters, peaking at
68.0% during 2011-1st. The decline in property offense commitments corresponds to a substantial drop
in reported crimes and arrests for the same crimes, and particularly so in the case of motor vehicle theft.
y = 10.116x + 235.52
R² = 0.8782
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
46
Figure 41: Court Commitments, Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation, 2002-2008
As illustrated in Figure 42 below, shoplifting commitments have been up and down, but have shown no
consistent trend on which to base an analysis. Accordingly, no shortfall was calculated for this category.
Figure 42: Court Commitments, Shoplifting, 1985-2011 (2,162)
*Including organized retail theft.
y = 0.6738x + 76.087
R² = 0.2342
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
47
Figure 43: Court Commitments, Forgery & Related Offenses* 1985-2011 (11,703)
*Includes, among others, all categories of identity theft.
Figure 44: Court Commitments, Forgery & Related Offenses,* 2004-2009
*Includes, among others, all categories of identity theft.
Following a long-term steady uptrend, commitments for forgery and related offenses began climbing
dramatically with the advent of identity theft as a significant factor in the early part of the last decade.
Beginning in the third quarter of 2009, commitments in this category fell off the trend by a total of 925 or
38.2%. As might be expected, the shortfall peaked at 172 or 53.7% during the second quarter of 2011.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 4.9757x + 170.69
R² = 0.7951
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
48
Figure 45: Court Commitments, Credit Card Fraud, 1985-2011 (1,428)
As was the case with shoplifting, commitments for credit card fraud and stolen property offenses show no
significant downturn. Accordingly, there is no commitment shortfall calculated for either category.
Figure 46: Court Commitments, Stolen Property, 1985-2011 (4,400)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
49
Figure 47: Court Commitments, Fraud, 1985-2011 (2,434)
Commitments for fraud have been consistently down since the third quarter of 2007, falling short of
projected levels by 163 or 31.0% over 16 quarters.
Figure 48: Court Commitments, Fraud, 2000-2007
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 0.3457x + 21.041
R² = 0.2575
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
50
Figure 49: Court Commitments, Other Property Offenses, 1985-2011 (1,203)
*Including but not limited to organized crime.
Commitments in the category of all other property offenses have been off the previous trend only since
the second quarter of 2010. The total shortfall in this category over five quarters comes to 80 or 36.8%.
Figure 50: Court Commitments, Other Property Offenses, 2005-2010
*Including but not limited to organized crime.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 1.5221x + 7.1619
R² = 0.9029
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
2009‐4th
2010‐1st
51
Based on our analysis, it was judged appropriate to segregate property offenses into three groups, with
Group A consisting of the offenses that have been off the previous trend since 2006 or 2007, Group B
consisting of the offenses that have been off the trend only since 2009 or 2010, and Group C consisting of
the offenses showing no consistent commitment shortfall.
Figure 51: Court Commitments, “Group A” Property Offenses,* 1985-2011 (32,908)
*Theft/theft of means of transportation and fraud.
Figure 52: Court Commitments, “Group A” Property Offenses,* 2000-2006
*Theft/theft of means of transportation and fraud.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 10.578x + 255.42
R² = 0.8844
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
52
Figure 53: Court Commitments, “Group B” Property Offenses,* 1985-2011 (24,108)
*Unlawful use of means of transportation, criminal trespass, possession of burglary tools, criminal damage to property, forgery &
related offenses, and other property offenses.
Figure 54: Court Commitments, “Group B” Property Offenses,* 2004-2008
*Unlawful use of means of transportation, criminal trespass, possession of burglary tools, criminal damage to property, forgery &
related offenses, and other property offenses.
Among the total of 85,434 property offense commitments, Group A accounts for 32,908 or 38.5%, Group
B for 24,108 or 28.2%, and Group C for 28,418 or 33.3%.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 9.7526x + 329.55
R² = 0.7889
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
53
Over 19 quarters, Group A-commitments fell short of projected levels by 5,401 or 44.0%. In contrast,
over 10 quarters, Group B-commitments lagged behind projected levels by 1,709 or 29.6%. The Group
A-commitment shortfall peaked at 504 or 67.9% during the second quarter of 2011, while the Group B
shortfall peaked at 301 or 48.4% during the same quarter. As shown by Figure 55 below, Group C-commitments
continued unabated and were not subjected to a trend analysis.
Figure 55: Court Commitments, “Group C” Property Offenses,* 1985-2011 (28,418)
*Burglary, shoplifting, organized retail theft, credit card fraud, and stolen property.
Figure 56: Court Commitments, “Group C” Property Offenses,* 2000-2011
*Burglary, shoplifting, organized retail theft, credit card fraud, and stolen property.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 3.6691x + 237.06
R² = 0.8159
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2000‐1st
2000‐2nd
2000‐3rd
2000‐4th
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
2009‐4th
2010‐1st
2010‐2nd
2010‐3rd
2010‐4th
2011‐1st
2011‐2nd
54
Figure 57: Court Commitments, Drug Trafficking, 1985-2011 (33,986)
Following a slow upward climb from 1985 through 2004 (Figure 57), drug trafficking commitments
began a steep upward trend in 2005. From the fourth quarter of 2009 onward, drug trafficking
commitments have dropped off, falling 1,249 or 22.2% short of projected levels based on the previous
upward trend. As with property crimes, we break out drug trafficking commitments according to the
specific nature of the crime, and most particularly according to the nature of the drug(s) involved.
Figure 58: Court Commitments, Drug Trafficking, 2005-2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 21.442x + 312.26
R² = 0.925
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
55
Figure 59: Court Commitments, Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, 1985-2011 (10,031)
Figure 60: Court Commitments, Trafficking in Dangerous Drugs, 2004-2009
Commitments for trafficking in dangerous drugs had been on a steady and significant uptrend beginning
in 2001 that shifted into a higher gear in 2004. That trend lasted until the second quarter of 2009, after
which commitments in this category were down by 383 or 18.6% of the projected total of 2,054.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 4.9486x + 125.55
R² = 0.7714
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
56
Figure 61: Court Commitments, Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs, 1985-2011 (12,896)
Figure 62: Court Commitments, Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs, 2005-2009
After a period of no growth extending from 2000 through 2006, commitments for trafficking in narcotic
drugs shot upward in 2007 and early 2008, only to drop off by a total of 499 or 32.6% beginning in the
fourth quarter of 2009.
0
50
100
150
200
250
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 4.6614x + 111.39
R² = 0.7027
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
57
Figure 63: Court Commitments, Trafficking in Marijuana, 1985-2011 (10,637)
Again following a period of no growth, commitments for trafficking in marijuana exploded in 2005, but
then tailed off in 2010 and 2011. Over six quarters, commitments in this category have fallen below the
trend line by 534 or 25.6%.
Figure 64: Court Commitments, Trafficking in Marijuana, 2006-2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 13.66x + 81.7
R² = 0.9569
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
2009‐1st
2009‐2nd
2009‐3rd
2009‐4th
58
Commitments for other drug trafficking offenses have been on a slow but steady uptrend over the last 15
years (Figure 65) and currently show no significant degree of shortfall.
Figure 65: Court Commitments, Other Drug Trafficking, 1985-2011 (422)
Following a long-term general uptrend (Figure 66), and most likely the result of the passage of
Proposition 200 in 1996, drug possession commitments leveled off and eventually began declining in
1999, reaching a low point of 228 during the first quarter of 2001. However, with the advent of
methamphetamine as a major drug problem in the state, drug possession commitments started a steep
upward trend in 2002. Since the third quarter of 2007, drug possession commitments have dropped off
dramatically, falling short of the projected level of 13,172 by 4,457 or 33.8%.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
59
Figure 66: Court Commitments, Drug Possession, 1985-2011 (36,209)
Figure 67: Court Commitments, Drug Possession, 2002-2007
To clarify what is driving the 33.8% shortfall in drug possession commitments, the drug possession
category was broken out by the type of drug involved, with results as shown in Figures 68-77 below. We
begin with dangerous drugs, the category that subsumes methamphetamine. As indicated by Figure 68,
dangerous drug commitments were on an extremely steep uptrend beginning in early 2001 and continuing
through 2008, when the bottom dropped out and commitments plummeted.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 23.108x + 161.79
R² = 0.93
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
60
The total shortfall in this category over 10 quarters came to 1,093 or 41.2% less than the projected total of
2,651. The shortfall reached a peak of 146 or 51.9% during the fourth quarter of 2010.
Figure 68: Court Commitments, Possession of Dangerous Drugs, 1985-2011 (9,330)
Figure 69: Court Commitments, Possession of Dangerous Drugs, 2001-2008
0
50
100
150
200
250
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 6.1935x + 32.869
R² = 0.9255
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2001‐1st
2001‐2nd
2001‐3rd
2001‐4th
2002‐1st
2002‐2nd
2002‐3rd
2002‐4th
2003‐1st
2003‐2nd
2003‐3rd
2003‐4th
2004‐1st
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
2008‐2nd
2008‐3rd
2008‐4th
61
Figure 70: Court Commitments, Possession of Narcotic Drugs, 1985-2011 (10,306)
Commitments for the possession of narcotic drugs were also on an uptrend, although not as steep, when
they began dropping off during the second quarter of 2008. Over 13 quarters, the shortfall came to 979 or
45.4% below the projected total of 2,157. The shortfall reached a peak of 119 or 65.8% during the first
quarter of 2011.
Figure 71: Court Commitments, Possession of Narcotic Drugs, 2004-2008
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1985‐1st
1985‐3rd
1986‐1st
1986‐3rd
1987‐1st
1987‐3rd
1988‐1st
1988‐3rd
1989‐1st
1989‐3rd
1990‐1st
1990‐3rd
1991‐1st
1991‐3rd
1992‐1st
1992‐3rd
1993‐1st
1993‐3rd
1994‐1st
1994‐3rd
1995‐1st
1995‐3rd
1996‐1st
1996‐3rd
1997‐1st
1997‐3rd
1998‐1st
1998‐3rd
1999‐1st
1999‐3rd
2000‐1st
2000‐3rd
2001‐1st
2001‐3rd
2002‐1st
2002‐3rd
2003‐1st
2003‐3rd
2004‐1st
2004‐3rd
2005‐1st
2005‐3rd
2006‐1st
2006‐3rd
2007‐1st
2007‐3rd
2008‐1st
2008‐3rd
2009‐1st
2009‐3rd
2010‐1st
2010‐3rd
2011‐1st
y = 3.1059x + 94.475
R² = 0.6381
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2004‐2nd
2004‐3rd
2004‐4th
2005‐1st
2005‐2nd
2005‐3rd
2005‐4th
2006‐1st
2006‐2nd
2006‐3rd
2006‐4th
2007‐1st
2007‐2nd
2007‐3rd
2007‐4th
2008‐1st
62
Figure 72: Court Commitments, Possession of Marijuana, 1985-2011 (6,271)
As far as drug possession is concerned, marijuana represents the exception to the rule, as commitments in
this category were not off nearly as dramatically as they were in the preceding two categories. Overall,
marijuana possession commitments fell short of the projected total by 341 or 22.9% over 13 quarters
beg