Arizona crime trends: a system review 
|
|
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Statistical Analysis Center Publication
O u r mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona
Arizona C r i m e Trends : A System R e v i e w
July
2005
ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief
Chairperson
ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney
Vice-Chairperson
JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff
DUANE BELCHER Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson
JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor
DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director
CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff
TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff
TERRY GODDARD Attorney General
BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney
ROD MARQUARDT Mohave County Chief Probation Officer
TOMMIE CLINE MARTIN Gila County Supervisor
RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief
RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff
DORA SCHRIRO Department of Corrections Director
LINDA SCOTT Former Judge
ANDREW P. THOMAS Maricopa County Attorney
ROGER VANDERPOOL Department of Public Safety Director JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director STEVE BALLANCE Statistical Analysis Center Director JOY LITZENBERGER Research Analyst
RICHARD YOST El Mirage Police Department Chief
MITCH HALFPENNY Senior Research Analyst
JANICE SIMPSON Research Analyst
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank the law enforcement, probation, correctional agencies and court services personnel who contributed to this report.
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
Michelle Anderson, Arizona Supreme Court Lynn Allmann, Department of Public Safety Bobbie Chinsky, Arizona Supreme Court Elizabeth Eells, Ph.D., Arizona Supreme Court Joyce Dehnert, Department of Public Safety Daryl Fischer, Ph.D., Department of Corrections Steve Gendler, Department of Public Safety Mark J. McDermott, Arizona Supreme Court John Vivian, Ph.D., Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary Introduction Research Purpose Research Methods Population National Crime Victimization Survey Arizona Department of Public Safety UCR Submissions Part I Crimes - Crime Distribution Crime Index � Rates Violent Crime Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Firearm Use in Violent Crime Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Services Superior Court Justice courts Municipal courts Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Probation Services Division Juvenile Justice System Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Services Justice Division Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Department of Corrections Special Topics Gender in the Juvenile Justice System Gender in the Adult Prison Population AIBRS/NIBRS Fill the Gap Findings Conclusion Bibliography Appendix A i 1 3 3 4 5 7 8 9 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 30 30 33 35 37 41 41 45 51 60 61 63 65 67 69 73 76 77
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past 10 years, Arizona has had a considerably higher crime rate than the rest of the nation. Between 1993 and 2003, Part I crime rates decreased 17.3 percent in Arizona. During this same time period crime rates nationally decreased 24.9 percent. Part I crime rates indicate the Index Crime Rate 1993-2003 frequency of Part I crimes per 100,000 residents. While crime rates in Arizona have also decreased, the workload for the criminal justice system has not decreased. The population in Arizona increased 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003, compared to a 12.8 percent increase during the same time period nationwide.
9000 8000 7000 Number of Crimes Reported 6000 5000 4000
National Arizona
3000
2000
1000
0 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
The population increase has caused an increase in reported Part I crimes in Arizona even though the crime rate was falling. Population increases also fuel higher levels of traffic violations and misdemeanors that, while not taken into account in Part I crime rates, increase the workload of police, prosecutors, the courts, and jails. Criminal justice agencies in Arizona have seen an increase in workloads tied to the 41.8 percent increase in population over the last decade. However, there has not been a corresponding increase in funding or positions. This strain is seen throughout the criminal justice system through overcrowded prisons, overloaded courts and a lack of an adequate number of police officers for patrol and other functions. The continuing increase in the prison population and the accompanying increases in costs per inmate and agency expenditures highlight the need for a solid data infrastructure in Arizona from which to analyze trends and provide information to policymakers. Additional research on recidivism rates for violent and non-violent offenders should be conducted in order to determine the likelihood of reoffending. The current sentencing structure in relation to individual statutes could then be evaluated based on risk and recidivism information for offenders of various crime types. The rising prisoner population, while an urgent issue currently, is only one example of a place where an improved data infrastructure can assist researchers in providing data based recommendations to policymakers in order to improve the criminal justice system. Based upon the findings of this research, effective policies could be implemented with an appropriate balance between lowering administrative costs while assuring for community safety.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
i
In 2003, Arizona had the highest crime rate in the nation, fueled largely by the high property crime rate. In addition, Arizona was ranked 13th in violent crimes. The total violent crime rate is fueled by the property crime rate because the vast majority of Part I crimes reported are property crimes. Arizona has the highest motor vehicle theft rate in the nation, and the second highest larceny-theft rate. Proximity to the border, a high percentage of youth in Arizona's population, and drug-related crimes are reasons that are often cited for the high property crime rate in Arizona. The increase in crimes committed in Arizona has caused an increase in the number of suspects arrested and a related increase in prosecution and court workloads. The number of felony cases filed has increased by almost 26,000 over the last 10 years with 28,522 in FY1994 compared to 54,420 in FY2004, a 90.8 percent increase. When all criminal case filings are considered, there was a statewide increase of 81.8 percent during this time period. In the last year that information was available, FY2004, nearly 2.4 million cases were filed in Arizona courts. Increases in felony filings, misdemeanors, traffic violations and civil filings have increased the burden on prosecutors and the courts. This increase fuels an increase in prisoners both at the state and county level, and increases the number of probationers as well. The prison population increased 74.0 percent between 1993 and 2003. Changes in sentencing structure, as well as an increase in the population in Arizona have contributed to this increase. In 1994, Truth in Sentencing laws Ending Adult Committed Population were implemented. These laws 3 5 ,0 0 0 mandated that prisoners serve a 3 0 ,0 0 0 larger portion of their sentence 2 5 ,0 0 0 than was previously being 2 0 ,0 0 0 served. In FY1994, the average 1 5 ,0 0 0 prisoner was incarcerated for 25 1 0 ,0 0 0 months. In FY2004, the average 5 ,0 0 0 prisoner served 33 months. The 0 increase in prisoner sentences, combined with the longer time prisoners are serving, has caused significant overcrowding in the prisons. New prison space has not kept pace with prisoner population growth.
Inmate Population
20 03 19 95
The only area in the criminal justice system that has not seen a significant increase in actual numbers is the juvenile justice system. Between FY1996 and FY2004, referrals into the juvenile justice system decreased 1.9 percent. This is despite soaring numbers of juveniles in Arizona. The total number of youth held in the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections has decreased, although the number of girls has increased. This increase in females in the juvenile justice system is considered significant, as it follows a nationwide trend of female youth being more involved in criminal activity.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
19 94
19 96
19 97
19 98
19 99
20 00
20 01
20 02
20 04
ii
This third edition of the Crime Trends in Arizona report was the result of the collaborative efforts of researchers from several agencies within the criminal justice system in Arizona. Information sharing among criminal justice agencies and an increased focus on the further development of the current data infrastructure will allow criminal justice policy and decision makers in Arizona to have the information necessary for evaluating policy and program decisions. Scarce resources and increased workloads have created an environment where it is more important than ever to improve data sharing directed toward evaluating effectiveness. Policymakers at every point in the system must be given accurate data so that they understand the total picture of crime in Arizona and the problems that criminal justice stakeholders are facing. Although crime rates in Arizona have, for the most part, decreased in the past ten years, the dramatic rise in population has led to a greater number of people entering the system. Increased workloads resulting from the population increase have affected the criminal justice system at all stages: police, prosecution, courts, probation, and prison. The need to expand capacities, coupled with limited resources, means that changes in the system must be efficient and effective. An enhanced data infrastructure will allow research strategies and recommendations that can provide direction for policy changes where they will have the most impact, without compromising justice or public safety.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
iii
INTRODUCTION
Along with the population growth in Arizona has come an increased number of crimes and more arrests. This higher number of arrests creates a domino effect throughout the criminal justice system, increasing workloads. This has created a strain on the criminal justice system because the increases in total crime and caseloads have not been accompanied by a similar increase in funding. Coupled with higher operating costs, strained city, county, and state budgets, and increased demands due to the ongoing threat of terrorism, the criminal justice system is tasked with doing more with less. At the same time that the criminal justice system in Arizona is facing increased workloads, federal funding to states for criminal justice activities has decreased nationwide. Agencies throughout the criminal justice system are being tasked with demonstrating effectiveness, or risk losing state and federal funding. While an important goal, proving effectiveness requires that data be collected and disseminated, further increasing the burden on already strained resources. Federal funding has increasingly required performance based strategies with built-in performance measures to gauge effectiveness, a trend that seems to be increasing. A data infrastructure throughout the criminal justice system to collect the information needed to measure performance of new and current systems will allow the criminal justice system and policymakers to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness. Gauging how well criminal justice systems meet preset performance measures will allow agencies and policymakers to replicate best practices and improve struggling systems. Arizona has followed a nationwide trend over the past 10 years in which the overall crime rate has decreased. However, the rate of decrease has slowed over the past few years, with some index crimes increasing in Arizona. During this decrease in overall crime rate (rate of crime per 100,000 residents), the population in Arizona grew 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003. As the population increased, the number of crimes reported to police rose. The crime rate indicates the likelihood for state residents to be the victim of a crime, while the number of crimes committed and cases processed indicate workload levels. Trends in violent and property crime rates over the past 10 years show that Arizona is a safer place to live for the average resident compared to previous years. Many factors played into the decreasing crime rate including a growing economy in the 1990s, tough crime laws, and a growing intolerance for crime among the general public. Information from Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data will show the trends over the past 10 years, and Arizona's crime ranking for each Part I crime as compared to other states. As more cases were processed through the courts, the number of inmates housed by the Department of Corrections increased to the point that there was a deficit of nearly 2,000 beds. The juvenile justice system saw a decrease at all stages of the juvenile justice system. Despite a surging juvenile population in the state, the number of
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
1
referrals into the system, as well as the number of youths held in secure facilities decreased. However, while there was a decrease of males entering secure facilities, there was an increase of females. A new section on special topics has been added to this report over previous editions. The special topics section will focus on issues facing the criminal justice system today. Of particular focus will be gender in the juvenile and adult correctional populations. Males make up the vast majority of inmates in both the juvenile and adult systems. However, at both levels, the proportion of females in the justice system is increasing. This trend mirrors what is being seen at the national level. Also covered in this report is the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) that will eventually be used for data analysis along with the UCR system because it collects more detailed information regarding crime. The Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) has been implemented and is currently being tested in three agencies in Arizona. A broad spectrum of criminal justice professionals in Arizona worked together to produce this report. Through this partnership, a larger overview of the criminal justice system is presented from various perspectives throughout the system. The Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Juvenile Corrections contributed sections to this report. Several units within the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts provided sections regarding their activities including Court Services, Adult Probation Services Division and Juvenile Services Justice Division. The criminal justice system in Arizona is a very large and complex system with more than 480 agencies and related organizations. Available resources, the size and complexity of the criminal justice system and the legacy nature of data sources have influenced the scope of this report. This report is an update to the 2003 Crime Trends in Arizona: A System Review. It is not intended to be a comprehensive source, but rather an overview of the criminal justice system in Arizona. We invite interpretation and anticipate the data and information will elicit questions and discussion among key stakeholders. It is our belief the dialogue generated by questions and discussion may provide a foundation by which Arizona can develop responses to crime trend issues.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
2
RESEARCH PURPOSE
primary objectives. The first objective was to provide an overview of crime trends in Arizona and an update to the 2003 Arizona Crime Trends report. The second was to provide the Governor, criminal justice stakeholders and the citizens of Arizona with a review of the criminal justice system in Arizona in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute �41-2405. Specifically, ARS �41-2405 mandates that the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission "facilitate information and data exchange among criminal justice agencies, establish and maintain criminal justice system information archives and prepare for the governor an annual criminal justice system review report." The third objective was to provide the criminal justice system with a presentation of selected topics of particular relevance to the criminal justice system in Arizona today.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review publication was created to accomplish three
RESEARCH METHODS
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and Uniform Crime Report (UCR) information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation database were used to present information about criminal activity in Arizona over the past 10 years to set a foundation for this report. Crime data included in this report were compiled from information reported to police and collected through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In order to create a system wide review, the Statistical Analysis Center solicited the participation of key criminal justice stakeholders in a collaborative partnership. The partnership included the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Arizona Supreme Court including Court, Adult and Juvenile Services, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and Arizona Department of Corrections. The information included in the 2005 Crime Trends was based upon the most recent data that was available by that agency. Information on selected topics was solicited from various agencies and resources in order to present an overview of those topics.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
3
POPULATION
Table 1
Arizona's population grew more than three times faster than the rest of the nation from 1993 to 2003, growing at a rate of 41.8 percent, compared to a 12.8 percent growth in the national population. From 2002 to 2003, Arizona's population increased by 2.3 percent. Table 1 displays past and current population rates for Arizona and the United States over the last 10 years. (Crime in the United States reports 1993-2003) Between 2000 and 2004, Arizona was the second fastest growing state, behind Nevada (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank02. html).
POPULATION
Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change 1993-2003 Arizona Population 3,936,000 4,075,000 4,218,000 4,428,000 4,555,000 4,669,000 4,778,000 5,130,632 5,307,331 5,456,453 5,580,811 41.8% National Population 257,908,000 260,341,000 262,755,000 265,284,000 267,637,000 270,296,000 272,691,000 281,421,906 284,796,887 288,368,698 290,809,777 12.8%
The smallest population increase in the past 10 years in Arizona was approximately 2.3 percent in 2003. During the same time period, the smallest growth in the national population was 0.8 percent. The greatest increase for both Arizona and national populations was in 2000. Arizona experienced a 7.4 percent increase compared to the 3.2 percent increase nationally from 1999 to 2000. The continuous population growth in Arizona results in a strain on law enforcement resources, even at a time when crime rates are falling.
Figure 1
Percent Change in Population from Previous Year 1993 - 2003
8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Source: Crime in the United States, 2003
Arizona National
Source: Crime in the United States, 2003
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
4
NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY
The most recent National Crime Victimization Survey revealed that there were 24.2 million criminal victimizations in 2003. These criminal victimizations included an estimated 18.6 million property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft), 5.4 million violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), and 185,000 personal thefts (pocket picking and purse snatching). This is a decrease from the 25.9 million reported in 2000 and comparable to the 24.2 million criminal victimizations in 2002. This is also the lowest reported number since 1973 (44 million victimizations) when the NCVS was first initiated (Criminal Victimization, 2003, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv03.txt). Table 2 provides data about the rate of criminal victimization per 100,000 for six offense areas. The data covers 1993 to 2003 and provides a percentage difference view by offense group for the 2002-2003 periods. Rape/sexual assault and simple assault were the only offenses that decreased. The largest decline was for rape with a 27.3 percent decline from 2002-2003.
Table 2
RATE OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION per 100,000 INHABITANTS Rape/Sexual Robbery Aggravated Simple Motor Vehicle Assault Assault Assault Theft 230 620 1,220 3,080 1,970 200 610 1,160 3,110 1,750 170 540 950 2,990 1,690 140 520 880 2,660 1,350 140 430 860 2,490 1,380 150 400 750 2,350 1,080 170 360 670 2,080 1,000 120 320 570 1,780 860 110 280 530 1,590 920 110 220 430 1550 900 80 250 460 1460 900 -27.3% 13.6% 7.0% -5.8% 0.0% Theft 24,270 23,570 22,430 20,570 18,990 16,810 15,390 13,770 12,900 12,230 12,440 1.7%
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change 2002-2003
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey Reports, 1993-2003
Among the 5.4 million violent victimizations in 2003, most male victims were victimized by Male Female strangers, while most females Victims 3,056,160 2,345,550 Intimate 3% 19% were victimized by someone they Other Relative 5% 10% knew. Table 3 outlines the type of Friend/Acquaintance 35% 38% victim-offender relationship by Stranger 54% 32% gender as reported in the 2003 Source: National Crime Victimization Survey Report, 2003 NCVS. Females were much more likely to have an intimate relationship with their assailant (19 percent) than were males
VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP for VIOLENT CRIMES 2003
Table 3
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
5
(three percent). At the same time, males were much more likely not to know their assailant (54 percent) than were females (32 percent). The 2003 NCVS study results indicated that less than 50 percent of all violent crime is reported to the police. In 1993, only 35 percent of the crimes described by victims were reported to law enforcement authorities. Table 4 summarizes the reporting patterns by gender and ethnicity for violent crimes in 2003. During 2003, male victims reported violent crimes (45.9 percent) less often than female victims (53.3 percent). By contrast, in 1993 male victims reported violent crimes 39 percent of the time, while females reported violent crimes 47.9 percent of the time.
Table 4
VIOLENT CRIMES REPORTED TO POLICE BY GENDER AND RACE, 2003 Male Race White Black Other Hispanic Origin Hispanic Non-Hispanic Female Race White Black Other Hispanic Origin Hispanic Non-Hispanic 45.9% 44.8% 53.2% 43.2% 55.2% 44.1% 53.3% 52.7% 58.0% 39.6% 52.9% 53.3%
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the Source: Criminal Victimization 2003 (percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding and National Criminal Victimization Survey reporting methods) (NCVS) are conducted for different purposes and their differences are important. Each report uses different collection methods. The UCR gathers data from monthly reports transmitted to the FBI from law enforcement agencies. The NCVS is a victimization survey conducted with a large sample of U.S. households. They have some overlapping data, but not identical offense categories and they cover different population sets. Because of the differences between the two reports, the reader is reminded that a smaller percentage of crimes is actually reported to law enforcement officials and as such is reflected in the UCR reported crime data.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
6
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
The Arizona Department of Public Safety was created in 1969 as a consolidation of three state law enforcement agencies. This newly formed agency took over the functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway Patrol, the Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and the Narcotics Division of the State Department of Law. The Department of Public Safety's mission is to enforce state laws, deter criminal activity, assure highway and public safety, and provide vital scientific, technical and operational support to other criminal justice agencies in furtherance of the protection of human life and property. The Arizona Department of Public Safety is a multi-faceted organization dedicated to protecting and providing state-level law enforcement services to the public. During the nearly 35 years it has existed, the agency has worked to develop and maintain close partnerships with other agencies sharing similar missions. The Department of Public Safety consists of four divisions: Highway Patrol; Criminal Investigations; Agency Support and Criminal Justice Support. These four divisions work together to provide a wide range of scientific, technical, operational and regulatory services to Arizona residents and to the state's criminal justice community. One of these services is the collection and compilation of Uniform Crime Report data. In 1992, ARS �41-1750 subsection D was amended to read, "The chief officers of law enforcement agencies of this state or its political subdivisions shall provide to the central state repository such information as necessary to operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program." Since that time the number of law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR data project Crime in Arizona has increased, resulting in more accurate and thorough reporting. There are differing methods of reporting crime data between the Crime in Arizona report produced by the Department of Public Safety and the Crime in the United States report published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). FBI data was used in order to make the data comparable with other states for analyses. The data used for both agencies is the same, but the FBI uses estimates to account for non-responding agencies, providing a slight variation in reporting. This primarily pertains to estimates made at the national level by extrapolating data from agencies that contribute incomplete or partial data. Additionally, there are differences in population estimates used by the FBI and the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Therefore, the reader should be cognizant of the fact there will be subtle differences between the numbers contained within these two reports.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
7
UCR SUBMISSIONS Similar to the findings of the last Figure 2 Crime Trends in Arizona report, Arizona UCR Submissions Percent Months Returned 1994 - 2003 agency submissions increased over 100.0% the ten-year period between 1994 90.0% and 2003. As shown in Table 5, 89.7 80.0% percent of monthly uniform crime 70.0% reports were received from agencies 60.0% and 76.0 percent of agencies 50.0% submitted all 12 monthly reports in 40.0% 1994. In 2003, submissions 30.0% 20.0% increased to 91.8 percent of monthly 10.0% uniform crime reports and 81.6 0.0% percent of agencies submitting all 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 monthly reports. However, this was Source: FBI Database a decrease from 2001, the highest participation year, where 94.9 percent of monthly uniform crime reports were submitted and 89.2 percent of agencies submitted all 12 monthly reports. The fact that the submissions were so high in 2001 shows that the data infrastructure has improved since the original implementation of UCR. Figure 3 As this data is used both at the state Arizona UCR Submissions Percent of Agencies Submitting All Monthly Reports 1994 - 2003 and national level for many 100.0% purposes, including federal grant 90.0% funding, this decrease is cause for 80.0% concern. Several issues can affect 70.0% failure to report including 60.0% technological problems and changes 50.0% in how data is collected internally. 40.0% 30.0% While there has been an overall 20.0% increase in UCR submissions, there 10.0% has been a decrease in reporting 0.0% over the past two years. (See 1994 1995 1 996 1997 1998 199 9 2 000 2001 2002 200 3 Appendix A for more information regarding UCR submissions.)
Table 5
1994 100 89.7% 76.0% 76 1995 100 87.9% 74.0% 74 UCR Agency Submissions 1999 � 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 100 100 102 102 84.4% 68.0% 68 87.3% 66.0% 66 89.9% 68.6% 70 93.9% 87. 3% 89 2000 102 93.9% 85.3% 87 2001 102 94.9% 89.2% 91 2002 102 89.0% 78.4% 80 2003* 103 91.8% 81.6% 84
Percent Submitting All Reports
Percent
Source: FBI Database
*Two agencies submitted data with another agency for six months each. Source: FBI Database
Agencies Percent Months Returned Agencies Submitting all Reports
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
8
It is important to note that the vast majority of agencies filed all monthly reports (81.6 percent in 2003), including all large agencies. Three agencies are state certified and submitting Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) data. As the AIBRS data collection strategy is expanded with more agencies being certified, its usefulness at the local level, as well as the state and national level will increase. This system gives criminal justice and law enforcement professionals the tools necessary to better identify and study crime trends. This gives the criminal justice system and policymakers greater ability to identify when, where, and how crime is taking place, as well as identifying victim characteristics. For a more detailed description of AIBRS/NIBRS, please see the AIBRS/NIBRS section starting on page 65. The difference in the level of detail collected by UCR and NIBRS is evident by the type of information collected. Uniform Crime Reports collect limited offense and arrest information about the most serious offenses and general characteristics of persons arrested. In addition to collecting the type of information collected by UCR, NIBRS collects more detailed offense and arrest information and victim information about each count. NIBRS allows for accurate information to be collected on victim based crimes such as domestic violence. Similar to the UCR program, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) collects data for the FBI NIBRS program in the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) repository. This repository is designed to collect data on each crime occurrence as well as each incident and arrest within that occurrence and will allow the state to report information to the FBI for NIBRS.
PART I CRIMES
CRIME DISTRIBUTION Nationally, larceny-theft (59.4 percent) represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2003, followed by burglary (18.2 percent), motor vehicle theft (10.7 percent), aggravated assault (7.3 percent), robbery (3.5 percent), forcible rape (0.8 percent) and murder (0.1 percent).
Figure 4
National Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for 2003
Figure 5
Arizona Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for 2003
Murder, 0.1%
Murder, 0.1% Forcible Rape, 0.8% Motor Vehicle Theft, 10.7% Robbery, 3.5% Aggravated Assault, 7.3% Burglary, 18.2%
Forcible Rape, 0.5% Robbery, 2.2% Motor Vehicle Theft, 16.6% Aggravated Assault, 5.5% Burglary, 17.1%
Larceny-Theft, 59.4%
Larceny-Theft, 57.9%
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
9
In Arizona, larceny-theft (57.9 percent) also represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2003, followed by burglary (17.1 percent), motor vehicle theft (16.6 percent), aggravated assault (5.5 percent), robbery (2.2 percent), forcible rape (sexual assault in Arizona, 0.5 percent) and murder (0.1 percent). When comparing national and Arizona UCR patterns for 2003 several similarities exist. Larceny-theft represented the largest category of offenses for both national and state trends, followed by burglary and motor vehicle theft. As seen in figures 4 and 5, the percent distribution for murder was identical at the state and national levels. These figures also illustrate that the percent distribution for forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault was lower for Arizona than at the national level.
Figure 6
Violent and Property Crime Distribution in 2003
100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Property Crimes Violent Crimes
Arizona National
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Figure 6 provides a comparison of the national and Arizona proportion of violent and property crimes for 2003. A closer look at that comparison shows that for property crimes, Arizona is slightly higher than the national level. The opposite is true for the proportion of violent crime, where Arizona is slightly below national levels. Property crime represented 88.3 percent of the total crime reported nationally in 2003 and 91.3 percent of Arizona's total crime rate. Arizona has the highest overall crime rate in the nation even though Arizona has the thirteenth highest violent crime rate in the nation. When the property crime rate and the violent crime rate are added together, the total crime rate in Arizona is higher than any other state.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
10
There was an overall decrease of 24.9 percent in the total crime rate in the United States from 1993 to 2003. During that period, there was a decrease in every index crime. After more than a decade, 2003 continued this trend with a one percent decrease in the total crime rate.
Table 6
Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Murder 9.5 9.0 8.2 7.4 6.8 6.3 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 Forcible Rape 41.1 39.3 37.1 36.3 35.9 34.5 32.8 32.0 31.8 33.1 32.1 NATIONAL CRIME INDEX (RATES) Aggravated LarcenyRobbery Burglary Assault Theft 256.0 440.5 1,099.7 3,033.9 237.8 427.6 1,042.1 3,026.9 220.9 418.3 987.0 3,043.2 201.9 391.0 945.0 2,980.3 186.2 382.1 918.8 2,891.8 165.5 361.4 863.2 2,729.5 150.1 334.3 770.4 2,550.7 145.0 324.0 728.8 2,477.3 148.5 318.5 740.8 2,484.6 146.1 309.5 747.0 2,450.7 142.2 295.0 740.5 2,414.5 Auto Theft 606.3 591.3 560.3 525.7 505.7 459.9 422.5 412.2 430.6 432.9 433.4 Total Crime 5,487.1 5,373.8 5,274.9 5,087.6 4,927.3 4,620.1 4,266.5 4,124.8 4,160.5 4,160.5 4,118.8
Source: Crime in the United States, 2003
Table 7
NATIONAL PART I CRIME Crime Index Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft 2002 RATE 4,118.8 494.6 5.6 33.0 145.9 310.1 3,624.1 746.2 2,445.8 432.1 2003 RATE 4,063.4 475.0 5.7 32.1 142.2 295.0 3,588.4 740.5 2,414.5 433.4 PERCENT CH ANGE -1.4% - 4.0% 1.8% - 2.7% -2.5% - 4.9% -1.0% - 0.8% -1.3% 0.3%
Source: Crime in the United States, 2002 and 2003
Compared to 2002, there was a decrease in crime rates for most of the Uniform Crime Report Part I offenses in 2003. Murder increased 1.8 percent, changing from a rate of 5.6 to 5.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. All property crimes and rates except motor vehicle theft decreased from 2002 to 2003 with burglary rates down 0.8 percent, larceny-theft down 1.3 percent, and motor vehicle theft increasing 0.3 percent.
The following tables and figures illustrate how Arizona compares to the rest of the nation in each of the index crime categories. As crime rates are calculated by the number of crimes per 100,000 residents, rates present a clearer picture of whether crime has increased or decreased than do number of crimes reported. In Arizona, the number of actual crimes has gone up due to the growing population. However, the crime rate has decreased over the past 10 years. Arizona moved up in ranking for murder and rape, while moving down in ranking in robbery and aggravated assault, with the other index crimes remaining at the same rank during 2002 and 2003. Arizona has the highest rate in the nation for motor vehicle theft, which contributes to the state's number one ranking in property crime.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
11
Table 8
Part I Crime 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate 2002-2003 1 Arizona 6,145.6 1 6,386.3 -3.8% 2 Hawaii 5,507.9 2 6,043.7 -8.9% 3 South Carolina 5,270.6 4 5,297.3 - 0.5% 4 Florida 5,182.2 3 5,420.6 -4.4% 5 Texas 5,147.8 5 5,189.6 - 0.8% 6 Washington 5,101.9 6 5,106.8 -0.1% 7 Oregon 5,077.8 10 4,868.4 4.3% 8 Tennessee 5,067.2 9 5,018.9 1.0% 9 Louisiana 4,995.8 7 5,098.1 - 2.0% 10 Nevada 4,902.6 16 4,497.5 9.0% National Rate 4,063.4 4,118.8 - 1.4%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
CRIME INDEX � RATES
Table 9 provides an overview of Arizona Part I crimes from 2002-2003 and summarizes the offense specific tables which follow. It is important to note from this table that Arizona is highest in the nation in total Crime Index, property crime and motor vehicle theft. Arizona ranks high in all property crimes, especially motor vehicle theft and larceny-theft. In addition, Arizona ranks number four in the country in burglaries. As property crime makes up 91.3 percent of all Part I crimes reported in Arizona, Arizona also has the highest overall crime rate. Hawaii, with the second highest crime rate, likewise has a very high property crime rate when compared to the rest of the nation. The property crime rate is a major factor in determining the overall crime rate because it contains the highest incidences (91.6 percent) of crime as reflected by the 5632.4 rate in 2003. In turn, Arizona was also ranked number four in burglary, number two in larceny-theft and first in motor vehicle theft, which accounts for Arizona having the highest property crime rate per
Table 9
ARIZONA PART I CRIMES FROM 2002-2003 RATE PER 100,000 2003
Crime Index Violent Crime
Rank 1 13 5 24 17 14 1 4 2 1
2002 6,386.3 552.9 7.1 29.5 146.6 369.8 5,833.4 1,082.9 3,693.6 1,056.9
Rank 1 13 9 30 14 12 1 2 2 1
Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault
Property Crime
6,145.6 513.2 7.9 33.3 136.5 335.5 5,632.4 1,050.3 3,560.9 1,021.3
Percent Change -3.8% -7.2% 11.3% 12.9% -6.9% -9.3% -3.5% -3.0% -3.6% -3.4%
Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
12
100,000 residents. Motor vehicle theft has a substantial impact on Arizona's property crime rate because the state was not only number one in motor vehicle theft, but it was number one by a large margin over other states.
Table 10
Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Murder 8.6 10.5 10.4 8.5 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.9 Forcible Rape 37.8 36.0 33.6 31.2 32.8 31.1 28.9 30.7 28.6 29.5 33.3 ARIZONA CRIME INDEX (RATES) Aggravated LarcenyRobbery Burglary Assault Theft 162.9 505.7 1,465.5 4,387.4 162.0 494.7 1,476.2 4,678.5 173.8 495.7 1,416.8 4,925.6 167.8 424.0 1,256.3 4,252.5 165.7 417.1 1,318.9 4,282.0 165.2 373.6 1,209.5 3,922.4 152.5 361.6 1,034.4 3,510.5 146.3 347.7 1,011.6 3,444.1 167.1 337.1 1,032.9 3,520.6 146.6 369.8 1,082.9 3,693.6 136.5 335.5 1,050.3 3,560.9 Auto Theft 863.8 1,066.7 1,157.7 926.7 970.4 865.1 800.5 842.1 983.6 1,056.9 1,021.3 Total Crime 7,431.7 7,924.6 8,213.6 7,067.0 7,195.1 6,575.0 5,896.4 5,829.5 6,077.4 6,386.4 6,145.6
Sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
Arizona's index crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson) remained substantially higher than the national rate between 1993 through 2003. This rate includes both property and violent crimes, although the majority of crimes included are property crimes. The total index crime rate in Arizona fell 17.3 percent from 7431.7 to 6145.6 between 1993 and 2003. While this represented a large drop in crime, the national index crime rate decreased from 5487.1 in 1993 to 4118.8 in 2003, a decline of 24.9 percent.
Figure 7
Index Crime Rate 1993-2003
9000 8000
Number of Crimes Reported
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1993
National Arizona
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
13
VIOLENT CRIME
According to the Uniform Crime Reporting definitions, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery and aggravated assault. All violent crimes involve force or threat of force. Both the national and state violent crime rates have decreased over the past 10 years. However, the national violent crime rate has decreased at a slightly higher rate than that of Arizona. As reflected in Table 11, Arizona's rate of total violent crime decreased by 7.2 percent from 2002 to 2003. In both 2002 and 2003 Arizona ranked 13th for violent crime in the nation. Most states in the top 10 rankings for violent crime had at least a slight decrease in the rate of violent crime from 2002 to 2003. However, Arizona's rate of violent crime decreased at a higher rate than most other top 10 ranked states.
Table 11
Violent Crime 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 South Carolina 793.5 1 822.0 - 3.5% 2 Florida 730.2 2 770.2 -5.2% 3 Maryland 703.9 3 769.8 - 8.6% 4 Tennessee 687.8 5 716.9 -4.1% 5 New Mexico 665.2 4 739.5 - 10.0% 6 Delaware 658.0 9 599.0 9.9% 7 Louisiana 646.3 6 662.3 - 2.4% 8 Nevada 614.2 7 637.5 -3.7% 9 Alaska 593.4 12 563.4 5.3% 10 California 579.3 10 593.4 -2.4% 13 Arizona 513.2 13 552.9 -7.2% National Rate 475.0 494.6 -4.0%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 8
Violent Crime Rate 1993-2003
800.0 700.0
Rate per 100,000 Population
600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 1993
Arizona National
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Calendar Year
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
14
MURDER As defined by the UCR program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, is "the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another." (Crime in the United States, 2003, p.15). The murder rate in Arizona increased by 11.3 percent from the year 2002 to 2003. In 2002, Arizona was ranked 9th in the nation for its murder rate per 100,000 residents. In 2003, Arizona rose from ranking of 9 in 2002 to a ranking 5 in 2003.
Table 12
Murder 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Louisiana 13.0 1 13.2 - 1.5% 2 Maryland 9.5 2 9.4 1.1% 3 Mississippi 9.3 3 9.2 1.1% 4 Nevada 8.8 4 8.3 6.0% 5 Arizona 7.9 9 7.1 11.3% 6 Georgia 7.6 9 7.1 7.0% 7 South Carolina 7.2 7 7.3 - 1.4% 8 Illinois 7.1 6 7.5 -5.3% 9 California 6.8 11 6.8 0.0% 9 Tennessee 6.8 8 7.2 -5.6% National Rate 5.7 5.6 1.8%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 9
On a national level, the Murder Rate murder rate has gradually 1993-2003 declined from 1993 to 2003. 12.0 As reflected in Figure 9, the 10.0 murder rate in Arizona increased from 1993 to 8.0 1994, and then experienced 6.0 a steady decline until 2000. Arizona National The murder rate increased 4.0 overall in Arizona between 2000 and 2003 rising from 2.0 7.0 to 7.9 murders per 0.0 100,000 residents. While 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 both Arizona and the nation experienced an overall decrease in murder between 1993 and 2003, the decrease nationally was larger and more consistent.
Rate per 100,000 Population
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
15
FORCIBLE RAPE As defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program, forcible rape, is "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 27). Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded. Sexual attacks on males are classified as assaults or sexual offenses. The incidents of rape per 100,000 residents in Arizona increased by 12.9 percent from the year 2002 to 2003. Arizona ranked 30th in 2002 and then rose to rank 24 in 2003.
Table 13
Rape 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Alaska 92.5 1 79.4 16.5% 2 Michigan 54.1 3 53.4 1.3% 3 New Mexico 50.0 2 55.4 -9.8% 4 Rhode Island 46.9 21 36.9 27.1% 5 Washington 46.7 8 45.0 3.8% 6 South Dakota 46.3 5 47.4 -2.3% 7 South Carolina 44.4 4 47.7 -6.9% 8 Delaware 43.2 10 44.3 -2.5% 9 Oklahoma 42.7 8 45.0 -5.1% 10 Colorado 41.6 6 45.8 -9.2% 24 Arizona 33.3 30 29.5 12.9% National Rate 32.1 33.0 -2.7%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 10
On a national level, forcible rape (known as sexual assault in Arizona) gradually declined from 1993 until 2001 when it started to increase until 2003. Arizona ranked 24th in the nation with a rate of 33.3 in 2003. In 2002, Arizona ranked 30th in the nation with a rate of 29.5.
Forcible Rape Rate 1993-2003
45.0 40.0
Rate per 100,000 Population
35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1993
Arizona National
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
16
ROBBERY The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines robbery as "the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 32). Maryland was number one in 2003 with a robbery rate of 241.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. Arizona's rate of robbery decreased by 6.9 percent from the year 2002 to 2003, dropping from 14 to 17 in the national ranking among states.
Table 14
Robbery 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Maryland 241.5 1 245.8 -1.8% 2 Nevada 230.3 2 235.5 -2.2% 3 Illinois 188.2 3 200.6 -6.2% 4 New York 186.3 5 191.3 -2.6% 5 Florida 185.2 4 194.9 -5.0% 6 California 179.7 6 185.0 -2.9% 7 Delaware 169.9 15 142.9 18.9% 8 Texas 167.4 7 172.5 -3.0% 9 Georgia 161.8 11 156.9 3.1% 10 Tennessee 160.4 8 162.4 -1.2% 17 Arizona 136.5 14 146.6 -6.9% National Rate 142.2 145.9 -2.5%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 11
As seen by Figure 11, the national robbery rate decreased markedly from 1993 until 1999, and has remained stable through 2003. In Arizona, the robbery rate stayed relatively constant during the 10-year period. From 2001 to 2003, there was a decrease in the robbery rate in Arizona dropping from 167.1 to 136.5 robberies per 100,000 residents.
Robbery Rate 1993-2003
300. 0
250. 0
Rate per 100,000 Population
200. 0
150. 0
Arizona National
100. 0
50. 0
0. 0 1993
1994
199 5
1996
1997
1998
1999
200 0
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
17
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT According to the Uniform Crime Reporting program, an aggravated assault is an "unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 37). This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assaults are included since it is not necessary that an injury result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed. As shown in Table 15 Arizona ranked 14th in 2003 with a rate of 335.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. When compared to the 2002 rate (369.8), the number of aggravated assaults has decreased 9.3 percent in 2003.
Table 15
Aggravated Assault 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 South Carolina 605.1 1 626.5 -3.4% 2 New Mexico 505.2 2 557.1 -9.3% 3 Florida 500.1 3 529.4 -5.5% 4 Tennessee 484.9 4 507.8 -4.5% 5 Delaware 442.0 7 408.5 8.2% 6 Louisiana 435.0 6 456.1 -4.6% 7 Maryland 428.3 5 489.5 -12.5% 8 Alaska 426.5 8 402.9 5.9% 9 Oklahoma 365.3 13 368.8 -1.0% 10 California 364.6 11 372.6 -2.1% 14 Arizona 335.5 12 369.8 -9.3% National Rate 295.0 310.1 -4.9%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 12
On a national scale, aggravated assault has declined over the past 10 years. Arizona's aggravated assault rate experienced a decline in 1996 and continued to drop until 2001. There was a slight increase in 2002, followed by a decrease in 2003.
Aggravated Assault Rate 1993-2003
600. 0
500. 0
Rate per 100,000 Population
400. 0
300. 0
Arizona National
200. 0
100. 0
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
0. 0 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
199 8
1 999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
18
PROPERTY CRIME
In the UCR program, "property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but Table 16 Property Crime there is no force or 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population threat of force against 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change the victim or victims. 2003 State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) Arson is included in the 1 Arizona 5,632.4 1 5,833.4 -3.5% property crime category 2 Hawaii 5,237.5 2 5,781.7 -9.4% since it involves the 3 Oregon 4,782.3 6 4,576.0 4.5% destruction of property, 4 Washington 4,754.9 3 4,761.4 -0.1% although its victims may 5 Texas 4,595.3 5 4,611.0 -0.3% be subjected to force. South 6 Carolina 4,477.1 7 4,475.3 0.0% However, because of 7 Florida 4,452.0 4 4,650.4 -4.3% limited participation and 8 Tennessee 4,379.4 10 4,302.0 1.8% varying collection 9 Louisiana 4,349.5 8 4,435.7 -1.9% procedures by local 10 Oklahoma 4,306.0 12 4,239.8 1.6% agencies, only limited National Rate 3,588.4 3,624.1 -1.0% data are available for Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 arson. Arson statistics are included in trend, clearance, and arrest tables throughout FBI's Crime in the United States, but they are not included in any estimated volume data." (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 41). As seen in Table 16, in 2002 and 2003, Arizona ranked first in property crime in the United States with a rate of 5,833.4 (2002) and 5632.4 (2003). Arizona has had the highest property crime rate in the United States since 2000. Hawaii, ranked number two in property crime, has a property crime rate that was 7.5 percent lower than Arizona.
Figure 13
The national property crime rate has decreased over the past 10 years, while the Arizona property crime rate has fluctuated over this same period. In Arizona, the property crime rate peaked in 1995 (7345.3). Arizona experienced a 3.4 percent decrease in the property crime between 2002 and 2003.
Property Crime Rate 1993-2003
8000.0 7000.0
Rate per 100,000 Population
6000.0 5000.0 4000.0 3000.0 2000.0 1000.0 0.0 1993
Arizona National
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
19
BURGLARY The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines burglary "as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. The use of force to gain entry is not required to classify an offense as burglary. Burglary is categorized into three sub-classifications: forcible entry; unlawful entry where no force is used and attempted forcible entry" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 45). As reflected in Table 17, in 2003, Arizona ranked 4th in burglary with a rate of 1,050.3 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Table 17
Burglary 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 North Carolina 1,197.6 1 1,196.3 0. 1 % 2 Tennessee 1,082.0 6 1,056.5 2.4% 3 South Carolina 1,050.9 3 1,065.1 - 1.3% 4 Arizona 1,050.3 2 1,082.9 -3.0% 5 Mississippi 1,035.6 7 1,030.5 0. 5 % 6 New Mexico 1,025.2 5 1,058.4 -3.1% 7 Florida 1,002.7 4 1,060.5 - 5.5% 8 Louisiana 998.1 9 1,011.7 -1.3% 9 Texas 993.7 11 976.1 1.8% 10 Oklahoma 992.3 10 1,006.7 -1.4% National Rate 740.5 746.2 - 0.8%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 14
Similar to other UCR crimes, the national trend for burglary has fallen. Arizona experienced an increase in 1997 and a slight rise in 2001 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2003, the burglary rate in Arizona decreased 3.0 percent.
Burglary Rate 1993-2003
1600.0 1400.0
Rate per 100,000 Population
1200.0 1000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 1993
Arizona National
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
20
LARCENY-THEFT Larceny-theft is "the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. It includes crimes such as shoplifting, pocket-picking, purse-snatching, thefts from motor vehicles, thefts of motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycle thefts, etc., in which no use of force, violence, or fraud occurs. In the Uniform Crime Reporting program, this crime category does not include embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, and worthless checks. Motor vehicle theft is also excluded from this category inasmuch as it is a separate Crime Index offense" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p.49). Table 18 shows that Arizona ranked 2nd in 2003 with a rate of 3,560.9 for larceny-theft. This is a decrease of 3.6 percent from the 2002 rate of 3,693.6 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Table 18
Larceny-Theft 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Hawaii 3,562.9 1 3,963.7 - 10.1% 2 Arizona 3,560.9 2 3,693.6 -3.6% 3 Oregon 3,444.6 3 3,377.1 2. 0 % 4 Utah 3,182.2 4 3,229.1 -1.5% 5 Texas 3,157.7 6 3,163.4 - 0.2% 6 Washington 3,142.1 5 3,188.8 -1.5% 7 South Carolina 3,046.1 8 2,999.5 1. 6 % 8 Florida 2,970.1 7 3,060.3 -2.9% 9 Oklahoma 2,944.7 12 2,867.6 2.7% 10 Louisiana 2,909.3 10 2,973.7 -2.2% National Rate 2,414.5 2,445.8 - 1.3%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 15
When comparing national trends over the past 10 years, the larceny-theft rate has declined. Over the past 10 years, Arizona's larceny-theft rate has been consistently above the national average. As reflected in Figure 15, the highest larceny-theft rate occurred in 1995 (4,823.9), and the lowest rate occurred in 2000 (3,444.1).
Larceny-Theft Rate 1993-2003
6000.0
5000.0
Rate per 100,000 population
4000.0
3000.0
Arizona National
2000.0
1000.0
0.0 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
21
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT Defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program as "the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle, this offense category includes the stealing of automobiles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, motor scooters, and snowmobiles. The definition excludes the taking of a motor vehicle for temporary use by those persons having lawful access" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 55). As reflected in Table 19, the motor vehicle theft rate for Arizona decreased 3.4 percent from 2002 to 2003.
Table 19
Motor Vehicle Theft 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate 2002-2003 1 Arizona 1,021.3 1 1,056.9 -3.4% 2 Nevada 929.8 2 804.5 15.6% 3 Hawaii 767.4 3 796.0 - 3.6% 4 California 680.1 5 633.2 7.4% 5 Washington 662.5 4 667.2 - 0.7% 6 Maryland 660.8 6 623.3 6.0% 7 Oregon 533.5 12 469.2 13.7% 8 Michigan 533.1 9 494.7 7.8% 9 Missouri 502.4 10 491.5 2.2% 10 Georgia 499.4 16 444.3 12.4% National Rate 433.4 432.1 0.3%
Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005
Figure 16
Nationally, the motor vehicle Motor Vehicle Theft Rate 1993-2003 theft rate showed an overall 1400.0 decrease between 1993 and 2003. Arizona has moved 1200.0 from having the 6th highest 1000.0 rate of motor vehicle theft in the nation in 1991 to the 800.0 Arizona number one ranked state in 600.0 National the nation in 1994. Arizona 400.0 has maintained that ranking with a rate of 1,021.3 motor 200.0 vehicle thefts per 100,000 0.0 inhabitants in 2003. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 However, in 2003, Arizona also experienced the first decline in the motor vehicle theft rate since 1999. A more complete evaluation of Motor Vehicle Theft in Arizona can be found in the Arizona Auto Theft Study, conducted in 2004 by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
Rate per 100,000 Population
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
22
Firearm Use in Violent Crime Even though violent crime rates have decreased over the past 10 years, a high percentage of homicides can be attributed to firearm related injuries. In 2003, 70.9 percent of all homicides in the United States were the result of firearm inflicted injuries (Crime in the United States 2003, 2004). In Arizona, in 2003, there were 440 homicides, 70.7 percent of which involved the use of a firearm (Crime in Arizona, 2003). An analysis of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program master files was conducted to determine gun use during violent crimes, including murder, robbery and aggravated assault at a national and state level. The numbers used for this analysis vary slightly from published FBI reports such as Crime in the United States because the FBI accounts for non-reporting or partially reporting agencies by estimating crimes occurring in those jurisdictions with missing data. The figures used for the purpose of this evaluation looked only at uniform crime reports submitted by agencies. The comparison being made for this analysis was the total number of robberies and aggravated assault reported compared to the number of robberies with a firearm and aggravated assaults with a firearm. National percentages for crimes committed with a firearm were taken from Crime in the United States publications. These publications take into account nonreporting or partially reporting agencies to extrapolate the correct numbers of crime occurrences. In Arizona, all urban agencies report UCR data to the FBI. However, this is not the case nationwide. For this reason, it was determined that while actual counts were the most accurate reflection of Arizona data, the extrapolated figures were the most accurate reflection at the national level. Murder
Figure 17
Percent of Murders Involving a Firearm
The majority of homicides in 100.0% the United States and 90.0% Arizona involve the use of a 80.0% firearm. The inclusion of a 70.0% firearm in any crime is of 60.0% concern, chiefly because of 50.0% the risk that a crime could 40.0% escalate to murder. As the 30.0% chart to the right shows, 20.0% 10.0% approximately two-thirds 0.0% (66.9 percent in 2003) of all 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 murders in the United States Year involve the use of a firearm. Arizona United States Source: Crime in Arizona reports, Crime in the United States reports This chart portrays the percent of murders in Arizona and the United States that involved a firearm between 1994 and 2003. As is shown in Table 20 on the following page, Arizona had a higher percentage of murders with a firearm than the nation during this time period.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
Per c ent
23
Table 20
1994 72.8% 65.2% 1995 75.7% 68.0% Murder with a Firearm 1994 � 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 74.3% 70.9% 73.8% 71.1% 67.8% 67.8% 64.9% 65.2% 2000 70.8% 65.6% 2001 71.4% 63.4% 2002 75.8% 66.7% 2003 70.7% 66.9%
Arizona United States
Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports
Robbery The number of total robberies in Arizona increased 16.3 percent from 1994 � 2003, while robberies with a firearm increased 39.5 percent during that same time period. In 1994, 40.2 percent of all robberies in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. This percentage increased to 48.3 percent in 2003. The percent of robberies with a firearm in 2003 was higher in Arizona (48.3 percent) than nationally (41.8 percent). Since 2001, Arizona has had increasingly higher rates of firearm usage during robberies than the rest of the nation.
Table 21
Arizona Robberies with a Firearm 1994 � 2003 Robberies with Total Arizona a Firearm Robberies Percent 2,606 6,480 40.2% 2,983 7,119 41.9% 2,871 7,296 39.4% 2,958 7,264 40.7% 3,082 7,537 40.9% 3,150 7,260 43.4% 3,116 7,472 41.7% 4,084 8,760 46.6% 3,722 7,907 47.1% 3,636 7,533 48.3% National Percent 41.6% 41.0% 40.7% 39.7% 38.2% 39.9% 40.9% 42.0% 42.1% 41.8%
Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
The number of robberies with or without a firearm increased in Arizona between 1994 and 2003, while the number of robberies fell nationally during the same time period. However, robberies between 2001 and 2003 decreased at a higher percentage in Arizona than nationally.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
24
Figure 18
Arizona Robberies with a Firearm
10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 Robberies 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 199 4 1 995 19 96 19 97 199 8 Year Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm 199 9 200 0 2 001 2 002 20 03
Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003.
Figures 18 and 19 show that a larger percentage of robberies in Arizona involve the use of a firearm than nationally.
Figure 19
National Robberies with a Firearm
70 0,000
60 0,000
50 0,000
Robberies
40 0,000
30 0,000
20 0,000
10 0,000
0 199 4 199 5 1 996 19 97 199 8 Year Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm 1 999 20 00 200 1 2 002 20 03
Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003.
Robberies involving a firearm increased 39.5 percent in Arizona between 1994 and 2003. Apache, Cochise, Gila, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties had a decrease in robberies with a firearm, while Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Yuma counties experienced an increase in robberies with a firearm between 1994 and
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
25
2003. Graham and Greenlee counties reported no robberies with a firearm during this time period. In 2003, 77.7 percent of robberies with a firearm were committed in Maricopa County and 18.6 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 22 shows the number of robberies with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003.
Table 22
1994 4 16 12 3 0 0 4 2,072 38 7 390 19 23 16 2 2,606 1995 2 12 17 1 0 0 3 2,406 48 7 451 10 9 12 5 2,983 Robberies with a Firearm By County 1994 - 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 1 2 1 0 13 20 16 22 18 13 15 23 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2,319 2,306 2,445 2,599 25 23 23 15 7 10 5 3 448 535 540 444 12 30 22 22 10 6 6 4 11 5 9 9 6 4 0 7 2,871 2,958 3,082 3,150 2000 1 26 28 0 0 0 0 2,528 13 6 447 43 0 8 16 3,116 2001 0 13 16 1 0 0 2 3,474 24 7 493 31 1 16 6 4,084 2002 1 9 4 1 0 0 1 3,247 13 1 390 26 4 9 16 3,722 2003 0 11 24 0 0 0 3 2,826 17 2 675 39 3 8 28 3,636
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navaj o Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma AZ
Source: FBI database, 1994 � 2003
Aggravated Assault In 2003, 27.0 percent of all aggravated assaults in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. This is considerably higher than the 19.1 percent seen nationwide in 2003. While all assaults with a firearm are considered aggravated assaults, all assaults, including simple assaults, have the potential of escalating to the point that serious injury or death to the victims occurs. When a firearm is added to the assault, the potential for injury or death is higher, as can be seen by the fact that 70.9 percent of homicides in Arizona in 2003 involved the use of a firearm.
Table 23
Assaults with a Firearm 7,019 7,117 5,989 5,471 4,646 4,407 4,248 4,230 4,637 4,950 Aggravated Assaults 19,690 20,245 18,023 18,175 16,881 16,915 17,774 17,664 19,900 18,343 Arizona Assaults 1994 - 2003 Total Arizona Percent with Assaults Firearm 68,732 35.7% 74,017 35.2% 69,045 33.2% 69,559 30.1% 69,048 27.6% 66,689 26.1% 69,192 23.9% 71,177 24.0% 74,424 23.3% 71,102 27.0% National Percent with Firearm 24.0% 22.9% 22.0% 20.0% 18.8% 18.0% 18.1% 18.3% 19.0% 19.1%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Sources: FBI database, 1994 � 2003, Crime in the United States reports
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
26
The charts below show the proportions of total assaults (simple and aggravated) that involve the use of a firearm.
Figure 20
Arizona Assaults with a Firearm
80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 Assaults 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Total Assaults Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm
Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003.
As seen in Figures 20 and 21, while the percentage of assaults that are aggravated assaults is roughly the same in Arizona and the United States, Arizona has a much higher percentage of aggravated assaults committed with a firearm than the national level. Since 1994, Arizona's rate of firearm use in aggravated assaults has generally been around 10 percentage points higher than the national rate.
Figure 21
National Assaults with a Firearm
4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 Assaults 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Total Assaults Total Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
27
Between 1994 and 2003, the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm in Arizona decreased 29.5 percent, while the total number of aggravated assaults in Arizona decreased 6.8 percent. Apache, Cochise, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima and Yuma counties had increases in the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm, while Coconino, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties had decreases in aggravated assaults with a firearm between 1994 and 2003. In 2003, 63.2 percent of aggravated assaults with a firearm were committed in Maricopa County and 27.4 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 24 shows the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003.
Table 24
1994 3 35 61 24 9 0 26 5,179 96 21 1,272 192 16 67 18 7,019 1995 10 25 45 31 10 0 7 5,131 86 49 1,405 185 10 108 15 7,117 Aggravated Assault with a Firearm By County 1994 - 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 9 1 9 6 5 26 29 27 54 28 33 26 39 21 32 14 25 25 8 15 2 9 1 5 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 6 4 4,373 3,757 3,350 3,114 3,056 60 66 55 46 52 22 16 15 20 15 1,195 1,313 965 924 835 170 131 90 114 58 10 7 4 7 2 56 75 52 47 39 19 15 9 34 103 5,989 5,471 4,646 4,407 4,248 2001 13 44 34 5 1 0 1 2,972 63 8 871 79 0 47 92 4,230 2002 9 41 29 18 2 1 2 3,354 67 14 861 64 2 44 129 4,637 2003 7 45 60 11 1 1 5 3,128 56 23 1,358 102 1 58 94 4,950
Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona
Firearm Use in Violent Crime Arizona consistently had a higher rate of firearm use in Part I violent crime (murder, robbery and aggravated assault) between 1994 and 2003. The chart below shows Arizona's and United States' percentage of crimes involving a firearm for murder, robbery and aggravated assault between 1994 and 2003. With the exception of robbery in 1994 and 1996, Arizona had higher firearm usage in all crime categories for each year examined. Both nationally and in Arizona, murder was the violent crime most likely to involve a firearm, followed by robbery and aggravated assault.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
28
Figure 22
Violent Crime Involving a Firearm
80 .0% 70 .0% 60 .0% 50 .0% Percent 40 .0% 30 .0% 20 .0% 10 .0% 0.0% 1 994 199 5 19 96 1 997 199 8 19 99 2 00 0 20 01 2 002 200 3 Year
Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003.
AZ Murder US Murder AZ Robbery US Robbery AZ Aggravated Assault US Aggravated Assault
Project Safe Neighborhoods is a gun violence reduction initiative being coordinated by the US Attorney's across the country. While reducing crimes involving a firearm has become a nationwide focus, it is even more necessary in Arizona, where a higher percentage of violent crimes involve the use of a firearm.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
29
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS COURT SERVICES
The judicial system in Arizona is both large and complex. It consists of a series of courts and an array of support services, which assist the court in the timely processing of cases. Arizona has two appellate courts: the Court of Appeals with two divisions, which is the intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort. In this review we have not included workload information regarding the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court because the processing of cases tracked by both the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report are not initiated in the appellate courts. Although no appellate court workload information is incorporated, we direct the reader to the Arizona Supreme Court web site at www.supreme.state.az.us for more detailed information. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the state and has administrative supervision over all the courts in Arizona. Its primary duties are to review appeals and to provide rules of procedure for all the Arizona courts. Five justices serve on the Supreme Court for a regular term of six years. Fellow justices select one justice to serve as Chief Justice for a five-year term. In addition to casework, the Chief Justice supervises the administrative work of the court. The Court of Appeals was established in 1965 as an intermediate appellate FY2004 CASE FILINGS court and consists of two divisions: BY COURT LEVEL Division One in Phoenix with sixteen Court Number of Cases Filed judges, and Division Two in Tucson Supreme Court 1,170 with six judges. The Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 3,457 has jurisdiction in all matters and Division One 2,596 reviews all decisions properly appealed Division Two 861 from Superior Court. Table 25 lists the Source: Administrative Office of the Courts, (Court Services Division) case filings by appellate court for FY2004. Division One in Phoenix processed more than two-thirds of all appeals from lower courts in FY2004, reviewing more than 2600 cases. Tucson's Division Two Appellate Court reviewed 861. More than 1100 cases in FY2004 were filed in Arizona's Supreme Court.
Table 25
SUPERIOR COURT The Superior Court, which has a division in each of the 15 counties in Arizona, is the state's only general jurisdiction court. Superior Court judges hear all types of cases except civil actions when the award is less than $5,000.00, small claims, minor offenses including civil traffic violations, or violations of city codes and ordinances. In addition, the Superior Court acts as an appellate court to hear appeals from decisions made in
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
30
the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts. In counties with more than one Superior Court judge, a specialized juvenile court is established. The court will assign one or more Superior Court judges to hear juvenile cases regarding delinquency, incorrigibility and dependency. Probation departments are also the responsibility of the courts and fall under the auspices of the Superior Court. Each Superior Court has either a separate or combined adult and juvenile probation department, and each probation officer is considered an employee of the court. Local and state crime trends have a direct and often immediate impact on Superior Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and probation department workloads.
Table 26
FY2004 SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Filings Apache 1,065 Cochise 4,448 Coconino 3,851 Gila 2,358 Graham 1,352 Greenlee 321 La Paz 951 Maricopa 128,876 Mohave 5,113 Navajo 3,204 Pima 30,165 Pinal 7,801 Santa Cruz 1,728 Yavapai 7,235 Yuma 6,213 Total 204,681
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Div.)
Statewide, as of FY2004, there were 163 full-time Superior Court Judges (this figure does not include Superior Court commissioners). In FY2004, those judges handled 204,681 criminal and non-criminal filings. Maricopa County received 128,876 cases, which represented 62.9 percent of the total cases filed statewide. Table 27 indicates that felonies filed in the Superior Court from FY1993 to FY2004 have increased each year with the exception of FY1999. The number of felony cases filed has increased by almost 26,000 over the last 10 years with 28,522 in FY1994 compared to 54,420 in FY2004.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
31
Table 27
Felony Filings by Fiscal Year FY1993 � FY2004 Felony Filings* Felony Filing Rate 26,496 673.2 28,522 699.9 30,372 720.1 30,817 696.0 34,649 760.7 39,515 846.3 38,281 801.2 40,317 785.8 43,462 818.9 45,322 830.6 50,884 911.8 54,420 **
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
*Totals Include Filings by the Attorney General Office **Rate not available for 2004
Source of felony filings: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
The following tables provide a look at criminal case filings through the Superior Court for the period from FY1994-FY2004 by county. A review of the total criminal cases filed for the state shows, with the exception of FY1999, total criminal case filings rose each year. Total Superior Court criminal case filings have grown from 30,848 in FY1994 to 56,078 in 2004.
Table 28
TOTAL SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR AND COUNTY County FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 Apache 237 220 262 174 191 261 262 271 Cochise 850 846 597 578 713 606 712 836 Coconino 973 1,207 1,238 1,025 905 992 953 1,048 Gila 542 857 954 868 892 794 1,049 731 Graham 209 221 232 225 330 338 399 384 Greenlee 47 92 143 74 81 46 73 116 La Paz 227 234 242 283 422 256 303 402 Maricopa 17,130 17,860 18,610 21,882 25,641 25,756 27,385 30,616 Mohave 1,482 1,592 1,664 1,902 1,876 1,518 1,512 1,708 Navajo 548 670 723 915 748 866 930 953 Pima 4,829 4,534 4,254 4,677 5,381 5,182 4,840 5,512 Pinal 1,066 1,239 1,304 1,446 1,859 1,212 1,282 1,458 Santa Cruz 364 311 358 244 230 302 166 255 Yavapai 907 1,380 1,228 1,320 1,499 1,397 1,483 1,726 Yuma 1,437 1,331 1,579 1,444 1,656 1,284 1,339 1,364 Total 30,848 32,594 33,388 37,057 42,424 40,810 42,688 47,380 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) FY2002 223 953 1,051 831 390 94 463 31,079 1,618 811 4,816 1,741 253 2,056 1,425 47,804 FY2003 274 1,128 1,038 830 314 70 469 35,612 1,734 975 4,986 1,879 316 2,216 1,357 53,198 FY2004 373 946 1,339 658 337 88 525 37,166 1,680 1,192 5,513 1,815 253 2,490 1,703 56,078
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
32
Table 29
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS FY1994 TO FY2004 10-year 1-year County Percent Change Percent Change Apache 57.4 36.1 Cochise 11.3 (16.1) Coconino 37.6 29.0 Gila 21.4 (20.7) Graham 61.2 7.3 Greenlee 87.2 25.7 La Paz 131.3 12.0 Maricopa 117.0 4.4 Mohave 13.4 (3.1) Navajo 117.5 22.3 Pima 14.2 10.6 Pinal 70.3 (3.4) Santa Cruz (30.5) (20.0) Yavapai 174.5 12.4 Yuma 18.5 25.5 Total 81.8% 5.4%
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
As reflected in Table 29, the 10-year increase for criminal case filings statewide was 81.8 percent. Cochise showed the smallest increase over a 10year period with an 11.3 percent change. The largest increase was in Yavapai County with an increase of 174.5 percent. In the most recent year, five counties had decreases: Cochise, Gila, Mohave, Pinal and Santa Cruz. The statewide increase from FY2003 to FY2004 was 5.4 percent. Overall, nearly 2.5 million cases were filed in Arizona courts during FY2004. As reported by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the cost of processing a case in FY2003 was $124.36. There were 66,642 individuals under the jurisdiction
of Arizona county adult probation Table 30 departments at the end of FY2004, up TOTAL FILINGS IN SUPERIOR COURT 4.5 percent from FY2003. The number FY2003 - FY2004 of juveniles on probation was up 2.7 2003 2004 Difference percent to 9,115 at the end of FY2004. 192,129 204,681 12,552 6.5% Table 30 represents the total number Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) of filings in Superior Court from FY2003 to FY2004. The Arizona Superior Court experienced a 6.5 percent increase in the number of total cases filed between FY2003 and FY2004. Criminal case filings increased 5.4 percent from 53,198 in FY2003 to 56,078 in FY2004. JUSTICE COURTS During fiscal year 2001, there was a change in the way civil cases can be filed. For civil cases and forcible detainer cases, legislative changes allowed concurrent jurisdiction between the Superior Court and Justice Court for cases where the dollar amount for damages falls between $5,000 and $10,000.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
33
Table 31
FY2004 JUSTICE COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Justice Court Apache 9,559 Cochise 46,150 Coconino 28,771 Gila 15,186 Graham 5,819 Greenlee 1,584 La Paz 16,945 Maricopa 348,040 Mohave 49,008 Navajo 24,526 Pima 189,106 Pinal 44,475 Santa Cruz 10,496 Yavapai 36,914 Yuma 22,142 Total 848,721
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
In Arizona, in FY2004, there were a total of 86 precincts with 81 Justices of the Peace serving four-year terms. In FY2004, 848,721 cases were filed at the Justice Court level. Uncharacteristically, Maricopa County did not represent more than half of the statewide Justice Court workload. Maricopa County had the most filings with 348,040 of the 848,721 statewide. That represents approximately 41.0 percent of the total Justice Court filings.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
34
Table 32
JUSTICE COURT FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR AND TYPE Non-Traffic Fiscal Year Felonies Misdemeanors 1994 95,012 29,418 1995 100,557 37,368 1996 111,981 38,385 1997 110,268 43,693 1998 124,884 46,638 1999 120,905 41,022 2000 124,451 41,540 2001 116,371 39,852 2002 121,428 39,112 2003 122,891 26,209 2004 116,582 27,008
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
Of the 848,721 total cases filed in FY2004, there were 116,582 nontraffic misdemeanors and 27,008 felonies. Table 32 reflects a reduction from 122,891 misdemeanors in FY2003 to 116,582 in FY2004. Felonies increased from 26,209 in FY2003 to 27,008 in FY2004.
MUNICIPAL COURTS The Municipal Courts are comprised of 138 full and part-time judges that serve in 84 cities throughout Arizona. A number of paid, full and part-time judges pro tempore and hearing officers assist in the processing of Municipal Court cases. There were 1,439,452 cases filed in the various Municipal Courts within Arizona in FY2004. Maricopa County, with 956,475, was the largest with approximately 66.4 percent of the Municipal Court filings and Greenlee County was the smallest with 550 (or less than one percent of total filings).
Table 33
FY2004 MUNICIPAL CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Municipal Apache 1,638 Cochise 8,589 Coconino 27,017 Gila 8,680 Graham 3,218 Greenlee 550 La Paz 3,293 Maricopa 956,475 Mohave 29,586 Navajo 6,071 Pima 281,845 Pinal 29,538 Santa Cruz 17,890 Yavapai 41,862 Yuma 23,200 Total 1,439,452
Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division)
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
35
Table 34
Local and state crime trends have a direct and often immediate impact on Superior Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and probation department workloads. In spite of Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services the fact crime rates have been on the decline Division) for most of the past 10-year period, court workloads have, with the exception of Justice Courts, continued to increase. The 10year increase for Superior Court criminal case filings statewide was 81.8 percent. In FY2004 adult (4.5 percent) and juvenile (2.7 percent) probation caseloads increased, Justice Court felonies increased while misdemeanors declined and Municipal Court nontraffic misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2 percent.
MUNICIPAL COURT NON-TRAFFIC CRIMINAL FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR Fiscal Non-Traffic Year Misdemeanors 1994 243,419 1995 270,116 1996 243,253 1997 241,016 1998 222,611 1999 230,792 2000 212,518 2001 224,703 2002 219,166 2003 233,507 2004 234,139
Municipal Court non-traffic criminal misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2 percent from 233,507 in FY2003 to 234,139 in FY2004. Although total misdemeanor filings increased, FY2004 filings were lower in six of the past 10-year totals (Municipal Courts do not process felony cases). Of the nearly 2.5 million filings in FY2004, almost 1.6 million of those filings were for criminal traffic and civil traffic violations, all handled by the limited jurisdiction courts in the state (Justice and Municipal Courts).
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
36
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF COURTS ADULT PROBATION SERVICES DIVISION
The Adult Probation Services Division (APSD) of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) oversees the statewide administration of adult probation programs and services in accordance with statutory and administrative guidelines. This division interacts with the courts, probation departments, and a variety of non-court agencies and organizations throughout Arizona. The division administers several major program funds: Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS), Adult Probation Services Fund (PSF), Community Punishment Program (CPP), Drug Enforcement Account (DEA), Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF), State Aid Enhancement (SAE) which primarily funds standard probation supervision, Interstate Compact Program (ISC), Transferred Youth (TY), Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) and the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund (JCEF). These funds are distributed to the counties and used in conjunction with federal and county monies to operate the local probation departments and provide supervision and treatment services. The data presented below was drawn from the Probation Information Management System (PIMS) and the Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS), and county monthly statistical reports submitted to the APSD. The data represented focuses on the total number of probationers under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation departments, number of active probationers receiving standard and intensive probation, number completing a probation term, number revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), total amount of restitution collected, and the total number of community work service hours performed. ADULT STANDARD PROBATION The purpose of standard probation supervision in Arizona is to provide the highest quality of service to the court, community, and offenders. This is accomplished by promoting safety through effective community-based supervision and enforcement of court orders, offering accurate and reliable information and affording offenders opportunities to be accountable and initiate positive changes. Standard probation is a less restrictive form of probation and those placed on this type of supervision are deemed to be a lower risk for re-offending. An officer supervising a standard caseload may only be required to contact their probationers once or twice a month, as opposed to intensive officers whose contacts range from four to sixteen times per month. The program provides supervision through a probation officer that is required to maintain a complete record of supervision, serve warrants, make arrests, and investigate cases referred by the court to assist in sentencing decisions. Officers also keep identification records on all probationers assigned to them, obtain and assemble information concerning conduct while on probation, and monitor the probationers' compliance with
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
37
the conditions of probation. Officers are also responsible for returning defaulting probationers to court for violations. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, adult probation officers shall supervise no more than an average of 60 probationers. There are three levels of standard probation: maximum, medium, and minimum. It is the officer's responsibility to ensure that probationers receive services in accordance with their individual risks/needs, and with the safety of the community in mind. Examples of such services are substance abuse treatment, education and literacy classes, financial counseling, anger management counseling, and domestic violence counseling. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on standard supervision increased by 3.3 percent from 60,506 to 62,478. The overall number of probationers on standard supervision includes active probationers, absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving standard probation services during this same time period increased by 2.4 percent from 34,871 to 35,709 (see Figure 23 for FY1999-2004). The number of active adults receiving standard probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and receiving direct supervision services. During the course of fiscal year 2004, 11,345 standard probationers successfully completed their probation grant (discharge or early termination), while 4,791 were revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections. The number of standard probationers who absconded from supervision increased 8.6 percent from 10,421 to 11,317, while the total number of standard absconders apprehended during this time period was 46.8 percent. Over that same period, $11,573,507 in restitution to victims was collected, while 813,523 hours of community service were performed. ADULT INTENSIVE PROBATION Adult Intensive Probation Supervision is a sentencing alternative that provides control, intervention and surveillance to probationers who would otherwise have been incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections or as a result of a technical violation of standard probation. The program provides intensive supervision through probation officer or surveillance officer teams of two or three persons, depending on the level of supervision. A two-person team is comprised of a probation officer and a surveillance officer, and a three-person team is one probation officer and two surveillance officers. Pursuant to statute, a two-person team can supervise a maximum of 25 intensive probationers and a three-person team can supervise no more than 40 probationers. In small counties, one probation officer is authorized to supervise up to 15 intensive probationers.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
38
Intensive Probation requires supervision teams to have face-to-face contact with probationers a minimum of four to sixteen times per month, depending on which phase of the program the probationer is in. Probationers on IPS are also required to maintain employment, complete 40 hours of community service per month, and pay restitution to victims of crimes, as well as other financial assessments. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on intensive supervision increased by 18.7 percent from 3,508 to 4,164. The overall number of probationers on intensive supervision includes active probationers, absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving intensive probation services during this same time period increased by 21.8 percent from 2,399 to 2,923 (see Figure 24 for FY1999-FY2004). The number of active adults receiving intensive probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and receiving direct supervision services. During fiscal year 2004, 1,415 intensive probationers successfully completed their probation grant (discharged or graduated to standard), while 1,535 were revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections. The number of intensive probationers who absconded from supervision during fiscal year 2004 increased 13.2 percent from 960 to 1,087, while the total intensive absconders apprehended was 49.5 percent. Over that same period, $761,281 in restitution to victims was collected, while 615,182 hours of community service were performed.
Figure 23 ACTIVE STANDARD PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004
2004 3 5 ,7 0 9
2003
3 4 ,8 7 1
2002
3 7 ,3 8 8
2001
3 4 ,6 9 9
2000
3 4 ,3 9 5
1999
34,220
3 2 ,5 0 0
3 3 ,0 0 0
3 3 ,5 0 0
3 4 ,0 0 0
3 4 ,5 0 0
3 5 ,0 0 0
3 5 ,5 0 0
3 6 ,0 0 0
3 6 ,5 0 0
3 7 ,0 0 0
3 7 ,5 0 0
3 8 ,0 0 0
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
39
Figure 24 ACTIVE INTENSIVE PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004
2 00 4 2 00 3 2 00 2 2 00 1 2 00 0 1 99 9 0 500 1, 00 0 1, 500 2 , 00 0 2, 500 3 , 00 0 2, 3 99 3 , 08 4 3 , 3 84 3 , 37 9 3,401 3, 500 4 , 00 0 2, 9 23
Figure 25 PROBATION POPULATION UNDER ARIZONA SUPERVISION IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004
2 0 04 2 0 03 2 0 02 2 0 01 2 0 00 1 9 99 1 0, 00 0 15 , 0 0 0 20 , 0 0 0 2 5 , 0 00 3 0 , 0 00 3 5, 00 0 4 0, 00 0 45 , 00 0 5 0 , 0 00 5 7, 4 20 55,452 5 5 , 0 00 6 0, 00 0 6 5, 00 0 70 , 00 0 60 , 88 1 66 , 64 2 6 3, 76 3 6 4, 56 4
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
40
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
America's juvenile justice system is significantly different from the adult criminal justice system. In 1899, the Illinois Legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, creating the first separate juvenile court (http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html). By 1925, 46 states, 3 territories and the District of Columbia passed similar legislation. These legislative acts introduced significant differences into America's juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts begin with the presumption that juveniles are developmentally different from adults, and are therefore amenable to treatment. The result is a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution, and individualized justice rather than the specified lengths of incarceration by crime type. There is a much greater emphasis on research and social science methods in the juvenile than the adult system. The juvenile court has traditionally discouraged institutionalization in favor of keeping juveniles with their families in the community. Institutionalization is reserved for serious juvenile offenders who pose a threat to public safety (www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html). Juvenile court procedures are considerably different from adult procedures in that the juvenile system uses a non-adversarial method to arrive at the truth. A treatment team approach is common, and it consists of professional staff meeting to decide what is best for the juvenile. The result is adjudication, which is qualitatively different from a conviction. The 1960s saw the addition of some procedural safeguards for the juvenile court system including those associated with in re Gault, which was based on a famous Arizona case. In 1979, the federal government passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to create a national standard for dealing with juvenile delinquency within the context of law enforcement and criminal justice efforts (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/compliance/jjdpchronology.pdf). While the juvenile justice model, first established in 1899, may be firmly entrenched in America, some would like to make it more like the adult model. Indeed, the 1990s witnessed numerous states making modifications to the basic juvenile justice model including the passage of Arizona Revised Statute 13-501 mandating juveniles accused of violent offenses be direct filed into an adult court under certain circumstances, thereby precluding the juvenile from the treatment approach provided in Arizona's juvenile justice system (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00501.htm).
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS JUVENILES JUSTICE SERVICES DIVISION
The Juvenile Justice Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, in coordination with the 15 county juvenile courts, is responsible for the effective administration of juvenile justice programs for delinquent and incorrigible youth. Activities are consistent with constitutional, statutory, and administrative requirements, which focus on accountability, treatment and rehabilitation as well as protection of the community and youth.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
41
The following data represent the demographic and offense characteristics of juveniles in the juvenile court system from FY1996 to FY2004. The tables present data on juvenile referrals by age, gender, race, county and type of offense. This does not capture all of the paths that a juvenile may take within Juvenile Court. Rather, the most significant events are illustrated below. REFERRALS Police, parents, school officials, probation officers or other agencies or individuals requesting that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over the juvenile's conduct can make referrals. Referrals can be "paper referrals" issued as citations or police reports, or "physical referrals" in which the juvenile is physically brought to Juvenile Court. A juvenile can be referred more than once in a given year. The data that follow reflect an unduplicated count of juveniles within each year, but because a juvenile could be referred in subsequent years, the totals cannot be summed across the years. From FY1996 to FY2004, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court decreased by 1.9 percent. In FY2004, the largest category for juvenile referrals was public peace (26.6 percent), while the smallest category was citations/administrative (0.6 percent). Felonies against person made up 4.9 percent of all referrals, felonies against property made up 10.5 percent, status offenses made up 16.1 percent and drugs made up 10.0 percent of referrals in FY2004. A higher percentage of referrals came from obstruction of justice, misdemeanors against person, drugs, public peace and administrative in FY2004 than in FY1996, while a lower percentage of referrals came from felony against person, felony against property, misdemeanors against property and status offenses.
Table 35
Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Most Serious Offense FY1996 � FY2004 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 3,297 3,039 2,861 2,484 2,491 2,478 2,401 7,944 3,613 4,372 4,416 6,919 9,365 10,732 162 50,820 7,504 3,702 4,573 4,940 7,476 8,885 9,893 198 50,210 7,233 4,221 4,408 5,097 8,687 8,654 9,648 200 51,009 5,900 4,288 4,276 4,800 9,912 7,530 8,850 206 48,246 5,727 4,376 4,483 4,459 10,861 7,313 8,591 233 48,534 5,513 4,679 4,490 4,900 12,960 6,667 9,340 247 51,274 5,618 4,850 4,329 4,874 12,537 6,799 8,729 262 50,399
Felony Against Person Felony Against Property Obstruction of Justice Misd. Against Person Drugs Public Peace Misd. Against Property Status Offenses Administrative TOTAL
FY2003 2,400 5,290 4,756 4,414 4,608 12,937 6,724 8,178 281 49,588
FY2004 2,464 5,254 4,473 4,332 4,973 13,257 6,759 8,049 317 49,878
Nearly three-fourths (73.1 percent) of referred youth in FY2004 came from the three highest populated counties, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal. Over 49 percent of all referrals came from Maricopa County. Gila, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties had an increase in referrals in FY2004 when compared to FY1996.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
42
Table 36
Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By County FY1996 � FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 424 419 349 365 309 276 1,849 1,703 1,625 1,651 1,658 1,496 2,166 2,195 1,896 1,873 1,829 1,790 1,072 1,050 1,058 985 851 827 486 558 484 521 513 493 172 157 103 104 103 81 234 201 193 135 190 188 24,000 24,659 22,818 23,133 26,145 25,414 1,795 1,836 1,858 1,898 2,225 2,196 1,284 1,313 1,158 1,308 1,272 1,195 10,192 9,913 9,742 9,787 9,595 9,498 2,074 2,149 2,035 2,056 2,222 2,121 470 500 789 764 633 699 1,872 1,821 1,886 1,844 1,849 1,893 2,120 2,535 2,255 2,110 1,880 2,232 50,210 51,009 48,249 48,534 51,274 50,399
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma TOTAL
FY1996 473 1,955 2,291 994 436 168 181 24,260 1,819 1,261 10,498 1,956 460 1,901 2,167 50,820
FY2003 282 1,553 1,753 923 437 84 204 24,680 2,218 1,128 9,193 2,325 702 1,737 2,369 49,588
FY2004 272 1,510 1,633 1,027 392 82 193 24,743 2,161 1,137 9,461 2,265 741 1,645 2,616 49,878
Over half (64.7 percent) of youth referred in FY2004 were between the ages of 15 and 17. This is comparative to the 63.5 percent of juvenile referrals between the ages of 15 and 17 in FY1996. A slightly smaller percentage of youth between the ages of 8 and 10 were referred in FY2004 (2.3 percent) than in FY1996 (2.9 percent).
Table 37
Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Age FY1996 � FY2004 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 234 241 312 264 252 284 285 449 423 472 455 485 561 458 800 732 826 787 790 838 770 1,374 1,315 1,369 1,228 1,333 1,429 1,377 2,544 2,564 2,644 2,571 2,414 2,805 2,706 4,920 4,705 4,844 4,651 4,596 4,997 4,876 7,755 7,333 7,285 6,747 7,264 7,400 7,053 9,957 9,600 9,455 8,968 9,038 9,602 9,321 10,766 10,955 11,051 10,461 10,031 10,452 10,640 11,566 11,850 12,100 11,533 11,797 12,422 12,362 455 492 651 581 534 484 551 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown TOTAL
FY2003 270 459 734 1,259 2,595 4,734 6,959 8,938 10,444 12,607 589 49,588
FY2004 197 385 578 1,175 2,603 4,709 7,313 9,301 10,382 12,596 639 49,878
While there was a 4.3 percent decrease in male referrals between FY1996 and FY2004, there was a 3.3 percent increase in females during the same time period. The majority (66.4 percent) of referrals in FY2004 were male, however the percentage of girls referred (33.6 percent) was higher than in FY1996 (31.9 percent).
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
43
Table 38
Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Gender FY1996 � FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 34,182 34,406 32,609 32,372 34,224 33,205 16,022 16,598 15,636 16,160 17,050 17,194 6 5 1 2 0 0 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399
Male Female Unknown TOTAL
FY1996 34,610 16,204 6 50,820
FY2003 32,800 16,788 0 49,588
FY2004 33,136 16,742 0 49,878
Of those referred in FY2004, 48.0 percent were Anglo, 38.1 percent were Hispanic, 7.0 percent were African American, 5.5 percent were Native American, 0.5 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remaining 1.0 percent were another race/ethnicity, or their race/ethnicity was unknown. This is comparable to the racial/ethnic breakdown in FY1996.
Table 39
Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Race/Ethnicity FY1996 � FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 16,709 17,343 16,790 17,335 18,510 18,558 3,321 3,291 3,149 3,070 3,298 3,179 26,822 26,503 24,767 24,468 25,792 25,095 2,823 3,034 2,736 2,829 2,777 2,736 249 242 239 301 288 240 132 249 318 172 229 201 154 347 247 359 380 390 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399
Hispanic Afr. Am. Anglo Nat. Am. Asian/PI Other Unknown TOTAL
FY1996 16,882 3,450 27,260 2,609 234 187 198 50,820
FY2003 18,186 3,224 24,748 2,614 238 165 413 49,588
FY2004 18,979 3,502 23,925 2,727 247 136 362 49,878
Between FY1996 and FY2004, the number of youth referred in Arizona remained relatively constant. One trend worthy of consideration is the fact that females are being referred at a higher rate than previously. Other research has shown that females are more likely to commit crimes than once thought, a factor that warrants further research in Arizona. Almost half of referred youth come from Maricopa County, which is also the county with the highest juvenile population. While a small percentage of youth referred are on the younger end of those referred, the majority of youth referred are between the ages of 15 and 17.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
44
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS
The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is responsible for juveniles adjudicated delinquent and committed to its jurisdiction by the county juvenile courts. It is also responsible for juvenile parole and Interstate probation and parole. It is accountable to the citizens of Arizona for the promotion of public safety through the management of the state's secure juvenile facilities and the development and provision of a continuum of services to juvenile offenders, including rehabilitation, treatment and education. ADJC operates and maintains four secure care facilities for the custody, treatment, and education of committed juveniles. Each juvenile placed in a secure facility receives rehabilitative services appropriate to the juvenile's age, risk, needs, abilities, and committing offenses. This includes education, individual and group counseling, psychological services, health care, and recreation. In addition, treatment groups and specialized housing units focus on juveniles with histories of violence, substance abuse or sexual offenses. Following their release from secure care, youth under the age of 18 receive communitybased parole supervision and treatment through the Department's statewide Community Resource Centers. Community Corrections is responsible for establishing and operating a system of community based programs to supervise and rehabilitate youth in the least restrictive environment, consistent with public safety and the needs of the youth. Transition from Secure Care to the community is facilitated by a multidisciplinary team. Secure and parole staff work with the youth and treatment providers to extend the youth's treatment into the community. ADJC also participates in the Interstate Compact. Interstate Compact has the primary responsibility of promoting public safety, ensuring the welfare of juveniles, and protecting victims within the various states through control and regulation of the interstate movement of juveniles. Compacting states are required to provide the same level of care and supervision for ICJ youth as they provide to their own youth. In Arizona those standards mean youth from other states are provided excellent supervision. Arizona "imports" a far greater number of probation and parole cases than it "exports." Case management of these youth is in conjunction with the supervision requirements from the state(s) of origin (sending state). In addition to adjudicated juveniles, the office provides for the safe return of youth who have run away and/or have fled to avoid prosecution. ADJC operates and maintains four safe schools for juveniles: Adobe Mountain School (AMS), Black Canyon School (BCS), Catalina Mountain School (CMS), and Eagle Point School (EPS). AMS operates intake and secure care programming for male youth. AMS operates 17 treatment units, plus one unit for youth with special behavior problems. AMS primarily houses youth from Maricopa County. It is located on Pinnacle Peak Road, just west of the I-17 freeway. BCS operates intake and secure care programming for all female youth. BCS is located just south of the Happy Valley Road exit, west of the I-17
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
45
freeway. CMS is a secure facility for male juveniles. CMS has five treatment units and one for youth with special behavior problems. CMS primarily houses youth from Pima County. It is located north of Tucson on Highway 89. EPS is a secure facility for males that has six housing units. Eagle Point houses youth primarily from the southern and western counties. It is located off of Highway 85 in Buckeye. ADJC is currently in the process of revising its assessment and behavior management systems to better reflect the needs of the youth in its care and to promote the agency's vision: Safer communities through successful youth. The improved classification system includes the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2) and the Criminogenic and Protective Factors Assessment (CAPFA) instrument. The MAYSI-2 is a method for screening every juvenile entering ADJC in order to identify potential mental health problems in need of immediate attention. The CAPFA assesses each juvenile for the need for individual mental health, family, and group counseling. Additional assessment instruments include the Behavior Assessment Scales for Children (BASC), which was designed to facilitate the differential diagnosis and educational classification of a variety of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and to aid in the design of treatment plans; the Adolescent Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-A2), which helps identify youth who have a high probability of having a substance use disorder; and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol�II (J-SOAP-II), which provides a structured clinical guide to rate specific variables that have demonstrated an association with future acts of sexual offending and general delinquent behavior. An integrated behavior management system has also been developed to promote ADJC's goal of creating an environment that is safe, secure, pro-social, and allows all other activities to function. The following data represent the demographic characteristics of the juveniles committed to ADJC for the first time (new commitments) for the last four fiscal years (FY). RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic juveniles (excluding Mexican Nationals), accounted for 46.1 percent of the new commitments in FY2004, increasing slightly from 42.6 percent in FY2001. The number of Caucasian juveniles decreased from 38.9 percent in FY2001 to 34.7 percent in FY2004. Commitments of African American juveniles decreased slightly from 9.2 percent in FY2001 to 8.6 percent in FY2004. Commitments of Native American juveniles have remained relatively constant over the four years from 4.48 percent in FY2001 to 4.4 percent in FY2004. The number of Mexican National juveniles committed has also held steady from 4.5 percent in FY2001 to 4.5 percent in FY2004.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
46
Table 40
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Race/Ethnicity FY2001 � FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 336 44 342 35 304 48 42.5% 42.7% 47.1% 36.1% 46.1% 51.6% 303 44 243 41 207 36 38.4% 42.7% 33.5% 42.3% 31.4% 38.7% 72 10 76 10 64 6 9.1% 9.7% 10.5% 10.3% 9.7% 6.5% 37 3 34 10 32 2 4.7% 2.9% 4.7% 10.3% 4.9% 2.2% 38 2 29 1 48 0 4.8% 1.9% 4.0% 1.0% 7.3% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2 0 2 0 4 0 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Hispanic Caucasian African American Native American Mexican National Asian Other TOTALS
FY2004 Male Female 271 46 46.2% 45.1% 201 38 34.3% 37.3% 50 9 8.5% 8.8% 25 5 4.3% 4.9% 30 1 5.1% 1.0% 3 1 0.5% 1.0% 6 2 1.0% 2.0% 586 102 100% 100%
AGE Of the 688 juveniles committed to ADJC in FY2004, two-thirds (66.6 percent) were 16 or 17 years old. New commitments of 15 year old juveniles have remained relatively stable throughout the past four years, representing 21.7 percent of the total in FY2004. There were no juveniles ages 11 or younger committed to ADJC in 2004, and only a small number (.29 percent) of 12 year olds were committed, which remains mostly unchanged for each of the years represented.
Table 41
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Age FY2001 � FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3 0 1 1 3 0 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 40 6 16 0 9 2 5.1% 5.8% 2.2% 0.0% 1.4% 2.2% 84 20 89 12 61 10 10.6% 19.4% 12.3% 12.4% 9.3% 10.8% 167 26 164 33 143 18 21.1% 25.2% 22.6% 34.0% 21.7% 19.4% 229 28 233 28 215 31 29.0% 27.2% 32.1% 28.9% 32.6% 33.3% 267 23 223 23 227 32 33.8% 22.3% 30.7% 23.7% 34.4% 34.4% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
11 and younger 12 years old 13 years old 14 years old 15 years old 16 years old 17 years old TOTALS
FY2004 Male Female 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0.2% 1.0% 7 2 1.2% 2.0% 61 9 10.4% 8.8% 123 26 21.0% 25.5% 192 27 32.8% 26.5% 202 37 34.5% 36.3% 586 102 100% 100%
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
47
COUNTY The number of juveniles committed to ADJC from Maricopa County increased from 44.2 percent in FY2001 to 52.8 percent in FY2004, while juveniles committed from Pima County decreased from 24.5 percent in FY2001 to 17.7 percent in FY2004. New commitments from Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, Mohave, Navajo and Santa Cruz increased slightly over the past four years, while those from Graham, La Paz, Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma decreased.
Table 42
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by County FY2001 � FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 3 0 2 1 0 2 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 2.2% 21 1 23 3 20 3 2.7% 1.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 3.2% 12 3 15 3 21 0 1.5% 2.9% 2.1% 3.1% 3.2% 0.0% 10 1 11 0 12 5 1.3% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.8% 5.4% 7 0 7 3 2 2 0.9% 0.0% 1.0% 3.1% 0.3% 2.2% 0 0 1 0 3 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2 0 1 0 2 0 0.3% 0 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 350 45 277 37 277 40 44.3% 43.7% 38.2% 38.1% 42.0% 43.0% 33 7 26 3 24 7 4.2% 6.8% 3.6% 3.1% 3.6% 7.5% 13 1 17 2 19 2 1.6% 1.0% 2.3% 2.1% 2.9% 2.2% 192 27 211 30 179 16 24.3% 26.2% 29.1% 3.9% 27.2% 17.2% 67 5 51 2 37 4 8.5% 4.9% 7.0% 2.1% 5.6% 4.3% 11 1 8 2 7 2 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 2.1% 1.1% 2.2% 30 3 35 1 27 3 3.8% 2.9% 4.8% 1.0% 4.1% 3.2% 39 9 41 10 29 7 4.9% 8.7% 5.6% 10.3% 4.4% 7.5% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma TOTALS
FY2004 Male Female 4 2 0.7% 2.0% 18 3 3.1% 2.9% 15 2 2.6% 2.0% 12 1 2.0% 1.0% 1 2 0.2% 2.0% 1 1 0.2% 1.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 306 57 52.2% 55.9% 30 2 5.1% 2.0% 9 2 1.5% 2.0% 104 18 17.7% 17.6% 41 6 7.0% 5.9% 12 1 2.0% 1.0% 11 2 1.9% 2.0% 22 3 3.8% 2.9% 586 102 100% 100%
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
48
New Commitments in ADJC Custody by Most Serious Committing Offense For FY2004, there were fewer commitments to ADJC in every offense category than FY2001. Commitments for property offenses, including burglary, theft, shoplifting, and criminal damage accounted for 44.8 percent of total offenses in FY2004. Crimes against persons, which includes homicide, assault, sexual assault, and kidnapping, increased from 17.8 percent of commitments in FY2001 to 20.2 percent in FY2004. Commitments for drug offenses rose from 16.8 percent in FY2001 to 18.3 percent in FY2004. Similarly, commitments for public order offenses showed an increase for the same time period, from 9.7 percent to 10.2 percent.
Table 43
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Committing Offense FY2001 � FY2004 COMMITTING OFFENSE FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Property Offenses 437 (48.9%) 358 (43.5%) 316 (42.0%) Crimes Against Persons 159 (17.8%) 171 (20.8%) 154 (20.5%) Drug Offenses 150 (16.8%) 146 (17.7%) 129 (17.2%) Public Order Offenses 87 (9.7%) 81 (9.8%) 81 (10.8%) Weapons Offenses 22 (2.5%) 28 (3.4%) 30 (4.0%) All Other Offenses 38 (4.3%) 39 (4.7%) 42 (5.6%) TOTALS 893 (100%) 823 (100%) 752 (100%)
FY2004 308 (44.8%) 139 (20.2%) 126 (18.3%) 70 (10.2%) 19 (2.8%) 26 (3.8%) 688 (100%)
Figure 26
FY 2001
All Other Offenses 4.3% Weapons Offenses 2.5% Public Order Offenses 9.7%
FY 2004
All Other Offenses 3.8% Weapons Offenses 2.8% Public Order Offenses 10.2%
Property Offenses 44.8%
Drug Offenses 16.8%
Property Offenses 48.9%
Drug Offenses 18.3%
Crimes Against Persons 17.8%
Crimes Against Persons 20.2%
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
49
Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Custody The number of juveniles in secure care has decreased steadily over the last five years from 964 at the end of FY2000 to 637 in FY2004.
Table 44
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Secure Care* 6/30/2000 � 6/30/2004 As of As of As of As of 6/30/2000 6/30/2001 6/30/2002 6/30/2003 453 410 371 348 124 97 77 61 153 122 141 118 234 193 123 109 31 56 45 964 853 768 681
POPULATION Adobe Mountain School Black Canyon School Catalina Mountain School Eagle Point School Encanto TOTALS
As of 6/30/2004 311 72 118 136 637
*Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles.
The number of juveniles in ADJC custody on parole has continued to decline since FY2000, decreasing from 751 juveniles on parole at the end of FY2000 to 512 juveniles on parole at the end of FY2004.
Table 45
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Number of Juveniles on Parole 6/30/2000 � 6/30/2004 As of As of As of As of 6/30/2000 6/30/2001 6/30/2002 6/30/2003 480 407 405 358 73 77 41 148 103 103 143 123 751 138 721 115 700 111 653
POPULATION Home PV Center Abscond Residential Treatment Center TOTALS
As of 6/30/2004 349 108 55 512
*Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
50
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) houses adult offenders convicted of felonies in Arizona and sentenced to a period of state-level confinement. This includes a sub-population of approximately 300 adult felons convicted of driving under the influence who were sentenced to the Department (usually for four months) as a condition of probation. The ADC maintains segregated prison facilities for juveniles sentenced in adult court in Arizona. As of December 31, 2004, the total population of 32,570 offenders committed to the DOC was distributed among prison facilities as follows:
Table 46
LOCATION OF COMMITTED POPULATION December 31, 2004 Facility Population Capacity ASPC-Douglas 2,214 2,015 ASPC-Eyman 4,666 4,120 ASPC-Florence 3,848 3,266 ASPC-Lewis 4,184 4,150 ASPC-Perryville 2,592 2,796 ASPC-Phoenix 934 802 ASPC-Safford 1,762 1,453 ASPC-Tucson 3,909 3,784 ASPC-Winslow 1,828 1,626 ASPC-Yuma 2,271 1,850 Private Prisons 4,307 4,746 County Jail Transfers 55 Total Committed Population 32,570 30,608 Designated Operating Capacity 30,608 Bed Surplus/(Deficit) (1,962)
Source: Arizona Department of Corrections *Arizona State Prison Complex **No fixed capacity for pending transfer.
The following shows the gender and sentence type of inmates active on December 31, 2004:
Table 47
GENDER AND SENTENCE TYPE OF COMMITTED POPULATION DECEMBER 31, 2004
SENTENCE TYPE Death Sentence Life Sentence Term of Years
MALE FEMALE TOTAL
TOTAL
Source: Arizona Department of Corrections
103 1,142 28,557 29,802
2 51 2,715 2,768
105 1,193 31,272 32,570
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
51
PRISON POPULATION GROWTH TREND The next section presents three figures that follow the growth in the Arizona prison population over the period from December 31, 1990 to December 31, 2004. Over this 14-year period, prison population increased from 14,313 to 32,570 or by 128.6 percent. Growth over this period averaged 1,304 per year or 109 committed adults per month.
Figure 27
ENDING ADULT COMMITTED POPULATION December 1990-2004
40,000 35,000 30,000 26, 747 25, 712 26, 003 28, 059 29, 591 31, 258 32, 570
Inma tes
25,000 20,000 14, 313 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
15, 464
16, 572
17, 968
19, 864
21, 663
22, 697
23, 866
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Cale nda r Year
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
52
Figure 28
PERCENTAGE PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1 9 9 1 -2 0 0 4
Yearly Percentage Growth
12.0% 10.6% 10.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.2% 8.4% 7.7% 9.1%
6.0%
4.8%
5.2%
4.9%
5.5%
5.6% 4.2%
4.0%
2.9% 1.1%
2.0%
0.0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Calendar Year
Figure 29
MONTHLY PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1990-2004 180 158 160 A vg. Monthly Population Growth 140 120 100 79 80 60 40 20 0 1990 24 96 92 116 97 86 62 110 150 154 139 128 109
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Ca le nda r Year
The highest growth occurred in 1994 (158 per month) and 1998 (154 per month), while the lowest growth occurred in 1999 (24 per month) and 2000 (62 per month). The lower levels of growth in 1999-2000 were shown to be associated with a backlog in
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
53
criminal case activity in Maricopa County. Over the five year period between 2000 and 2004, the committed population increased 76.3 percent. Factors believed to be associated with growth in the Arizona prison population over the period 1990-2004 include state general population growth, mandatory sentencing, an increased level of methamphetamine drug use, increased drug enforcement activity (the drug war), increased street gang activity in the state, a stiffening of penalties for driving under the influence, and harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth in Sentencing. Normally, you would expect a drop in crime to lead to a drop in the overall incarceration rates. However, the previously stated factors have had the opposite effect.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
54
INCARCERATION RATE TREND The figure "Arizona Incarceration Rate" shown below tracks the trend in the Arizona incarceration rate over the period 1993-2003. The incarceration rate is calculated as the number of inmates per 100,000 general population of the state, and is useful as it factors out the portion of prison population growth, which is due to growth in the state general population. The incarceration rate increased steadily from 456.5 in 1993 to 560.1 in 2003.
Figure 30
Arizona Incarceration Rate 1 99 3- 2 00 3 600.0
550.7 524.0 544.2 521.3 528.7 542.3 560.1
500.0 Inmates per 100,000 Population
456.5
513.6 487.5
512.6
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0 199 3 199 4 1 995 19 96 1997 1998 Calendar Year 1 999 20 00 200 1 2 002 2 003
PRISON ADMISSIONS, RELEASES, AND TIME SERVED The two major factors driving changes in prison population are the fluctuating levels of prison admissions and prison releases. When admissions rise, prison population tends to increase, while as releases rise, prison population tends to decrease. Although releases rise along with admissions, the release rate does not rise at the same rate as the rate of admissions, causing a net population increase. In any case, the growth in prison population during any given period equates to the excess of admissions over releases during the period. Admissions include commitments from the court in addition to returns to custody of released violators. Releases include both discretionary and nondiscretionary releases. In recent years, following the implementation of Truth in
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
55
Sentencing in 1994, the vast majority of releases have been non-discretionary. The figure "Adult Prison Admissions and Releases" seen below, tracks the level of Arizona prison admissions and releases over the period 1990-2004. As shown, both admissions and releases have risen over the course of the decade. The exception is that admissions dropped significantly in 1999, because of the aforementioned lag in commitments from Maricopa County.
Figure 31
ADULT PRISON ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES 1990-2004 20, 000 18, 000 16, 000 A dm is sions /Re le a se s 14, 000 12, 000 10, 000 8, 084 8, 000 6, 007, 139 0 4, 000 2, 000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 7, 105 7, 781 8, 256 8, 889 8, 581 9, 327 10, 008 11, 223 9, 977 10, 566 11, 807 11, 600 12, 697 12, 602 11, 528 14, 448 13, 507 14, 198 14, 961 14, 999 13, 649 13, 216 13, 454 15, 664 15, 922 16, 531 17, 331 17, 234
Ca le nda r Year A DMISSIONS RELEA SES
Another way to look at prison population growth is as a function of two factors, the level of admissions and average time served in prison. Independent of the trend in admissions, as time served decreases, releases tend to increase, causing a population decrease. On the other hand, as time served increases, releases tend to decrease, while population tends to increase. The figure "Average Time Served for Prison Releases" below, tracks average time served prior to release for inmates released over the period 1990-2004. As indicated, time served has gradually increased over the past 14 years, primarily because of harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth in Sentencing.
Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review
56
Figure 32
Average Time Served for Prison Releases 1990-2004 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04
A ve ra ge Time Served (Months)
Ca le nda r Year
PRISON POPULATION FORECASTING One of the responsibilities of the Research Unit of the Arizona Department of Corrections is to maintain a current viable inmate population forecast. This forecast forms the basis each year for the Department's appropriation request and for the 5Year Bed Plan. The use of regression analysis assists in projecting future inmate population in various categories based on the currently observed variation in the longerterm population trend. This often involves estimates of the impact of new legislation and of new departmental policies that may affect population growth. These estimates are calculated from determinations of impact on admission levels and time served. OFFENDERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION The figure "Offenders under Community Supervision" below, tracks the number of offenders under community supervision following release from ADC custody over the period 1991-2004. This does not include those released to probation supervision by county authorities. Shorter community supervision terms under Truth in Sentencing laws than under the former criminal code have led to a trend in offender population under community supervision that does not follow the trend in releases and admissions into prison. While more inmates are released into community sup
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Arizona crime trends: a system review |
| CREATOR | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Statistical Analysis Center Publication. |
| SUBJECT | Criminal justice, Administration of--Arizona--Statistics--Periodicals; Criminal statistics--Arizona--Periodicals; |
| Browse Topic |
Crime and violence Government and politics |
| DESCRIPTION | 84 pages (PDF version). File size: 517.71 KB. July 2005. |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Material Collection |
State Documents Annual Reports |
| Acquisition Note | http://azcjc.gov/publications/publications.asp |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2005-07 |
| Time Period | 2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born Digital |
| Source Identifier | CJC 1.7:C 64/3/2005 |
| Location | 53784672 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | Crime_Trends_2005.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library Division. |
| File Size | 517.71 KB |
| Full Text | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Publication O u r mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona Arizona C r i m e Trends : A System R e v i e w July 2005 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief Chairperson ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney Vice-Chairperson JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DUANE BELCHER Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff TERRY GODDARD Attorney General BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney ROD MARQUARDT Mohave County Chief Probation Officer TOMMIE CLINE MARTIN Gila County Supervisor RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff DORA SCHRIRO Department of Corrections Director LINDA SCOTT Former Judge ANDREW P. THOMAS Maricopa County Attorney ROGER VANDERPOOL Department of Public Safety Director JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director STEVE BALLANCE Statistical Analysis Center Director JOY LITZENBERGER Research Analyst RICHARD YOST El Mirage Police Department Chief MITCH HALFPENNY Senior Research Analyst JANICE SIMPSON Research Analyst Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank the law enforcement, probation, correctional agencies and court services personnel who contributed to this report. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Michelle Anderson, Arizona Supreme Court Lynn Allmann, Department of Public Safety Bobbie Chinsky, Arizona Supreme Court Elizabeth Eells, Ph.D., Arizona Supreme Court Joyce Dehnert, Department of Public Safety Daryl Fischer, Ph.D., Department of Corrections Steve Gendler, Department of Public Safety Mark J. McDermott, Arizona Supreme Court John Vivian, Ph.D., Department of Juvenile Corrections Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction Research Purpose Research Methods Population National Crime Victimization Survey Arizona Department of Public Safety UCR Submissions Part I Crimes - Crime Distribution Crime Index � Rates Violent Crime Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Firearm Use in Violent Crime Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Services Superior Court Justice courts Municipal courts Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Probation Services Division Juvenile Justice System Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Services Justice Division Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Department of Corrections Special Topics Gender in the Juvenile Justice System Gender in the Adult Prison Population AIBRS/NIBRS Fill the Gap Findings Conclusion Bibliography Appendix A i 1 3 3 4 5 7 8 9 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 30 30 33 35 37 41 41 45 51 60 61 63 65 67 69 73 76 77 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past 10 years, Arizona has had a considerably higher crime rate than the rest of the nation. Between 1993 and 2003, Part I crime rates decreased 17.3 percent in Arizona. During this same time period crime rates nationally decreased 24.9 percent. Part I crime rates indicate the Index Crime Rate 1993-2003 frequency of Part I crimes per 100,000 residents. While crime rates in Arizona have also decreased, the workload for the criminal justice system has not decreased. The population in Arizona increased 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003, compared to a 12.8 percent increase during the same time period nationwide. 9000 8000 7000 Number of Crimes Reported 6000 5000 4000 National Arizona 3000 2000 1000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm The population increase has caused an increase in reported Part I crimes in Arizona even though the crime rate was falling. Population increases also fuel higher levels of traffic violations and misdemeanors that, while not taken into account in Part I crime rates, increase the workload of police, prosecutors, the courts, and jails. Criminal justice agencies in Arizona have seen an increase in workloads tied to the 41.8 percent increase in population over the last decade. However, there has not been a corresponding increase in funding or positions. This strain is seen throughout the criminal justice system through overcrowded prisons, overloaded courts and a lack of an adequate number of police officers for patrol and other functions. The continuing increase in the prison population and the accompanying increases in costs per inmate and agency expenditures highlight the need for a solid data infrastructure in Arizona from which to analyze trends and provide information to policymakers. Additional research on recidivism rates for violent and non-violent offenders should be conducted in order to determine the likelihood of reoffending. The current sentencing structure in relation to individual statutes could then be evaluated based on risk and recidivism information for offenders of various crime types. The rising prisoner population, while an urgent issue currently, is only one example of a place where an improved data infrastructure can assist researchers in providing data based recommendations to policymakers in order to improve the criminal justice system. Based upon the findings of this research, effective policies could be implemented with an appropriate balance between lowering administrative costs while assuring for community safety. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review i In 2003, Arizona had the highest crime rate in the nation, fueled largely by the high property crime rate. In addition, Arizona was ranked 13th in violent crimes. The total violent crime rate is fueled by the property crime rate because the vast majority of Part I crimes reported are property crimes. Arizona has the highest motor vehicle theft rate in the nation, and the second highest larceny-theft rate. Proximity to the border, a high percentage of youth in Arizona's population, and drug-related crimes are reasons that are often cited for the high property crime rate in Arizona. The increase in crimes committed in Arizona has caused an increase in the number of suspects arrested and a related increase in prosecution and court workloads. The number of felony cases filed has increased by almost 26,000 over the last 10 years with 28,522 in FY1994 compared to 54,420 in FY2004, a 90.8 percent increase. When all criminal case filings are considered, there was a statewide increase of 81.8 percent during this time period. In the last year that information was available, FY2004, nearly 2.4 million cases were filed in Arizona courts. Increases in felony filings, misdemeanors, traffic violations and civil filings have increased the burden on prosecutors and the courts. This increase fuels an increase in prisoners both at the state and county level, and increases the number of probationers as well. The prison population increased 74.0 percent between 1993 and 2003. Changes in sentencing structure, as well as an increase in the population in Arizona have contributed to this increase. In 1994, Truth in Sentencing laws Ending Adult Committed Population were implemented. These laws 3 5 ,0 0 0 mandated that prisoners serve a 3 0 ,0 0 0 larger portion of their sentence 2 5 ,0 0 0 than was previously being 2 0 ,0 0 0 served. In FY1994, the average 1 5 ,0 0 0 prisoner was incarcerated for 25 1 0 ,0 0 0 months. In FY2004, the average 5 ,0 0 0 prisoner served 33 months. The 0 increase in prisoner sentences, combined with the longer time prisoners are serving, has caused significant overcrowding in the prisons. New prison space has not kept pace with prisoner population growth. Inmate Population 20 03 19 95 The only area in the criminal justice system that has not seen a significant increase in actual numbers is the juvenile justice system. Between FY1996 and FY2004, referrals into the juvenile justice system decreased 1.9 percent. This is despite soaring numbers of juveniles in Arizona. The total number of youth held in the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections has decreased, although the number of girls has increased. This increase in females in the juvenile justice system is considered significant, as it follows a nationwide trend of female youth being more involved in criminal activity. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 19 94 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 04 ii This third edition of the Crime Trends in Arizona report was the result of the collaborative efforts of researchers from several agencies within the criminal justice system in Arizona. Information sharing among criminal justice agencies and an increased focus on the further development of the current data infrastructure will allow criminal justice policy and decision makers in Arizona to have the information necessary for evaluating policy and program decisions. Scarce resources and increased workloads have created an environment where it is more important than ever to improve data sharing directed toward evaluating effectiveness. Policymakers at every point in the system must be given accurate data so that they understand the total picture of crime in Arizona and the problems that criminal justice stakeholders are facing. Although crime rates in Arizona have, for the most part, decreased in the past ten years, the dramatic rise in population has led to a greater number of people entering the system. Increased workloads resulting from the population increase have affected the criminal justice system at all stages: police, prosecution, courts, probation, and prison. The need to expand capacities, coupled with limited resources, means that changes in the system must be efficient and effective. An enhanced data infrastructure will allow research strategies and recommendations that can provide direction for policy changes where they will have the most impact, without compromising justice or public safety. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review iii INTRODUCTION Along with the population growth in Arizona has come an increased number of crimes and more arrests. This higher number of arrests creates a domino effect throughout the criminal justice system, increasing workloads. This has created a strain on the criminal justice system because the increases in total crime and caseloads have not been accompanied by a similar increase in funding. Coupled with higher operating costs, strained city, county, and state budgets, and increased demands due to the ongoing threat of terrorism, the criminal justice system is tasked with doing more with less. At the same time that the criminal justice system in Arizona is facing increased workloads, federal funding to states for criminal justice activities has decreased nationwide. Agencies throughout the criminal justice system are being tasked with demonstrating effectiveness, or risk losing state and federal funding. While an important goal, proving effectiveness requires that data be collected and disseminated, further increasing the burden on already strained resources. Federal funding has increasingly required performance based strategies with built-in performance measures to gauge effectiveness, a trend that seems to be increasing. A data infrastructure throughout the criminal justice system to collect the information needed to measure performance of new and current systems will allow the criminal justice system and policymakers to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness. Gauging how well criminal justice systems meet preset performance measures will allow agencies and policymakers to replicate best practices and improve struggling systems. Arizona has followed a nationwide trend over the past 10 years in which the overall crime rate has decreased. However, the rate of decrease has slowed over the past few years, with some index crimes increasing in Arizona. During this decrease in overall crime rate (rate of crime per 100,000 residents), the population in Arizona grew 41.8 percent between 1993 and 2003. As the population increased, the number of crimes reported to police rose. The crime rate indicates the likelihood for state residents to be the victim of a crime, while the number of crimes committed and cases processed indicate workload levels. Trends in violent and property crime rates over the past 10 years show that Arizona is a safer place to live for the average resident compared to previous years. Many factors played into the decreasing crime rate including a growing economy in the 1990s, tough crime laws, and a growing intolerance for crime among the general public. Information from Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data will show the trends over the past 10 years, and Arizona's crime ranking for each Part I crime as compared to other states. As more cases were processed through the courts, the number of inmates housed by the Department of Corrections increased to the point that there was a deficit of nearly 2,000 beds. The juvenile justice system saw a decrease at all stages of the juvenile justice system. Despite a surging juvenile population in the state, the number of Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 1 referrals into the system, as well as the number of youths held in secure facilities decreased. However, while there was a decrease of males entering secure facilities, there was an increase of females. A new section on special topics has been added to this report over previous editions. The special topics section will focus on issues facing the criminal justice system today. Of particular focus will be gender in the juvenile and adult correctional populations. Males make up the vast majority of inmates in both the juvenile and adult systems. However, at both levels, the proportion of females in the justice system is increasing. This trend mirrors what is being seen at the national level. Also covered in this report is the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) that will eventually be used for data analysis along with the UCR system because it collects more detailed information regarding crime. The Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) has been implemented and is currently being tested in three agencies in Arizona. A broad spectrum of criminal justice professionals in Arizona worked together to produce this report. Through this partnership, a larger overview of the criminal justice system is presented from various perspectives throughout the system. The Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Juvenile Corrections contributed sections to this report. Several units within the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts provided sections regarding their activities including Court Services, Adult Probation Services Division and Juvenile Services Justice Division. The criminal justice system in Arizona is a very large and complex system with more than 480 agencies and related organizations. Available resources, the size and complexity of the criminal justice system and the legacy nature of data sources have influenced the scope of this report. This report is an update to the 2003 Crime Trends in Arizona: A System Review. It is not intended to be a comprehensive source, but rather an overview of the criminal justice system in Arizona. We invite interpretation and anticipate the data and information will elicit questions and discussion among key stakeholders. It is our belief the dialogue generated by questions and discussion may provide a foundation by which Arizona can develop responses to crime trend issues. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 2 RESEARCH PURPOSE primary objectives. The first objective was to provide an overview of crime trends in Arizona and an update to the 2003 Arizona Crime Trends report. The second was to provide the Governor, criminal justice stakeholders and the citizens of Arizona with a review of the criminal justice system in Arizona in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute �41-2405. Specifically, ARS �41-2405 mandates that the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission "facilitate information and data exchange among criminal justice agencies, establish and maintain criminal justice system information archives and prepare for the governor an annual criminal justice system review report." The third objective was to provide the criminal justice system with a presentation of selected topics of particular relevance to the criminal justice system in Arizona today. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review publication was created to accomplish three RESEARCH METHODS National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and Uniform Crime Report (UCR) information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation database were used to present information about criminal activity in Arizona over the past 10 years to set a foundation for this report. Crime data included in this report were compiled from information reported to police and collected through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In order to create a system wide review, the Statistical Analysis Center solicited the participation of key criminal justice stakeholders in a collaborative partnership. The partnership included the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Arizona Supreme Court including Court, Adult and Juvenile Services, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and Arizona Department of Corrections. The information included in the 2005 Crime Trends was based upon the most recent data that was available by that agency. Information on selected topics was solicited from various agencies and resources in order to present an overview of those topics. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 3 POPULATION Table 1 Arizona's population grew more than three times faster than the rest of the nation from 1993 to 2003, growing at a rate of 41.8 percent, compared to a 12.8 percent growth in the national population. From 2002 to 2003, Arizona's population increased by 2.3 percent. Table 1 displays past and current population rates for Arizona and the United States over the last 10 years. (Crime in the United States reports 1993-2003) Between 2000 and 2004, Arizona was the second fastest growing state, behind Nevada (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank02. html). POPULATION Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change 1993-2003 Arizona Population 3,936,000 4,075,000 4,218,000 4,428,000 4,555,000 4,669,000 4,778,000 5,130,632 5,307,331 5,456,453 5,580,811 41.8% National Population 257,908,000 260,341,000 262,755,000 265,284,000 267,637,000 270,296,000 272,691,000 281,421,906 284,796,887 288,368,698 290,809,777 12.8% The smallest population increase in the past 10 years in Arizona was approximately 2.3 percent in 2003. During the same time period, the smallest growth in the national population was 0.8 percent. The greatest increase for both Arizona and national populations was in 2000. Arizona experienced a 7.4 percent increase compared to the 3.2 percent increase nationally from 1999 to 2000. The continuous population growth in Arizona results in a strain on law enforcement resources, even at a time when crime rates are falling. Figure 1 Percent Change in Population from Previous Year 1993 - 2003 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Source: Crime in the United States, 2003 Arizona National Source: Crime in the United States, 2003 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 4 NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY The most recent National Crime Victimization Survey revealed that there were 24.2 million criminal victimizations in 2003. These criminal victimizations included an estimated 18.6 million property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft), 5.4 million violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), and 185,000 personal thefts (pocket picking and purse snatching). This is a decrease from the 25.9 million reported in 2000 and comparable to the 24.2 million criminal victimizations in 2002. This is also the lowest reported number since 1973 (44 million victimizations) when the NCVS was first initiated (Criminal Victimization, 2003, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv03.txt). Table 2 provides data about the rate of criminal victimization per 100,000 for six offense areas. The data covers 1993 to 2003 and provides a percentage difference view by offense group for the 2002-2003 periods. Rape/sexual assault and simple assault were the only offenses that decreased. The largest decline was for rape with a 27.3 percent decline from 2002-2003. Table 2 RATE OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION per 100,000 INHABITANTS Rape/Sexual Robbery Aggravated Simple Motor Vehicle Assault Assault Assault Theft 230 620 1,220 3,080 1,970 200 610 1,160 3,110 1,750 170 540 950 2,990 1,690 140 520 880 2,660 1,350 140 430 860 2,490 1,380 150 400 750 2,350 1,080 170 360 670 2,080 1,000 120 320 570 1,780 860 110 280 530 1,590 920 110 220 430 1550 900 80 250 460 1460 900 -27.3% 13.6% 7.0% -5.8% 0.0% Theft 24,270 23,570 22,430 20,570 18,990 16,810 15,390 13,770 12,900 12,230 12,440 1.7% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change 2002-2003 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey Reports, 1993-2003 Among the 5.4 million violent victimizations in 2003, most male victims were victimized by Male Female strangers, while most females Victims 3,056,160 2,345,550 Intimate 3% 19% were victimized by someone they Other Relative 5% 10% knew. Table 3 outlines the type of Friend/Acquaintance 35% 38% victim-offender relationship by Stranger 54% 32% gender as reported in the 2003 Source: National Crime Victimization Survey Report, 2003 NCVS. Females were much more likely to have an intimate relationship with their assailant (19 percent) than were males VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP for VIOLENT CRIMES 2003 Table 3 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 5 (three percent). At the same time, males were much more likely not to know their assailant (54 percent) than were females (32 percent). The 2003 NCVS study results indicated that less than 50 percent of all violent crime is reported to the police. In 1993, only 35 percent of the crimes described by victims were reported to law enforcement authorities. Table 4 summarizes the reporting patterns by gender and ethnicity for violent crimes in 2003. During 2003, male victims reported violent crimes (45.9 percent) less often than female victims (53.3 percent). By contrast, in 1993 male victims reported violent crimes 39 percent of the time, while females reported violent crimes 47.9 percent of the time. Table 4 VIOLENT CRIMES REPORTED TO POLICE BY GENDER AND RACE, 2003 Male Race White Black Other Hispanic Origin Hispanic Non-Hispanic Female Race White Black Other Hispanic Origin Hispanic Non-Hispanic 45.9% 44.8% 53.2% 43.2% 55.2% 44.1% 53.3% 52.7% 58.0% 39.6% 52.9% 53.3% Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the Source: Criminal Victimization 2003 (percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding and National Criminal Victimization Survey reporting methods) (NCVS) are conducted for different purposes and their differences are important. Each report uses different collection methods. The UCR gathers data from monthly reports transmitted to the FBI from law enforcement agencies. The NCVS is a victimization survey conducted with a large sample of U.S. households. They have some overlapping data, but not identical offense categories and they cover different population sets. Because of the differences between the two reports, the reader is reminded that a smaller percentage of crimes is actually reported to law enforcement officials and as such is reflected in the UCR reported crime data. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY The Arizona Department of Public Safety was created in 1969 as a consolidation of three state law enforcement agencies. This newly formed agency took over the functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway Patrol, the Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and the Narcotics Division of the State Department of Law. The Department of Public Safety's mission is to enforce state laws, deter criminal activity, assure highway and public safety, and provide vital scientific, technical and operational support to other criminal justice agencies in furtherance of the protection of human life and property. The Arizona Department of Public Safety is a multi-faceted organization dedicated to protecting and providing state-level law enforcement services to the public. During the nearly 35 years it has existed, the agency has worked to develop and maintain close partnerships with other agencies sharing similar missions. The Department of Public Safety consists of four divisions: Highway Patrol; Criminal Investigations; Agency Support and Criminal Justice Support. These four divisions work together to provide a wide range of scientific, technical, operational and regulatory services to Arizona residents and to the state's criminal justice community. One of these services is the collection and compilation of Uniform Crime Report data. In 1992, ARS �41-1750 subsection D was amended to read, "The chief officers of law enforcement agencies of this state or its political subdivisions shall provide to the central state repository such information as necessary to operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program." Since that time the number of law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR data project Crime in Arizona has increased, resulting in more accurate and thorough reporting. There are differing methods of reporting crime data between the Crime in Arizona report produced by the Department of Public Safety and the Crime in the United States report published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). FBI data was used in order to make the data comparable with other states for analyses. The data used for both agencies is the same, but the FBI uses estimates to account for non-responding agencies, providing a slight variation in reporting. This primarily pertains to estimates made at the national level by extrapolating data from agencies that contribute incomplete or partial data. Additionally, there are differences in population estimates used by the FBI and the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Therefore, the reader should be cognizant of the fact there will be subtle differences between the numbers contained within these two reports. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 7 UCR SUBMISSIONS Similar to the findings of the last Figure 2 Crime Trends in Arizona report, Arizona UCR Submissions Percent Months Returned 1994 - 2003 agency submissions increased over 100.0% the ten-year period between 1994 90.0% and 2003. As shown in Table 5, 89.7 80.0% percent of monthly uniform crime 70.0% reports were received from agencies 60.0% and 76.0 percent of agencies 50.0% submitted all 12 monthly reports in 40.0% 1994. In 2003, submissions 30.0% 20.0% increased to 91.8 percent of monthly 10.0% uniform crime reports and 81.6 0.0% percent of agencies submitting all 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 monthly reports. However, this was Source: FBI Database a decrease from 2001, the highest participation year, where 94.9 percent of monthly uniform crime reports were submitted and 89.2 percent of agencies submitted all 12 monthly reports. The fact that the submissions were so high in 2001 shows that the data infrastructure has improved since the original implementation of UCR. Figure 3 As this data is used both at the state Arizona UCR Submissions Percent of Agencies Submitting All Monthly Reports 1994 - 2003 and national level for many 100.0% purposes, including federal grant 90.0% funding, this decrease is cause for 80.0% concern. Several issues can affect 70.0% failure to report including 60.0% technological problems and changes 50.0% in how data is collected internally. 40.0% 30.0% While there has been an overall 20.0% increase in UCR submissions, there 10.0% has been a decrease in reporting 0.0% over the past two years. (See 1994 1995 1 996 1997 1998 199 9 2 000 2001 2002 200 3 Appendix A for more information regarding UCR submissions.) Table 5 1994 100 89.7% 76.0% 76 1995 100 87.9% 74.0% 74 UCR Agency Submissions 1999 � 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 100 100 102 102 84.4% 68.0% 68 87.3% 66.0% 66 89.9% 68.6% 70 93.9% 87. 3% 89 2000 102 93.9% 85.3% 87 2001 102 94.9% 89.2% 91 2002 102 89.0% 78.4% 80 2003* 103 91.8% 81.6% 84 Percent Submitting All Reports Percent Source: FBI Database *Two agencies submitted data with another agency for six months each. Source: FBI Database Agencies Percent Months Returned Agencies Submitting all Reports Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 8 It is important to note that the vast majority of agencies filed all monthly reports (81.6 percent in 2003), including all large agencies. Three agencies are state certified and submitting Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) data. As the AIBRS data collection strategy is expanded with more agencies being certified, its usefulness at the local level, as well as the state and national level will increase. This system gives criminal justice and law enforcement professionals the tools necessary to better identify and study crime trends. This gives the criminal justice system and policymakers greater ability to identify when, where, and how crime is taking place, as well as identifying victim characteristics. For a more detailed description of AIBRS/NIBRS, please see the AIBRS/NIBRS section starting on page 65. The difference in the level of detail collected by UCR and NIBRS is evident by the type of information collected. Uniform Crime Reports collect limited offense and arrest information about the most serious offenses and general characteristics of persons arrested. In addition to collecting the type of information collected by UCR, NIBRS collects more detailed offense and arrest information and victim information about each count. NIBRS allows for accurate information to be collected on victim based crimes such as domestic violence. Similar to the UCR program, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) collects data for the FBI NIBRS program in the Arizona Incident Based Reporting System (AIBRS) repository. This repository is designed to collect data on each crime occurrence as well as each incident and arrest within that occurrence and will allow the state to report information to the FBI for NIBRS. PART I CRIMES CRIME DISTRIBUTION Nationally, larceny-theft (59.4 percent) represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2003, followed by burglary (18.2 percent), motor vehicle theft (10.7 percent), aggravated assault (7.3 percent), robbery (3.5 percent), forcible rape (0.8 percent) and murder (0.1 percent). Figure 4 National Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for 2003 Figure 5 Arizona Crime Index Offenses Percent Distribution for 2003 Murder, 0.1% Murder, 0.1% Forcible Rape, 0.8% Motor Vehicle Theft, 10.7% Robbery, 3.5% Aggravated Assault, 7.3% Burglary, 18.2% Forcible Rape, 0.5% Robbery, 2.2% Motor Vehicle Theft, 16.6% Aggravated Assault, 5.5% Burglary, 17.1% Larceny-Theft, 59.4% Larceny-Theft, 57.9% Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 9 In Arizona, larceny-theft (57.9 percent) also represented the largest reported UCR crime in 2003, followed by burglary (17.1 percent), motor vehicle theft (16.6 percent), aggravated assault (5.5 percent), robbery (2.2 percent), forcible rape (sexual assault in Arizona, 0.5 percent) and murder (0.1 percent). When comparing national and Arizona UCR patterns for 2003 several similarities exist. Larceny-theft represented the largest category of offenses for both national and state trends, followed by burglary and motor vehicle theft. As seen in figures 4 and 5, the percent distribution for murder was identical at the state and national levels. These figures also illustrate that the percent distribution for forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault was lower for Arizona than at the national level. Figure 6 Violent and Property Crime Distribution in 2003 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Property Crimes Violent Crimes Arizona National Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Figure 6 provides a comparison of the national and Arizona proportion of violent and property crimes for 2003. A closer look at that comparison shows that for property crimes, Arizona is slightly higher than the national level. The opposite is true for the proportion of violent crime, where Arizona is slightly below national levels. Property crime represented 88.3 percent of the total crime reported nationally in 2003 and 91.3 percent of Arizona's total crime rate. Arizona has the highest overall crime rate in the nation even though Arizona has the thirteenth highest violent crime rate in the nation. When the property crime rate and the violent crime rate are added together, the total crime rate in Arizona is higher than any other state. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 10 There was an overall decrease of 24.9 percent in the total crime rate in the United States from 1993 to 2003. During that period, there was a decrease in every index crime. After more than a decade, 2003 continued this trend with a one percent decrease in the total crime rate. Table 6 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Murder 9.5 9.0 8.2 7.4 6.8 6.3 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 Forcible Rape 41.1 39.3 37.1 36.3 35.9 34.5 32.8 32.0 31.8 33.1 32.1 NATIONAL CRIME INDEX (RATES) Aggravated LarcenyRobbery Burglary Assault Theft 256.0 440.5 1,099.7 3,033.9 237.8 427.6 1,042.1 3,026.9 220.9 418.3 987.0 3,043.2 201.9 391.0 945.0 2,980.3 186.2 382.1 918.8 2,891.8 165.5 361.4 863.2 2,729.5 150.1 334.3 770.4 2,550.7 145.0 324.0 728.8 2,477.3 148.5 318.5 740.8 2,484.6 146.1 309.5 747.0 2,450.7 142.2 295.0 740.5 2,414.5 Auto Theft 606.3 591.3 560.3 525.7 505.7 459.9 422.5 412.2 430.6 432.9 433.4 Total Crime 5,487.1 5,373.8 5,274.9 5,087.6 4,927.3 4,620.1 4,266.5 4,124.8 4,160.5 4,160.5 4,118.8 Source: Crime in the United States, 2003 Table 7 NATIONAL PART I CRIME Crime Index Violent Crime Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft 2002 RATE 4,118.8 494.6 5.6 33.0 145.9 310.1 3,624.1 746.2 2,445.8 432.1 2003 RATE 4,063.4 475.0 5.7 32.1 142.2 295.0 3,588.4 740.5 2,414.5 433.4 PERCENT CH ANGE -1.4% - 4.0% 1.8% - 2.7% -2.5% - 4.9% -1.0% - 0.8% -1.3% 0.3% Source: Crime in the United States, 2002 and 2003 Compared to 2002, there was a decrease in crime rates for most of the Uniform Crime Report Part I offenses in 2003. Murder increased 1.8 percent, changing from a rate of 5.6 to 5.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. All property crimes and rates except motor vehicle theft decreased from 2002 to 2003 with burglary rates down 0.8 percent, larceny-theft down 1.3 percent, and motor vehicle theft increasing 0.3 percent. The following tables and figures illustrate how Arizona compares to the rest of the nation in each of the index crime categories. As crime rates are calculated by the number of crimes per 100,000 residents, rates present a clearer picture of whether crime has increased or decreased than do number of crimes reported. In Arizona, the number of actual crimes has gone up due to the growing population. However, the crime rate has decreased over the past 10 years. Arizona moved up in ranking for murder and rape, while moving down in ranking in robbery and aggravated assault, with the other index crimes remaining at the same rank during 2002 and 2003. Arizona has the highest rate in the nation for motor vehicle theft, which contributes to the state's number one ranking in property crime. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 11 Table 8 Part I Crime 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate 2002-2003 1 Arizona 6,145.6 1 6,386.3 -3.8% 2 Hawaii 5,507.9 2 6,043.7 -8.9% 3 South Carolina 5,270.6 4 5,297.3 - 0.5% 4 Florida 5,182.2 3 5,420.6 -4.4% 5 Texas 5,147.8 5 5,189.6 - 0.8% 6 Washington 5,101.9 6 5,106.8 -0.1% 7 Oregon 5,077.8 10 4,868.4 4.3% 8 Tennessee 5,067.2 9 5,018.9 1.0% 9 Louisiana 4,995.8 7 5,098.1 - 2.0% 10 Nevada 4,902.6 16 4,497.5 9.0% National Rate 4,063.4 4,118.8 - 1.4% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 CRIME INDEX � RATES Table 9 provides an overview of Arizona Part I crimes from 2002-2003 and summarizes the offense specific tables which follow. It is important to note from this table that Arizona is highest in the nation in total Crime Index, property crime and motor vehicle theft. Arizona ranks high in all property crimes, especially motor vehicle theft and larceny-theft. In addition, Arizona ranks number four in the country in burglaries. As property crime makes up 91.3 percent of all Part I crimes reported in Arizona, Arizona also has the highest overall crime rate. Hawaii, with the second highest crime rate, likewise has a very high property crime rate when compared to the rest of the nation. The property crime rate is a major factor in determining the overall crime rate because it contains the highest incidences (91.6 percent) of crime as reflected by the 5632.4 rate in 2003. In turn, Arizona was also ranked number four in burglary, number two in larceny-theft and first in motor vehicle theft, which accounts for Arizona having the highest property crime rate per Table 9 ARIZONA PART I CRIMES FROM 2002-2003 RATE PER 100,000 2003 Crime Index Violent Crime Rank 1 13 5 24 17 14 1 4 2 1 2002 6,386.3 552.9 7.1 29.5 146.6 369.8 5,833.4 1,082.9 3,693.6 1,056.9 Rank 1 13 9 30 14 12 1 2 2 1 Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Property Crime 6,145.6 513.2 7.9 33.3 136.5 335.5 5,632.4 1,050.3 3,560.9 1,021.3 Percent Change -3.8% -7.2% 11.3% 12.9% -6.9% -9.3% -3.5% -3.0% -3.6% -3.4% Burglary Larceny-Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 12 100,000 residents. Motor vehicle theft has a substantial impact on Arizona's property crime rate because the state was not only number one in motor vehicle theft, but it was number one by a large margin over other states. Table 10 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Murder 8.6 10.5 10.4 8.5 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.9 Forcible Rape 37.8 36.0 33.6 31.2 32.8 31.1 28.9 30.7 28.6 29.5 33.3 ARIZONA CRIME INDEX (RATES) Aggravated LarcenyRobbery Burglary Assault Theft 162.9 505.7 1,465.5 4,387.4 162.0 494.7 1,476.2 4,678.5 173.8 495.7 1,416.8 4,925.6 167.8 424.0 1,256.3 4,252.5 165.7 417.1 1,318.9 4,282.0 165.2 373.6 1,209.5 3,922.4 152.5 361.6 1,034.4 3,510.5 146.3 347.7 1,011.6 3,444.1 167.1 337.1 1,032.9 3,520.6 146.6 369.8 1,082.9 3,693.6 136.5 335.5 1,050.3 3,560.9 Auto Theft 863.8 1,066.7 1,157.7 926.7 970.4 865.1 800.5 842.1 983.6 1,056.9 1,021.3 Total Crime 7,431.7 7,924.6 8,213.6 7,067.0 7,195.1 6,575.0 5,896.4 5,829.5 6,077.4 6,386.4 6,145.6 Sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data Arizona's index crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson) remained substantially higher than the national rate between 1993 through 2003. This rate includes both property and violent crimes, although the majority of crimes included are property crimes. The total index crime rate in Arizona fell 17.3 percent from 7431.7 to 6145.6 between 1993 and 2003. While this represented a large drop in crime, the national index crime rate decreased from 5487.1 in 1993 to 4118.8 in 2003, a decline of 24.9 percent. Figure 7 Index Crime Rate 1993-2003 9000 8000 Number of Crimes Reported 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1993 National Arizona 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 13 VIOLENT CRIME According to the Uniform Crime Reporting definitions, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery and aggravated assault. All violent crimes involve force or threat of force. Both the national and state violent crime rates have decreased over the past 10 years. However, the national violent crime rate has decreased at a slightly higher rate than that of Arizona. As reflected in Table 11, Arizona's rate of total violent crime decreased by 7.2 percent from 2002 to 2003. In both 2002 and 2003 Arizona ranked 13th for violent crime in the nation. Most states in the top 10 rankings for violent crime had at least a slight decrease in the rate of violent crime from 2002 to 2003. However, Arizona's rate of violent crime decreased at a higher rate than most other top 10 ranked states. Table 11 Violent Crime 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 South Carolina 793.5 1 822.0 - 3.5% 2 Florida 730.2 2 770.2 -5.2% 3 Maryland 703.9 3 769.8 - 8.6% 4 Tennessee 687.8 5 716.9 -4.1% 5 New Mexico 665.2 4 739.5 - 10.0% 6 Delaware 658.0 9 599.0 9.9% 7 Louisiana 646.3 6 662.3 - 2.4% 8 Nevada 614.2 7 637.5 -3.7% 9 Alaska 593.4 12 563.4 5.3% 10 California 579.3 10 593.4 -2.4% 13 Arizona 513.2 13 552.9 -7.2% National Rate 475.0 494.6 -4.0% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 8 Violent Crime Rate 1993-2003 800.0 700.0 Rate per 100,000 Population 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 1993 Arizona National 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Calendar Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 14 MURDER As defined by the UCR program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, is "the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another." (Crime in the United States, 2003, p.15). The murder rate in Arizona increased by 11.3 percent from the year 2002 to 2003. In 2002, Arizona was ranked 9th in the nation for its murder rate per 100,000 residents. In 2003, Arizona rose from ranking of 9 in 2002 to a ranking 5 in 2003. Table 12 Murder 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Louisiana 13.0 1 13.2 - 1.5% 2 Maryland 9.5 2 9.4 1.1% 3 Mississippi 9.3 3 9.2 1.1% 4 Nevada 8.8 4 8.3 6.0% 5 Arizona 7.9 9 7.1 11.3% 6 Georgia 7.6 9 7.1 7.0% 7 South Carolina 7.2 7 7.3 - 1.4% 8 Illinois 7.1 6 7.5 -5.3% 9 California 6.8 11 6.8 0.0% 9 Tennessee 6.8 8 7.2 -5.6% National Rate 5.7 5.6 1.8% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 9 On a national level, the Murder Rate murder rate has gradually 1993-2003 declined from 1993 to 2003. 12.0 As reflected in Figure 9, the 10.0 murder rate in Arizona increased from 1993 to 8.0 1994, and then experienced 6.0 a steady decline until 2000. Arizona National The murder rate increased 4.0 overall in Arizona between 2000 and 2003 rising from 2.0 7.0 to 7.9 murders per 0.0 100,000 residents. While 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 both Arizona and the nation experienced an overall decrease in murder between 1993 and 2003, the decrease nationally was larger and more consistent. Rate per 100,000 Population Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 15 FORCIBLE RAPE As defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program, forcible rape, is "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 27). Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded. Sexual attacks on males are classified as assaults or sexual offenses. The incidents of rape per 100,000 residents in Arizona increased by 12.9 percent from the year 2002 to 2003. Arizona ranked 30th in 2002 and then rose to rank 24 in 2003. Table 13 Rape 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Alaska 92.5 1 79.4 16.5% 2 Michigan 54.1 3 53.4 1.3% 3 New Mexico 50.0 2 55.4 -9.8% 4 Rhode Island 46.9 21 36.9 27.1% 5 Washington 46.7 8 45.0 3.8% 6 South Dakota 46.3 5 47.4 -2.3% 7 South Carolina 44.4 4 47.7 -6.9% 8 Delaware 43.2 10 44.3 -2.5% 9 Oklahoma 42.7 8 45.0 -5.1% 10 Colorado 41.6 6 45.8 -9.2% 24 Arizona 33.3 30 29.5 12.9% National Rate 32.1 33.0 -2.7% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 10 On a national level, forcible rape (known as sexual assault in Arizona) gradually declined from 1993 until 2001 when it started to increase until 2003. Arizona ranked 24th in the nation with a rate of 33.3 in 2003. In 2002, Arizona ranked 30th in the nation with a rate of 29.5. Forcible Rape Rate 1993-2003 45.0 40.0 Rate per 100,000 Population 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1993 Arizona National 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 16 ROBBERY The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines robbery as "the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 32). Maryland was number one in 2003 with a robbery rate of 241.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. Arizona's rate of robbery decreased by 6.9 percent from the year 2002 to 2003, dropping from 14 to 17 in the national ranking among states. Table 14 Robbery 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Maryland 241.5 1 245.8 -1.8% 2 Nevada 230.3 2 235.5 -2.2% 3 Illinois 188.2 3 200.6 -6.2% 4 New York 186.3 5 191.3 -2.6% 5 Florida 185.2 4 194.9 -5.0% 6 California 179.7 6 185.0 -2.9% 7 Delaware 169.9 15 142.9 18.9% 8 Texas 167.4 7 172.5 -3.0% 9 Georgia 161.8 11 156.9 3.1% 10 Tennessee 160.4 8 162.4 -1.2% 17 Arizona 136.5 14 146.6 -6.9% National Rate 142.2 145.9 -2.5% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 11 As seen by Figure 11, the national robbery rate decreased markedly from 1993 until 1999, and has remained stable through 2003. In Arizona, the robbery rate stayed relatively constant during the 10-year period. From 2001 to 2003, there was a decrease in the robbery rate in Arizona dropping from 167.1 to 136.5 robberies per 100,000 residents. Robbery Rate 1993-2003 300. 0 250. 0 Rate per 100,000 Population 200. 0 150. 0 Arizona National 100. 0 50. 0 0. 0 1993 1994 199 5 1996 1997 1998 1999 200 0 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 17 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT According to the Uniform Crime Reporting program, an aggravated assault is an "unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 37). This type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assaults are included since it is not necessary that an injury result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed. As shown in Table 15 Arizona ranked 14th in 2003 with a rate of 335.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. When compared to the 2002 rate (369.8), the number of aggravated assaults has decreased 9.3 percent in 2003. Table 15 Aggravated Assault 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 South Carolina 605.1 1 626.5 -3.4% 2 New Mexico 505.2 2 557.1 -9.3% 3 Florida 500.1 3 529.4 -5.5% 4 Tennessee 484.9 4 507.8 -4.5% 5 Delaware 442.0 7 408.5 8.2% 6 Louisiana 435.0 6 456.1 -4.6% 7 Maryland 428.3 5 489.5 -12.5% 8 Alaska 426.5 8 402.9 5.9% 9 Oklahoma 365.3 13 368.8 -1.0% 10 California 364.6 11 372.6 -2.1% 14 Arizona 335.5 12 369.8 -9.3% National Rate 295.0 310.1 -4.9% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 12 On a national scale, aggravated assault has declined over the past 10 years. Arizona's aggravated assault rate experienced a decline in 1996 and continued to drop until 2001. There was a slight increase in 2002, followed by a decrease in 2003. Aggravated Assault Rate 1993-2003 600. 0 500. 0 Rate per 100,000 Population 400. 0 300. 0 Arizona National 200. 0 100. 0 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm 0. 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199 8 1 999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 18 PROPERTY CRIME In the UCR program, "property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but Table 16 Property Crime there is no force or 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population threat of force against 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change the victim or victims. 2003 State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) Arson is included in the 1 Arizona 5,632.4 1 5,833.4 -3.5% property crime category 2 Hawaii 5,237.5 2 5,781.7 -9.4% since it involves the 3 Oregon 4,782.3 6 4,576.0 4.5% destruction of property, 4 Washington 4,754.9 3 4,761.4 -0.1% although its victims may 5 Texas 4,595.3 5 4,611.0 -0.3% be subjected to force. South 6 Carolina 4,477.1 7 4,475.3 0.0% However, because of 7 Florida 4,452.0 4 4,650.4 -4.3% limited participation and 8 Tennessee 4,379.4 10 4,302.0 1.8% varying collection 9 Louisiana 4,349.5 8 4,435.7 -1.9% procedures by local 10 Oklahoma 4,306.0 12 4,239.8 1.6% agencies, only limited National Rate 3,588.4 3,624.1 -1.0% data are available for Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 arson. Arson statistics are included in trend, clearance, and arrest tables throughout FBI's Crime in the United States, but they are not included in any estimated volume data." (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 41). As seen in Table 16, in 2002 and 2003, Arizona ranked first in property crime in the United States with a rate of 5,833.4 (2002) and 5632.4 (2003). Arizona has had the highest property crime rate in the United States since 2000. Hawaii, ranked number two in property crime, has a property crime rate that was 7.5 percent lower than Arizona. Figure 13 The national property crime rate has decreased over the past 10 years, while the Arizona property crime rate has fluctuated over this same period. In Arizona, the property crime rate peaked in 1995 (7345.3). Arizona experienced a 3.4 percent decrease in the property crime between 2002 and 2003. Property Crime Rate 1993-2003 8000.0 7000.0 Rate per 100,000 Population 6000.0 5000.0 4000.0 3000.0 2000.0 1000.0 0.0 1993 Arizona National 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 19 BURGLARY The Uniform Crime Reporting program defines burglary "as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. The use of force to gain entry is not required to classify an offense as burglary. Burglary is categorized into three sub-classifications: forcible entry; unlawful entry where no force is used and attempted forcible entry" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 45). As reflected in Table 17, in 2003, Arizona ranked 4th in burglary with a rate of 1,050.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. Table 17 Burglary 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 North Carolina 1,197.6 1 1,196.3 0. 1 % 2 Tennessee 1,082.0 6 1,056.5 2.4% 3 South Carolina 1,050.9 3 1,065.1 - 1.3% 4 Arizona 1,050.3 2 1,082.9 -3.0% 5 Mississippi 1,035.6 7 1,030.5 0. 5 % 6 New Mexico 1,025.2 5 1,058.4 -3.1% 7 Florida 1,002.7 4 1,060.5 - 5.5% 8 Louisiana 998.1 9 1,011.7 -1.3% 9 Texas 993.7 11 976.1 1.8% 10 Oklahoma 992.3 10 1,006.7 -1.4% National Rate 740.5 746.2 - 0.8% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 14 Similar to other UCR crimes, the national trend for burglary has fallen. Arizona experienced an increase in 1997 and a slight rise in 2001 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2003, the burglary rate in Arizona decreased 3.0 percent. Burglary Rate 1993-2003 1600.0 1400.0 Rate per 100,000 Population 1200.0 1000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 1993 Arizona National 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 20 LARCENY-THEFT Larceny-theft is "the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. It includes crimes such as shoplifting, pocket-picking, purse-snatching, thefts from motor vehicles, thefts of motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycle thefts, etc., in which no use of force, violence, or fraud occurs. In the Uniform Crime Reporting program, this crime category does not include embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, and worthless checks. Motor vehicle theft is also excluded from this category inasmuch as it is a separate Crime Index offense" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p.49). Table 18 shows that Arizona ranked 2nd in 2003 with a rate of 3,560.9 for larceny-theft. This is a decrease of 3.6 percent from the 2002 rate of 3,693.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. Table 18 Larceny-Theft 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate (2002-2003) 1 Hawaii 3,562.9 1 3,963.7 - 10.1% 2 Arizona 3,560.9 2 3,693.6 -3.6% 3 Oregon 3,444.6 3 3,377.1 2. 0 % 4 Utah 3,182.2 4 3,229.1 -1.5% 5 Texas 3,157.7 6 3,163.4 - 0.2% 6 Washington 3,142.1 5 3,188.8 -1.5% 7 South Carolina 3,046.1 8 2,999.5 1. 6 % 8 Florida 2,970.1 7 3,060.3 -2.9% 9 Oklahoma 2,944.7 12 2,867.6 2.7% 10 Louisiana 2,909.3 10 2,973.7 -2.2% National Rate 2,414.5 2,445.8 - 1.3% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 15 When comparing national trends over the past 10 years, the larceny-theft rate has declined. Over the past 10 years, Arizona's larceny-theft rate has been consistently above the national average. As reflected in Figure 15, the highest larceny-theft rate occurred in 1995 (4,823.9), and the lowest rate occurred in 2000 (3,444.1). Larceny-Theft Rate 1993-2003 6000.0 5000.0 Rate per 100,000 population 4000.0 3000.0 Arizona National 2000.0 1000.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 21 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT Defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting program as "the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle, this offense category includes the stealing of automobiles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, motor scooters, and snowmobiles. The definition excludes the taking of a motor vehicle for temporary use by those persons having lawful access" (Crime in the United States, 2003, p. 55). As reflected in Table 19, the motor vehicle theft rate for Arizona decreased 3.4 percent from 2002 to 2003. Table 19 Motor Vehicle Theft 2002-2003 Reported Crime Per 100,000 population 2003 2003 2002 2002 Percent Change State Rank Rate Rank Rate 2002-2003 1 Arizona 1,021.3 1 1,056.9 -3.4% 2 Nevada 929.8 2 804.5 15.6% 3 Hawaii 767.4 3 796.0 - 3.6% 4 California 680.1 5 633.2 7.4% 5 Washington 662.5 4 667.2 - 0.7% 6 Maryland 660.8 6 623.3 6.0% 7 Oregon 533.5 12 469.2 13.7% 8 Michigan 533.1 9 494.7 7.8% 9 Missouri 502.4 10 491.5 2.2% 10 Georgia 499.4 16 444.3 12.4% National Rate 433.4 432.1 0.3% Source: Crime State Rankings 2004 and Crime State Rankings 2005 Figure 16 Nationally, the motor vehicle Motor Vehicle Theft Rate 1993-2003 theft rate showed an overall 1400.0 decrease between 1993 and 2003. Arizona has moved 1200.0 from having the 6th highest 1000.0 rate of motor vehicle theft in the nation in 1991 to the 800.0 Arizona number one ranked state in 600.0 National the nation in 1994. Arizona 400.0 has maintained that ranking with a rate of 1,021.3 motor 200.0 vehicle thefts per 100,000 0.0 inhabitants in 2003. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 However, in 2003, Arizona also experienced the first decline in the motor vehicle theft rate since 1999. A more complete evaluation of Motor Vehicle Theft in Arizona can be found in the Arizona Auto Theft Study, conducted in 2004 by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Rate per 100,000 Population Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystatelist.cfm Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 22 Firearm Use in Violent Crime Even though violent crime rates have decreased over the past 10 years, a high percentage of homicides can be attributed to firearm related injuries. In 2003, 70.9 percent of all homicides in the United States were the result of firearm inflicted injuries (Crime in the United States 2003, 2004). In Arizona, in 2003, there were 440 homicides, 70.7 percent of which involved the use of a firearm (Crime in Arizona, 2003). An analysis of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program master files was conducted to determine gun use during violent crimes, including murder, robbery and aggravated assault at a national and state level. The numbers used for this analysis vary slightly from published FBI reports such as Crime in the United States because the FBI accounts for non-reporting or partially reporting agencies by estimating crimes occurring in those jurisdictions with missing data. The figures used for the purpose of this evaluation looked only at uniform crime reports submitted by agencies. The comparison being made for this analysis was the total number of robberies and aggravated assault reported compared to the number of robberies with a firearm and aggravated assaults with a firearm. National percentages for crimes committed with a firearm were taken from Crime in the United States publications. These publications take into account nonreporting or partially reporting agencies to extrapolate the correct numbers of crime occurrences. In Arizona, all urban agencies report UCR data to the FBI. However, this is not the case nationwide. For this reason, it was determined that while actual counts were the most accurate reflection of Arizona data, the extrapolated figures were the most accurate reflection at the national level. Murder Figure 17 Percent of Murders Involving a Firearm The majority of homicides in 100.0% the United States and 90.0% Arizona involve the use of a 80.0% firearm. The inclusion of a 70.0% firearm in any crime is of 60.0% concern, chiefly because of 50.0% the risk that a crime could 40.0% escalate to murder. As the 30.0% chart to the right shows, 20.0% 10.0% approximately two-thirds 0.0% (66.9 percent in 2003) of all 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 murders in the United States Year involve the use of a firearm. Arizona United States Source: Crime in Arizona reports, Crime in the United States reports This chart portrays the percent of murders in Arizona and the United States that involved a firearm between 1994 and 2003. As is shown in Table 20 on the following page, Arizona had a higher percentage of murders with a firearm than the nation during this time period. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review Per c ent 23 Table 20 1994 72.8% 65.2% 1995 75.7% 68.0% Murder with a Firearm 1994 � 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 74.3% 70.9% 73.8% 71.1% 67.8% 67.8% 64.9% 65.2% 2000 70.8% 65.6% 2001 71.4% 63.4% 2002 75.8% 66.7% 2003 70.7% 66.9% Arizona United States Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports Robbery The number of total robberies in Arizona increased 16.3 percent from 1994 � 2003, while robberies with a firearm increased 39.5 percent during that same time period. In 1994, 40.2 percent of all robberies in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. This percentage increased to 48.3 percent in 2003. The percent of robberies with a firearm in 2003 was higher in Arizona (48.3 percent) than nationally (41.8 percent). Since 2001, Arizona has had increasingly higher rates of firearm usage during robberies than the rest of the nation. Table 21 Arizona Robberies with a Firearm 1994 � 2003 Robberies with Total Arizona a Firearm Robberies Percent 2,606 6,480 40.2% 2,983 7,119 41.9% 2,871 7,296 39.4% 2,958 7,264 40.7% 3,082 7,537 40.9% 3,150 7,260 43.4% 3,116 7,472 41.7% 4,084 8,760 46.6% 3,722 7,907 47.1% 3,636 7,533 48.3% National Percent 41.6% 41.0% 40.7% 39.7% 38.2% 39.9% 40.9% 42.0% 42.1% 41.8% Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003, Crime in the United States reports 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 The number of robberies with or without a firearm increased in Arizona between 1994 and 2003, while the number of robberies fell nationally during the same time period. However, robberies between 2001 and 2003 decreased at a higher percentage in Arizona than nationally. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 24 Figure 18 Arizona Robberies with a Firearm 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 Robberies 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 199 4 1 995 19 96 19 97 199 8 Year Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm 199 9 200 0 2 001 2 002 20 03 Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003. Figures 18 and 19 show that a larger percentage of robberies in Arizona involve the use of a firearm than nationally. Figure 19 National Robberies with a Firearm 70 0,000 60 0,000 50 0,000 Robberies 40 0,000 30 0,000 20 0,000 10 0,000 0 199 4 199 5 1 996 19 97 199 8 Year Total Robberies Robberies with a Firearm 1 999 20 00 200 1 2 002 20 03 Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003. Robberies involving a firearm increased 39.5 percent in Arizona between 1994 and 2003. Apache, Cochise, Gila, La Paz, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties had a decrease in robberies with a firearm, while Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Yuma counties experienced an increase in robberies with a firearm between 1994 and Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 25 2003. Graham and Greenlee counties reported no robberies with a firearm during this time period. In 2003, 77.7 percent of robberies with a firearm were committed in Maricopa County and 18.6 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 22 shows the number of robberies with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003. Table 22 1994 4 16 12 3 0 0 4 2,072 38 7 390 19 23 16 2 2,606 1995 2 12 17 1 0 0 3 2,406 48 7 451 10 9 12 5 2,983 Robberies with a Firearm By County 1994 - 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 1 2 1 0 13 20 16 22 18 13 15 23 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2,319 2,306 2,445 2,599 25 23 23 15 7 10 5 3 448 535 540 444 12 30 22 22 10 6 6 4 11 5 9 9 6 4 0 7 2,871 2,958 3,082 3,150 2000 1 26 28 0 0 0 0 2,528 13 6 447 43 0 8 16 3,116 2001 0 13 16 1 0 0 2 3,474 24 7 493 31 1 16 6 4,084 2002 1 9 4 1 0 0 1 3,247 13 1 390 26 4 9 16 3,722 2003 0 11 24 0 0 0 3 2,826 17 2 675 39 3 8 28 3,636 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navaj o Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma AZ Source: FBI database, 1994 � 2003 Aggravated Assault In 2003, 27.0 percent of all aggravated assaults in Arizona involved the use of a firearm. This is considerably higher than the 19.1 percent seen nationwide in 2003. While all assaults with a firearm are considered aggravated assaults, all assaults, including simple assaults, have the potential of escalating to the point that serious injury or death to the victims occurs. When a firearm is added to the assault, the potential for injury or death is higher, as can be seen by the fact that 70.9 percent of homicides in Arizona in 2003 involved the use of a firearm. Table 23 Assaults with a Firearm 7,019 7,117 5,989 5,471 4,646 4,407 4,248 4,230 4,637 4,950 Aggravated Assaults 19,690 20,245 18,023 18,175 16,881 16,915 17,774 17,664 19,900 18,343 Arizona Assaults 1994 - 2003 Total Arizona Percent with Assaults Firearm 68,732 35.7% 74,017 35.2% 69,045 33.2% 69,559 30.1% 69,048 27.6% 66,689 26.1% 69,192 23.9% 71,177 24.0% 74,424 23.3% 71,102 27.0% National Percent with Firearm 24.0% 22.9% 22.0% 20.0% 18.8% 18.0% 18.1% 18.3% 19.0% 19.1% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Sources: FBI database, 1994 � 2003, Crime in the United States reports Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 26 The charts below show the proportions of total assaults (simple and aggravated) that involve the use of a firearm. Figure 20 Arizona Assaults with a Firearm 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 Assaults 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Total Assaults Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003. As seen in Figures 20 and 21, while the percentage of assaults that are aggravated assaults is roughly the same in Arizona and the United States, Arizona has a much higher percentage of aggravated assaults committed with a firearm than the national level. Since 1994, Arizona's rate of firearm use in aggravated assaults has generally been around 10 percentage points higher than the national rate. Figure 21 National Assaults with a Firearm 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 Assaults 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Total Assaults Total Aggravated Assaults Assaults with a Firearm 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 27 Between 1994 and 2003, the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm in Arizona decreased 29.5 percent, while the total number of aggravated assaults in Arizona decreased 6.8 percent. Apache, Cochise, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima and Yuma counties had increases in the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm, while Coconino, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties had decreases in aggravated assaults with a firearm between 1994 and 2003. In 2003, 63.2 percent of aggravated assaults with a firearm were committed in Maricopa County and 27.4 percent were committed in Pima County. Table 24 shows the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm reported in each county between 1994 and 2003. Table 24 1994 3 35 61 24 9 0 26 5,179 96 21 1,272 192 16 67 18 7,019 1995 10 25 45 31 10 0 7 5,131 86 49 1,405 185 10 108 15 7,117 Aggravated Assault with a Firearm By County 1994 - 2003 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 9 1 9 6 5 26 29 27 54 28 33 26 39 21 32 14 25 25 8 15 2 9 1 5 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 6 4 4,373 3,757 3,350 3,114 3,056 60 66 55 46 52 22 16 15 20 15 1,195 1,313 965 924 835 170 131 90 114 58 10 7 4 7 2 56 75 52 47 39 19 15 9 34 103 5,989 5,471 4,646 4,407 4,248 2001 13 44 34 5 1 0 1 2,972 63 8 871 79 0 47 92 4,230 2002 9 41 29 18 2 1 2 3,354 67 14 861 64 2 44 129 4,637 2003 7 45 60 11 1 1 5 3,128 56 23 1,358 102 1 58 94 4,950 Source: FBI database, 1994 - 2003 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona Firearm Use in Violent Crime Arizona consistently had a higher rate of firearm use in Part I violent crime (murder, robbery and aggravated assault) between 1994 and 2003. The chart below shows Arizona's and United States' percentage of crimes involving a firearm for murder, robbery and aggravated assault between 1994 and 2003. With the exception of robbery in 1994 and 1996, Arizona had higher firearm usage in all crime categories for each year examined. Both nationally and in Arizona, murder was the violent crime most likely to involve a firearm, followed by robbery and aggravated assault. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 28 Figure 22 Violent Crime Involving a Firearm 80 .0% 70 .0% 60 .0% 50 .0% Percent 40 .0% 30 .0% 20 .0% 10 .0% 0.0% 1 994 199 5 19 96 1 997 199 8 19 99 2 00 0 20 01 2 002 200 3 Year Source: FBI Database, 1994 � 2003. AZ Murder US Murder AZ Robbery US Robbery AZ Aggravated Assault US Aggravated Assault Project Safe Neighborhoods is a gun violence reduction initiative being coordinated by the US Attorney's across the country. While reducing crimes involving a firearm has become a nationwide focus, it is even more necessary in Arizona, where a higher percentage of violent crimes involve the use of a firearm. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 29 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS COURT SERVICES The judicial system in Arizona is both large and complex. It consists of a series of courts and an array of support services, which assist the court in the timely processing of cases. Arizona has two appellate courts: the Court of Appeals with two divisions, which is the intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort. In this review we have not included workload information regarding the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court because the processing of cases tracked by both the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report are not initiated in the appellate courts. Although no appellate court workload information is incorporated, we direct the reader to the Arizona Supreme Court web site at www.supreme.state.az.us for more detailed information. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the state and has administrative supervision over all the courts in Arizona. Its primary duties are to review appeals and to provide rules of procedure for all the Arizona courts. Five justices serve on the Supreme Court for a regular term of six years. Fellow justices select one justice to serve as Chief Justice for a five-year term. In addition to casework, the Chief Justice supervises the administrative work of the court. The Court of Appeals was established in 1965 as an intermediate appellate FY2004 CASE FILINGS court and consists of two divisions: BY COURT LEVEL Division One in Phoenix with sixteen Court Number of Cases Filed judges, and Division Two in Tucson Supreme Court 1,170 with six judges. The Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 3,457 has jurisdiction in all matters and Division One 2,596 reviews all decisions properly appealed Division Two 861 from Superior Court. Table 25 lists the Source: Administrative Office of the Courts, (Court Services Division) case filings by appellate court for FY2004. Division One in Phoenix processed more than two-thirds of all appeals from lower courts in FY2004, reviewing more than 2600 cases. Tucson's Division Two Appellate Court reviewed 861. More than 1100 cases in FY2004 were filed in Arizona's Supreme Court. Table 25 SUPERIOR COURT The Superior Court, which has a division in each of the 15 counties in Arizona, is the state's only general jurisdiction court. Superior Court judges hear all types of cases except civil actions when the award is less than $5,000.00, small claims, minor offenses including civil traffic violations, or violations of city codes and ordinances. In addition, the Superior Court acts as an appellate court to hear appeals from decisions made in Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 30 the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts. In counties with more than one Superior Court judge, a specialized juvenile court is established. The court will assign one or more Superior Court judges to hear juvenile cases regarding delinquency, incorrigibility and dependency. Probation departments are also the responsibility of the courts and fall under the auspices of the Superior Court. Each Superior Court has either a separate or combined adult and juvenile probation department, and each probation officer is considered an employee of the court. Local and state crime trends have a direct and often immediate impact on Superior Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and probation department workloads. Table 26 FY2004 SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Filings Apache 1,065 Cochise 4,448 Coconino 3,851 Gila 2,358 Graham 1,352 Greenlee 321 La Paz 951 Maricopa 128,876 Mohave 5,113 Navajo 3,204 Pima 30,165 Pinal 7,801 Santa Cruz 1,728 Yavapai 7,235 Yuma 6,213 Total 204,681 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Div.) Statewide, as of FY2004, there were 163 full-time Superior Court Judges (this figure does not include Superior Court commissioners). In FY2004, those judges handled 204,681 criminal and non-criminal filings. Maricopa County received 128,876 cases, which represented 62.9 percent of the total cases filed statewide. Table 27 indicates that felonies filed in the Superior Court from FY1993 to FY2004 have increased each year with the exception of FY1999. The number of felony cases filed has increased by almost 26,000 over the last 10 years with 28,522 in FY1994 compared to 54,420 in FY2004. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 31 Table 27 Felony Filings by Fiscal Year FY1993 � FY2004 Felony Filings* Felony Filing Rate 26,496 673.2 28,522 699.9 30,372 720.1 30,817 696.0 34,649 760.7 39,515 846.3 38,281 801.2 40,317 785.8 43,462 818.9 45,322 830.6 50,884 911.8 54,420 ** 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 *Totals Include Filings by the Attorney General Office **Rate not available for 2004 Source of felony filings: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) The following tables provide a look at criminal case filings through the Superior Court for the period from FY1994-FY2004 by county. A review of the total criminal cases filed for the state shows, with the exception of FY1999, total criminal case filings rose each year. Total Superior Court criminal case filings have grown from 30,848 in FY1994 to 56,078 in 2004. Table 28 TOTAL SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR AND COUNTY County FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 Apache 237 220 262 174 191 261 262 271 Cochise 850 846 597 578 713 606 712 836 Coconino 973 1,207 1,238 1,025 905 992 953 1,048 Gila 542 857 954 868 892 794 1,049 731 Graham 209 221 232 225 330 338 399 384 Greenlee 47 92 143 74 81 46 73 116 La Paz 227 234 242 283 422 256 303 402 Maricopa 17,130 17,860 18,610 21,882 25,641 25,756 27,385 30,616 Mohave 1,482 1,592 1,664 1,902 1,876 1,518 1,512 1,708 Navajo 548 670 723 915 748 866 930 953 Pima 4,829 4,534 4,254 4,677 5,381 5,182 4,840 5,512 Pinal 1,066 1,239 1,304 1,446 1,859 1,212 1,282 1,458 Santa Cruz 364 311 358 244 230 302 166 255 Yavapai 907 1,380 1,228 1,320 1,499 1,397 1,483 1,726 Yuma 1,437 1,331 1,579 1,444 1,656 1,284 1,339 1,364 Total 30,848 32,594 33,388 37,057 42,424 40,810 42,688 47,380 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) FY2002 223 953 1,051 831 390 94 463 31,079 1,618 811 4,816 1,741 253 2,056 1,425 47,804 FY2003 274 1,128 1,038 830 314 70 469 35,612 1,734 975 4,986 1,879 316 2,216 1,357 53,198 FY2004 373 946 1,339 658 337 88 525 37,166 1,680 1,192 5,513 1,815 253 2,490 1,703 56,078 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 32 Table 29 SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS FY1994 TO FY2004 10-year 1-year County Percent Change Percent Change Apache 57.4 36.1 Cochise 11.3 (16.1) Coconino 37.6 29.0 Gila 21.4 (20.7) Graham 61.2 7.3 Greenlee 87.2 25.7 La Paz 131.3 12.0 Maricopa 117.0 4.4 Mohave 13.4 (3.1) Navajo 117.5 22.3 Pima 14.2 10.6 Pinal 70.3 (3.4) Santa Cruz (30.5) (20.0) Yavapai 174.5 12.4 Yuma 18.5 25.5 Total 81.8% 5.4% Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) As reflected in Table 29, the 10-year increase for criminal case filings statewide was 81.8 percent. Cochise showed the smallest increase over a 10year period with an 11.3 percent change. The largest increase was in Yavapai County with an increase of 174.5 percent. In the most recent year, five counties had decreases: Cochise, Gila, Mohave, Pinal and Santa Cruz. The statewide increase from FY2003 to FY2004 was 5.4 percent. Overall, nearly 2.5 million cases were filed in Arizona courts during FY2004. As reported by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the cost of processing a case in FY2003 was $124.36. There were 66,642 individuals under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation Table 30 departments at the end of FY2004, up TOTAL FILINGS IN SUPERIOR COURT 4.5 percent from FY2003. The number FY2003 - FY2004 of juveniles on probation was up 2.7 2003 2004 Difference percent to 9,115 at the end of FY2004. 192,129 204,681 12,552 6.5% Table 30 represents the total number Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) of filings in Superior Court from FY2003 to FY2004. The Arizona Superior Court experienced a 6.5 percent increase in the number of total cases filed between FY2003 and FY2004. Criminal case filings increased 5.4 percent from 53,198 in FY2003 to 56,078 in FY2004. JUSTICE COURTS During fiscal year 2001, there was a change in the way civil cases can be filed. For civil cases and forcible detainer cases, legislative changes allowed concurrent jurisdiction between the Superior Court and Justice Court for cases where the dollar amount for damages falls between $5,000 and $10,000. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 33 Table 31 FY2004 JUSTICE COURT CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Justice Court Apache 9,559 Cochise 46,150 Coconino 28,771 Gila 15,186 Graham 5,819 Greenlee 1,584 La Paz 16,945 Maricopa 348,040 Mohave 49,008 Navajo 24,526 Pima 189,106 Pinal 44,475 Santa Cruz 10,496 Yavapai 36,914 Yuma 22,142 Total 848,721 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) In Arizona, in FY2004, there were a total of 86 precincts with 81 Justices of the Peace serving four-year terms. In FY2004, 848,721 cases were filed at the Justice Court level. Uncharacteristically, Maricopa County did not represent more than half of the statewide Justice Court workload. Maricopa County had the most filings with 348,040 of the 848,721 statewide. That represents approximately 41.0 percent of the total Justice Court filings. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 34 Table 32 JUSTICE COURT FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR AND TYPE Non-Traffic Fiscal Year Felonies Misdemeanors 1994 95,012 29,418 1995 100,557 37,368 1996 111,981 38,385 1997 110,268 43,693 1998 124,884 46,638 1999 120,905 41,022 2000 124,451 41,540 2001 116,371 39,852 2002 121,428 39,112 2003 122,891 26,209 2004 116,582 27,008 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) Of the 848,721 total cases filed in FY2004, there were 116,582 nontraffic misdemeanors and 27,008 felonies. Table 32 reflects a reduction from 122,891 misdemeanors in FY2003 to 116,582 in FY2004. Felonies increased from 26,209 in FY2003 to 27,008 in FY2004. MUNICIPAL COURTS The Municipal Courts are comprised of 138 full and part-time judges that serve in 84 cities throughout Arizona. A number of paid, full and part-time judges pro tempore and hearing officers assist in the processing of Municipal Court cases. There were 1,439,452 cases filed in the various Municipal Courts within Arizona in FY2004. Maricopa County, with 956,475, was the largest with approximately 66.4 percent of the Municipal Court filings and Greenlee County was the smallest with 550 (or less than one percent of total filings). Table 33 FY2004 MUNICIPAL CASE FILINGS BY COUNTY County Municipal Apache 1,638 Cochise 8,589 Coconino 27,017 Gila 8,680 Graham 3,218 Greenlee 550 La Paz 3,293 Maricopa 956,475 Mohave 29,586 Navajo 6,071 Pima 281,845 Pinal 29,538 Santa Cruz 17,890 Yavapai 41,862 Yuma 23,200 Total 1,439,452 Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services Division) Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 35 Table 34 Local and state crime trends have a direct and often immediate impact on Superior Courts, Justice Courts, Municipal Courts and probation department workloads. In spite of Source: Administrative Office of the Courts (Court Services the fact crime rates have been on the decline Division) for most of the past 10-year period, court workloads have, with the exception of Justice Courts, continued to increase. The 10year increase for Superior Court criminal case filings statewide was 81.8 percent. In FY2004 adult (4.5 percent) and juvenile (2.7 percent) probation caseloads increased, Justice Court felonies increased while misdemeanors declined and Municipal Court nontraffic misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2 percent. MUNICIPAL COURT NON-TRAFFIC CRIMINAL FILINGS BY FISCAL YEAR Fiscal Non-Traffic Year Misdemeanors 1994 243,419 1995 270,116 1996 243,253 1997 241,016 1998 222,611 1999 230,792 2000 212,518 2001 224,703 2002 219,166 2003 233,507 2004 234,139 Municipal Court non-traffic criminal misdemeanor case filings increased 0.2 percent from 233,507 in FY2003 to 234,139 in FY2004. Although total misdemeanor filings increased, FY2004 filings were lower in six of the past 10-year totals (Municipal Courts do not process felony cases). Of the nearly 2.5 million filings in FY2004, almost 1.6 million of those filings were for criminal traffic and civil traffic violations, all handled by the limited jurisdiction courts in the state (Justice and Municipal Courts). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 36 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF COURTS ADULT PROBATION SERVICES DIVISION The Adult Probation Services Division (APSD) of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) oversees the statewide administration of adult probation programs and services in accordance with statutory and administrative guidelines. This division interacts with the courts, probation departments, and a variety of non-court agencies and organizations throughout Arizona. The division administers several major program funds: Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS), Adult Probation Services Fund (PSF), Community Punishment Program (CPP), Drug Enforcement Account (DEA), Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF), State Aid Enhancement (SAE) which primarily funds standard probation supervision, Interstate Compact Program (ISC), Transferred Youth (TY), Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) and the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund (JCEF). These funds are distributed to the counties and used in conjunction with federal and county monies to operate the local probation departments and provide supervision and treatment services. The data presented below was drawn from the Probation Information Management System (PIMS) and the Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS), and county monthly statistical reports submitted to the APSD. The data represented focuses on the total number of probationers under the jurisdiction of Arizona county adult probation departments, number of active probationers receiving standard and intensive probation, number completing a probation term, number revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), total amount of restitution collected, and the total number of community work service hours performed. ADULT STANDARD PROBATION The purpose of standard probation supervision in Arizona is to provide the highest quality of service to the court, community, and offenders. This is accomplished by promoting safety through effective community-based supervision and enforcement of court orders, offering accurate and reliable information and affording offenders opportunities to be accountable and initiate positive changes. Standard probation is a less restrictive form of probation and those placed on this type of supervision are deemed to be a lower risk for re-offending. An officer supervising a standard caseload may only be required to contact their probationers once or twice a month, as opposed to intensive officers whose contacts range from four to sixteen times per month. The program provides supervision through a probation officer that is required to maintain a complete record of supervision, serve warrants, make arrests, and investigate cases referred by the court to assist in sentencing decisions. Officers also keep identification records on all probationers assigned to them, obtain and assemble information concerning conduct while on probation, and monitor the probationers' compliance with Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 37 the conditions of probation. Officers are also responsible for returning defaulting probationers to court for violations. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, adult probation officers shall supervise no more than an average of 60 probationers. There are three levels of standard probation: maximum, medium, and minimum. It is the officer's responsibility to ensure that probationers receive services in accordance with their individual risks/needs, and with the safety of the community in mind. Examples of such services are substance abuse treatment, education and literacy classes, financial counseling, anger management counseling, and domestic violence counseling. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on standard supervision increased by 3.3 percent from 60,506 to 62,478. The overall number of probationers on standard supervision includes active probationers, absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving standard probation services during this same time period increased by 2.4 percent from 34,871 to 35,709 (see Figure 23 for FY1999-2004). The number of active adults receiving standard probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and receiving direct supervision services. During the course of fiscal year 2004, 11,345 standard probationers successfully completed their probation grant (discharge or early termination), while 4,791 were revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections. The number of standard probationers who absconded from supervision increased 8.6 percent from 10,421 to 11,317, while the total number of standard absconders apprehended during this time period was 46.8 percent. Over that same period, $11,573,507 in restitution to victims was collected, while 813,523 hours of community service were performed. ADULT INTENSIVE PROBATION Adult Intensive Probation Supervision is a sentencing alternative that provides control, intervention and surveillance to probationers who would otherwise have been incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections or as a result of a technical violation of standard probation. The program provides intensive supervision through probation officer or surveillance officer teams of two or three persons, depending on the level of supervision. A two-person team is comprised of a probation officer and a surveillance officer, and a three-person team is one probation officer and two surveillance officers. Pursuant to statute, a two-person team can supervise a maximum of 25 intensive probationers and a three-person team can supervise no more than 40 probationers. In small counties, one probation officer is authorized to supervise up to 15 intensive probationers. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 38 Intensive Probation requires supervision teams to have face-to-face contact with probationers a minimum of four to sixteen times per month, depending on which phase of the program the probationer is in. Probationers on IPS are also required to maintain employment, complete 40 hours of community service per month, and pay restitution to victims of crimes, as well as other financial assessments. From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, the overall number of probationers on intensive supervision increased by 18.7 percent from 3,508 to 4,164. The overall number of probationers on intensive supervision includes active probationers, absconders/warrant status and indirect services (out of county, state, country or who are serving DOC time). The number of active adults receiving intensive probation services during this same time period increased by 21.8 percent from 2,399 to 2,923 (see Figure 24 for FY1999-FY2004). The number of active adults receiving intensive probation services includes probationers in jail or residing in the sentencing county and receiving direct supervision services. During fiscal year 2004, 1,415 intensive probationers successfully completed their probation grant (discharged or graduated to standard), while 1,535 were revoked and incarcerated in either a county jail or with the Arizona Department of Corrections. The number of intensive probationers who absconded from supervision during fiscal year 2004 increased 13.2 percent from 960 to 1,087, while the total intensive absconders apprehended was 49.5 percent. Over that same period, $761,281 in restitution to victims was collected, while 615,182 hours of community service were performed. Figure 23 ACTIVE STANDARD PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004 2004 3 5 ,7 0 9 2003 3 4 ,8 7 1 2002 3 7 ,3 8 8 2001 3 4 ,6 9 9 2000 3 4 ,3 9 5 1999 34,220 3 2 ,5 0 0 3 3 ,0 0 0 3 3 ,5 0 0 3 4 ,0 0 0 3 4 ,5 0 0 3 5 ,0 0 0 3 5 ,5 0 0 3 6 ,0 0 0 3 6 ,5 0 0 3 7 ,0 0 0 3 7 ,5 0 0 3 8 ,0 0 0 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 39 Figure 24 ACTIVE INTENSIVE PROBATIONERS RECEIVING SERVICES IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004 2 00 4 2 00 3 2 00 2 2 00 1 2 00 0 1 99 9 0 500 1, 00 0 1, 500 2 , 00 0 2, 500 3 , 00 0 2, 3 99 3 , 08 4 3 , 3 84 3 , 37 9 3,401 3, 500 4 , 00 0 2, 9 23 Figure 25 PROBATION POPULATION UNDER ARIZONA SUPERVISION IN FISCAL YEARS 19992004 2 0 04 2 0 03 2 0 02 2 0 01 2 0 00 1 9 99 1 0, 00 0 15 , 0 0 0 20 , 0 0 0 2 5 , 0 00 3 0 , 0 00 3 5, 00 0 4 0, 00 0 45 , 00 0 5 0 , 0 00 5 7, 4 20 55,452 5 5 , 0 00 6 0, 00 0 6 5, 00 0 70 , 00 0 60 , 88 1 66 , 64 2 6 3, 76 3 6 4, 56 4 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 40 JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM America's juvenile justice system is significantly different from the adult criminal justice system. In 1899, the Illinois Legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, creating the first separate juvenile court (http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html). By 1925, 46 states, 3 territories and the District of Columbia passed similar legislation. These legislative acts introduced significant differences into America's juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts begin with the presumption that juveniles are developmentally different from adults, and are therefore amenable to treatment. The result is a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution, and individualized justice rather than the specified lengths of incarceration by crime type. There is a much greater emphasis on research and social science methods in the juvenile than the adult system. The juvenile court has traditionally discouraged institutionalization in favor of keeping juveniles with their families in the community. Institutionalization is reserved for serious juvenile offenders who pose a threat to public safety (www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/2.html). Juvenile court procedures are considerably different from adult procedures in that the juvenile system uses a non-adversarial method to arrive at the truth. A treatment team approach is common, and it consists of professional staff meeting to decide what is best for the juvenile. The result is adjudication, which is qualitatively different from a conviction. The 1960s saw the addition of some procedural safeguards for the juvenile court system including those associated with in re Gault, which was based on a famous Arizona case. In 1979, the federal government passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to create a national standard for dealing with juvenile delinquency within the context of law enforcement and criminal justice efforts (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/compliance/jjdpchronology.pdf). While the juvenile justice model, first established in 1899, may be firmly entrenched in America, some would like to make it more like the adult model. Indeed, the 1990s witnessed numerous states making modifications to the basic juvenile justice model including the passage of Arizona Revised Statute 13-501 mandating juveniles accused of violent offenses be direct filed into an adult court under certain circumstances, thereby precluding the juvenile from the treatment approach provided in Arizona's juvenile justice system (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00501.htm). ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS JUVENILES JUSTICE SERVICES DIVISION The Juvenile Justice Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, in coordination with the 15 county juvenile courts, is responsible for the effective administration of juvenile justice programs for delinquent and incorrigible youth. Activities are consistent with constitutional, statutory, and administrative requirements, which focus on accountability, treatment and rehabilitation as well as protection of the community and youth. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 41 The following data represent the demographic and offense characteristics of juveniles in the juvenile court system from FY1996 to FY2004. The tables present data on juvenile referrals by age, gender, race, county and type of offense. This does not capture all of the paths that a juvenile may take within Juvenile Court. Rather, the most significant events are illustrated below. REFERRALS Police, parents, school officials, probation officers or other agencies or individuals requesting that the juvenile court assume jurisdiction over the juvenile's conduct can make referrals. Referrals can be "paper referrals" issued as citations or police reports, or "physical referrals" in which the juvenile is physically brought to Juvenile Court. A juvenile can be referred more than once in a given year. The data that follow reflect an unduplicated count of juveniles within each year, but because a juvenile could be referred in subsequent years, the totals cannot be summed across the years. From FY1996 to FY2004, the number of juveniles referred to juvenile court decreased by 1.9 percent. In FY2004, the largest category for juvenile referrals was public peace (26.6 percent), while the smallest category was citations/administrative (0.6 percent). Felonies against person made up 4.9 percent of all referrals, felonies against property made up 10.5 percent, status offenses made up 16.1 percent and drugs made up 10.0 percent of referrals in FY2004. A higher percentage of referrals came from obstruction of justice, misdemeanors against person, drugs, public peace and administrative in FY2004 than in FY1996, while a lower percentage of referrals came from felony against person, felony against property, misdemeanors against property and status offenses. Table 35 Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Most Serious Offense FY1996 � FY2004 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 3,297 3,039 2,861 2,484 2,491 2,478 2,401 7,944 3,613 4,372 4,416 6,919 9,365 10,732 162 50,820 7,504 3,702 4,573 4,940 7,476 8,885 9,893 198 50,210 7,233 4,221 4,408 5,097 8,687 8,654 9,648 200 51,009 5,900 4,288 4,276 4,800 9,912 7,530 8,850 206 48,246 5,727 4,376 4,483 4,459 10,861 7,313 8,591 233 48,534 5,513 4,679 4,490 4,900 12,960 6,667 9,340 247 51,274 5,618 4,850 4,329 4,874 12,537 6,799 8,729 262 50,399 Felony Against Person Felony Against Property Obstruction of Justice Misd. Against Person Drugs Public Peace Misd. Against Property Status Offenses Administrative TOTAL FY2003 2,400 5,290 4,756 4,414 4,608 12,937 6,724 8,178 281 49,588 FY2004 2,464 5,254 4,473 4,332 4,973 13,257 6,759 8,049 317 49,878 Nearly three-fourths (73.1 percent) of referred youth in FY2004 came from the three highest populated counties, Maricopa, Pima and Pinal. Over 49 percent of all referrals came from Maricopa County. Gila, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties had an increase in referrals in FY2004 when compared to FY1996. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 42 Table 36 Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By County FY1996 � FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 424 419 349 365 309 276 1,849 1,703 1,625 1,651 1,658 1,496 2,166 2,195 1,896 1,873 1,829 1,790 1,072 1,050 1,058 985 851 827 486 558 484 521 513 493 172 157 103 104 103 81 234 201 193 135 190 188 24,000 24,659 22,818 23,133 26,145 25,414 1,795 1,836 1,858 1,898 2,225 2,196 1,284 1,313 1,158 1,308 1,272 1,195 10,192 9,913 9,742 9,787 9,595 9,498 2,074 2,149 2,035 2,056 2,222 2,121 470 500 789 764 633 699 1,872 1,821 1,886 1,844 1,849 1,893 2,120 2,535 2,255 2,110 1,880 2,232 50,210 51,009 48,249 48,534 51,274 50,399 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma TOTAL FY1996 473 1,955 2,291 994 436 168 181 24,260 1,819 1,261 10,498 1,956 460 1,901 2,167 50,820 FY2003 282 1,553 1,753 923 437 84 204 24,680 2,218 1,128 9,193 2,325 702 1,737 2,369 49,588 FY2004 272 1,510 1,633 1,027 392 82 193 24,743 2,161 1,137 9,461 2,265 741 1,645 2,616 49,878 Over half (64.7 percent) of youth referred in FY2004 were between the ages of 15 and 17. This is comparative to the 63.5 percent of juvenile referrals between the ages of 15 and 17 in FY1996. A slightly smaller percentage of youth between the ages of 8 and 10 were referred in FY2004 (2.3 percent) than in FY1996 (2.9 percent). Table 37 Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Age FY1996 � FY2004 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 234 241 312 264 252 284 285 449 423 472 455 485 561 458 800 732 826 787 790 838 770 1,374 1,315 1,369 1,228 1,333 1,429 1,377 2,544 2,564 2,644 2,571 2,414 2,805 2,706 4,920 4,705 4,844 4,651 4,596 4,997 4,876 7,755 7,333 7,285 6,747 7,264 7,400 7,053 9,957 9,600 9,455 8,968 9,038 9,602 9,321 10,766 10,955 11,051 10,461 10,031 10,452 10,640 11,566 11,850 12,100 11,533 11,797 12,422 12,362 455 492 651 581 534 484 551 50,820 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Unknown TOTAL FY2003 270 459 734 1,259 2,595 4,734 6,959 8,938 10,444 12,607 589 49,588 FY2004 197 385 578 1,175 2,603 4,709 7,313 9,301 10,382 12,596 639 49,878 While there was a 4.3 percent decrease in male referrals between FY1996 and FY2004, there was a 3.3 percent increase in females during the same time period. The majority (66.4 percent) of referrals in FY2004 were male, however the percentage of girls referred (33.6 percent) was higher than in FY1996 (31.9 percent). Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 43 Table 38 Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Gender FY1996 � FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 34,182 34,406 32,609 32,372 34,224 33,205 16,022 16,598 15,636 16,160 17,050 17,194 6 5 1 2 0 0 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 Male Female Unknown TOTAL FY1996 34,610 16,204 6 50,820 FY2003 32,800 16,788 0 49,588 FY2004 33,136 16,742 0 49,878 Of those referred in FY2004, 48.0 percent were Anglo, 38.1 percent were Hispanic, 7.0 percent were African American, 5.5 percent were Native American, 0.5 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remaining 1.0 percent were another race/ethnicity, or their race/ethnicity was unknown. This is comparable to the racial/ethnic breakdown in FY1996. Table 39 Juveniles Referred Arizona Office of the Courts � Juvenile Justice Services Division By Race/Ethnicity FY1996 � FY2004 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 16,709 17,343 16,790 17,335 18,510 18,558 3,321 3,291 3,149 3,070 3,298 3,179 26,822 26,503 24,767 24,468 25,792 25,095 2,823 3,034 2,736 2,829 2,777 2,736 249 242 239 301 288 240 132 249 318 172 229 201 154 347 247 359 380 390 50,210 51,009 48,246 48,534 51,274 50,399 Hispanic Afr. Am. Anglo Nat. Am. Asian/PI Other Unknown TOTAL FY1996 16,882 3,450 27,260 2,609 234 187 198 50,820 FY2003 18,186 3,224 24,748 2,614 238 165 413 49,588 FY2004 18,979 3,502 23,925 2,727 247 136 362 49,878 Between FY1996 and FY2004, the number of youth referred in Arizona remained relatively constant. One trend worthy of consideration is the fact that females are being referred at a higher rate than previously. Other research has shown that females are more likely to commit crimes than once thought, a factor that warrants further research in Arizona. Almost half of referred youth come from Maricopa County, which is also the county with the highest juvenile population. While a small percentage of youth referred are on the younger end of those referred, the majority of youth referred are between the ages of 15 and 17. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 44 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) is responsible for juveniles adjudicated delinquent and committed to its jurisdiction by the county juvenile courts. It is also responsible for juvenile parole and Interstate probation and parole. It is accountable to the citizens of Arizona for the promotion of public safety through the management of the state's secure juvenile facilities and the development and provision of a continuum of services to juvenile offenders, including rehabilitation, treatment and education. ADJC operates and maintains four secure care facilities for the custody, treatment, and education of committed juveniles. Each juvenile placed in a secure facility receives rehabilitative services appropriate to the juvenile's age, risk, needs, abilities, and committing offenses. This includes education, individual and group counseling, psychological services, health care, and recreation. In addition, treatment groups and specialized housing units focus on juveniles with histories of violence, substance abuse or sexual offenses. Following their release from secure care, youth under the age of 18 receive communitybased parole supervision and treatment through the Department's statewide Community Resource Centers. Community Corrections is responsible for establishing and operating a system of community based programs to supervise and rehabilitate youth in the least restrictive environment, consistent with public safety and the needs of the youth. Transition from Secure Care to the community is facilitated by a multidisciplinary team. Secure and parole staff work with the youth and treatment providers to extend the youth's treatment into the community. ADJC also participates in the Interstate Compact. Interstate Compact has the primary responsibility of promoting public safety, ensuring the welfare of juveniles, and protecting victims within the various states through control and regulation of the interstate movement of juveniles. Compacting states are required to provide the same level of care and supervision for ICJ youth as they provide to their own youth. In Arizona those standards mean youth from other states are provided excellent supervision. Arizona "imports" a far greater number of probation and parole cases than it "exports." Case management of these youth is in conjunction with the supervision requirements from the state(s) of origin (sending state). In addition to adjudicated juveniles, the office provides for the safe return of youth who have run away and/or have fled to avoid prosecution. ADJC operates and maintains four safe schools for juveniles: Adobe Mountain School (AMS), Black Canyon School (BCS), Catalina Mountain School (CMS), and Eagle Point School (EPS). AMS operates intake and secure care programming for male youth. AMS operates 17 treatment units, plus one unit for youth with special behavior problems. AMS primarily houses youth from Maricopa County. It is located on Pinnacle Peak Road, just west of the I-17 freeway. BCS operates intake and secure care programming for all female youth. BCS is located just south of the Happy Valley Road exit, west of the I-17 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 45 freeway. CMS is a secure facility for male juveniles. CMS has five treatment units and one for youth with special behavior problems. CMS primarily houses youth from Pima County. It is located north of Tucson on Highway 89. EPS is a secure facility for males that has six housing units. Eagle Point houses youth primarily from the southern and western counties. It is located off of Highway 85 in Buckeye. ADJC is currently in the process of revising its assessment and behavior management systems to better reflect the needs of the youth in its care and to promote the agency's vision: Safer communities through successful youth. The improved classification system includes the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2) and the Criminogenic and Protective Factors Assessment (CAPFA) instrument. The MAYSI-2 is a method for screening every juvenile entering ADJC in order to identify potential mental health problems in need of immediate attention. The CAPFA assesses each juvenile for the need for individual mental health, family, and group counseling. Additional assessment instruments include the Behavior Assessment Scales for Children (BASC), which was designed to facilitate the differential diagnosis and educational classification of a variety of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and to aid in the design of treatment plans; the Adolescent Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-A2), which helps identify youth who have a high probability of having a substance use disorder; and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol�II (J-SOAP-II), which provides a structured clinical guide to rate specific variables that have demonstrated an association with future acts of sexual offending and general delinquent behavior. An integrated behavior management system has also been developed to promote ADJC's goal of creating an environment that is safe, secure, pro-social, and allows all other activities to function. The following data represent the demographic characteristics of the juveniles committed to ADJC for the first time (new commitments) for the last four fiscal years (FY). RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic juveniles (excluding Mexican Nationals), accounted for 46.1 percent of the new commitments in FY2004, increasing slightly from 42.6 percent in FY2001. The number of Caucasian juveniles decreased from 38.9 percent in FY2001 to 34.7 percent in FY2004. Commitments of African American juveniles decreased slightly from 9.2 percent in FY2001 to 8.6 percent in FY2004. Commitments of Native American juveniles have remained relatively constant over the four years from 4.48 percent in FY2001 to 4.4 percent in FY2004. The number of Mexican National juveniles committed has also held steady from 4.5 percent in FY2001 to 4.5 percent in FY2004. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 46 Table 40 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Race/Ethnicity FY2001 � FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 336 44 342 35 304 48 42.5% 42.7% 47.1% 36.1% 46.1% 51.6% 303 44 243 41 207 36 38.4% 42.7% 33.5% 42.3% 31.4% 38.7% 72 10 76 10 64 6 9.1% 9.7% 10.5% 10.3% 9.7% 6.5% 37 3 34 10 32 2 4.7% 2.9% 4.7% 10.3% 4.9% 2.2% 38 2 29 1 48 0 4.8% 1.9% 4.0% 1.0% 7.3% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2 0 2 0 4 0 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Hispanic Caucasian African American Native American Mexican National Asian Other TOTALS FY2004 Male Female 271 46 46.2% 45.1% 201 38 34.3% 37.3% 50 9 8.5% 8.8% 25 5 4.3% 4.9% 30 1 5.1% 1.0% 3 1 0.5% 1.0% 6 2 1.0% 2.0% 586 102 100% 100% AGE Of the 688 juveniles committed to ADJC in FY2004, two-thirds (66.6 percent) were 16 or 17 years old. New commitments of 15 year old juveniles have remained relatively stable throughout the past four years, representing 21.7 percent of the total in FY2004. There were no juveniles ages 11 or younger committed to ADJC in 2004, and only a small number (.29 percent) of 12 year olds were committed, which remains mostly unchanged for each of the years represented. Table 41 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Age FY2001 � FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3 0 1 1 3 0 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 40 6 16 0 9 2 5.1% 5.8% 2.2% 0.0% 1.4% 2.2% 84 20 89 12 61 10 10.6% 19.4% 12.3% 12.4% 9.3% 10.8% 167 26 164 33 143 18 21.1% 25.2% 22.6% 34.0% 21.7% 19.4% 229 28 233 28 215 31 29.0% 27.2% 32.1% 28.9% 32.6% 33.3% 267 23 223 23 227 32 33.8% 22.3% 30.7% 23.7% 34.4% 34.4% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11 and younger 12 years old 13 years old 14 years old 15 years old 16 years old 17 years old TOTALS FY2004 Male Female 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0.2% 1.0% 7 2 1.2% 2.0% 61 9 10.4% 8.8% 123 26 21.0% 25.5% 192 27 32.8% 26.5% 202 37 34.5% 36.3% 586 102 100% 100% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 47 COUNTY The number of juveniles committed to ADJC from Maricopa County increased from 44.2 percent in FY2001 to 52.8 percent in FY2004, while juveniles committed from Pima County decreased from 24.5 percent in FY2001 to 17.7 percent in FY2004. New commitments from Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Greenlee, Mohave, Navajo and Santa Cruz increased slightly over the past four years, while those from Graham, La Paz, Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma decreased. Table 42 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by County FY2001 � FY2004 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Male Female Male Female Male Female 3 0 2 1 0 2 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 2.2% 21 1 23 3 20 3 2.7% 1.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 3.2% 12 3 15 3 21 0 1.5% 2.9% 2.1% 3.1% 3.2% 0.0% 10 1 11 0 12 5 1.3% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.8% 5.4% 7 0 7 3 2 2 0.9% 0.0% 1.0% 3.1% 0.3% 2.2% 0 0 1 0 3 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2 0 1 0 2 0 0.3% 0 1.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 350 45 277 37 277 40 44.3% 43.7% 38.2% 38.1% 42.0% 43.0% 33 7 26 3 24 7 4.2% 6.8% 3.6% 3.1% 3.6% 7.5% 13 1 17 2 19 2 1.6% 1.0% 2.3% 2.1% 2.9% 2.2% 192 27 211 30 179 16 24.3% 26.2% 29.1% 3.9% 27.2% 17.2% 67 5 51 2 37 4 8.5% 4.9% 7.0% 2.1% 5.6% 4.3% 11 1 8 2 7 2 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 2.1% 1.1% 2.2% 30 3 35 1 27 3 3.8% 2.9% 4.8% 1.0% 4.1% 3.2% 39 9 41 10 29 7 4.9% 8.7% 5.6% 10.3% 4.4% 7.5% 790 103 726 97 659 93 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma TOTALS FY2004 Male Female 4 2 0.7% 2.0% 18 3 3.1% 2.9% 15 2 2.6% 2.0% 12 1 2.0% 1.0% 1 2 0.2% 2.0% 1 1 0.2% 1.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 306 57 52.2% 55.9% 30 2 5.1% 2.0% 9 2 1.5% 2.0% 104 18 17.7% 17.6% 41 6 7.0% 5.9% 12 1 2.0% 1.0% 11 2 1.9% 2.0% 22 3 3.8% 2.9% 586 102 100% 100% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 48 New Commitments in ADJC Custody by Most Serious Committing Offense For FY2004, there were fewer commitments to ADJC in every offense category than FY2001. Commitments for property offenses, including burglary, theft, shoplifting, and criminal damage accounted for 44.8 percent of total offenses in FY2004. Crimes against persons, which includes homicide, assault, sexual assault, and kidnapping, increased from 17.8 percent of commitments in FY2001 to 20.2 percent in FY2004. Commitments for drug offenses rose from 16.8 percent in FY2001 to 18.3 percent in FY2004. Similarly, commitments for public order offenses showed an increase for the same time period, from 9.7 percent to 10.2 percent. Table 43 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections New Commitments by Committing Offense FY2001 � FY2004 COMMITTING OFFENSE FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 Property Offenses 437 (48.9%) 358 (43.5%) 316 (42.0%) Crimes Against Persons 159 (17.8%) 171 (20.8%) 154 (20.5%) Drug Offenses 150 (16.8%) 146 (17.7%) 129 (17.2%) Public Order Offenses 87 (9.7%) 81 (9.8%) 81 (10.8%) Weapons Offenses 22 (2.5%) 28 (3.4%) 30 (4.0%) All Other Offenses 38 (4.3%) 39 (4.7%) 42 (5.6%) TOTALS 893 (100%) 823 (100%) 752 (100%) FY2004 308 (44.8%) 139 (20.2%) 126 (18.3%) 70 (10.2%) 19 (2.8%) 26 (3.8%) 688 (100%) Figure 26 FY 2001 All Other Offenses 4.3% Weapons Offenses 2.5% Public Order Offenses 9.7% FY 2004 All Other Offenses 3.8% Weapons Offenses 2.8% Public Order Offenses 10.2% Property Offenses 44.8% Drug Offenses 16.8% Property Offenses 48.9% Drug Offenses 18.3% Crimes Against Persons 17.8% Crimes Against Persons 20.2% Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 49 Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Custody The number of juveniles in secure care has decreased steadily over the last five years from 964 at the end of FY2000 to 637 in FY2004. Table 44 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Number of Juveniles in ADJC Secure Care* 6/30/2000 � 6/30/2004 As of As of As of As of 6/30/2000 6/30/2001 6/30/2002 6/30/2003 453 410 371 348 124 97 77 61 153 122 141 118 234 193 123 109 31 56 45 964 853 768 681 POPULATION Adobe Mountain School Black Canyon School Catalina Mountain School Eagle Point School Encanto TOTALS As of 6/30/2004 311 72 118 136 637 *Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles. The number of juveniles in ADJC custody on parole has continued to decline since FY2000, decreasing from 751 juveniles on parole at the end of FY2000 to 512 juveniles on parole at the end of FY2004. Table 45 Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Total Number of Juveniles on Parole 6/30/2000 � 6/30/2004 As of As of As of As of 6/30/2000 6/30/2001 6/30/2002 6/30/2003 480 407 405 358 73 77 41 148 103 103 143 123 751 138 721 115 700 111 653 POPULATION Home PV Center Abscond Residential Treatment Center TOTALS As of 6/30/2004 349 108 55 512 *Includes new commitments, re-commitments, parole revoked, and pending revocation juveniles. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 50 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) houses adult offenders convicted of felonies in Arizona and sentenced to a period of state-level confinement. This includes a sub-population of approximately 300 adult felons convicted of driving under the influence who were sentenced to the Department (usually for four months) as a condition of probation. The ADC maintains segregated prison facilities for juveniles sentenced in adult court in Arizona. As of December 31, 2004, the total population of 32,570 offenders committed to the DOC was distributed among prison facilities as follows: Table 46 LOCATION OF COMMITTED POPULATION December 31, 2004 Facility Population Capacity ASPC-Douglas 2,214 2,015 ASPC-Eyman 4,666 4,120 ASPC-Florence 3,848 3,266 ASPC-Lewis 4,184 4,150 ASPC-Perryville 2,592 2,796 ASPC-Phoenix 934 802 ASPC-Safford 1,762 1,453 ASPC-Tucson 3,909 3,784 ASPC-Winslow 1,828 1,626 ASPC-Yuma 2,271 1,850 Private Prisons 4,307 4,746 County Jail Transfers 55 Total Committed Population 32,570 30,608 Designated Operating Capacity 30,608 Bed Surplus/(Deficit) (1,962) Source: Arizona Department of Corrections *Arizona State Prison Complex **No fixed capacity for pending transfer. The following shows the gender and sentence type of inmates active on December 31, 2004: Table 47 GENDER AND SENTENCE TYPE OF COMMITTED POPULATION DECEMBER 31, 2004 SENTENCE TYPE Death Sentence Life Sentence Term of Years MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL Source: Arizona Department of Corrections 103 1,142 28,557 29,802 2 51 2,715 2,768 105 1,193 31,272 32,570 Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 51 PRISON POPULATION GROWTH TREND The next section presents three figures that follow the growth in the Arizona prison population over the period from December 31, 1990 to December 31, 2004. Over this 14-year period, prison population increased from 14,313 to 32,570 or by 128.6 percent. Growth over this period averaged 1,304 per year or 109 committed adults per month. Figure 27 ENDING ADULT COMMITTED POPULATION December 1990-2004 40,000 35,000 30,000 26, 747 25, 712 26, 003 28, 059 29, 591 31, 258 32, 570 Inma tes 25,000 20,000 14, 313 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 15, 464 16, 572 17, 968 19, 864 21, 663 22, 697 23, 866 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Cale nda r Year Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 52 Figure 28 PERCENTAGE PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1 9 9 1 -2 0 0 4 Yearly Percentage Growth 12.0% 10.6% 10.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.2% 8.4% 7.7% 9.1% 6.0% 4.8% 5.2% 4.9% 5.5% 5.6% 4.2% 4.0% 2.9% 1.1% 2.0% 0.0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Calendar Year Figure 29 MONTHLY PRISON POPULATION GROWTH 1990-2004 180 158 160 A vg. Monthly Population Growth 140 120 100 79 80 60 40 20 0 1990 24 96 92 116 97 86 62 110 150 154 139 128 109 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Ca le nda r Year The highest growth occurred in 1994 (158 per month) and 1998 (154 per month), while the lowest growth occurred in 1999 (24 per month) and 2000 (62 per month). The lower levels of growth in 1999-2000 were shown to be associated with a backlog in Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 53 criminal case activity in Maricopa County. Over the five year period between 2000 and 2004, the committed population increased 76.3 percent. Factors believed to be associated with growth in the Arizona prison population over the period 1990-2004 include state general population growth, mandatory sentencing, an increased level of methamphetamine drug use, increased drug enforcement activity (the drug war), increased street gang activity in the state, a stiffening of penalties for driving under the influence, and harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth in Sentencing. Normally, you would expect a drop in crime to lead to a drop in the overall incarceration rates. However, the previously stated factors have had the opposite effect. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 54 INCARCERATION RATE TREND The figure "Arizona Incarceration Rate" shown below tracks the trend in the Arizona incarceration rate over the period 1993-2003. The incarceration rate is calculated as the number of inmates per 100,000 general population of the state, and is useful as it factors out the portion of prison population growth, which is due to growth in the state general population. The incarceration rate increased steadily from 456.5 in 1993 to 560.1 in 2003. Figure 30 Arizona Incarceration Rate 1 99 3- 2 00 3 600.0 550.7 524.0 544.2 521.3 528.7 542.3 560.1 500.0 Inmates per 100,000 Population 456.5 513.6 487.5 512.6 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 199 3 199 4 1 995 19 96 1997 1998 Calendar Year 1 999 20 00 200 1 2 002 2 003 PRISON ADMISSIONS, RELEASES, AND TIME SERVED The two major factors driving changes in prison population are the fluctuating levels of prison admissions and prison releases. When admissions rise, prison population tends to increase, while as releases rise, prison population tends to decrease. Although releases rise along with admissions, the release rate does not rise at the same rate as the rate of admissions, causing a net population increase. In any case, the growth in prison population during any given period equates to the excess of admissions over releases during the period. Admissions include commitments from the court in addition to returns to custody of released violators. Releases include both discretionary and nondiscretionary releases. In recent years, following the implementation of Truth in Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 55 Sentencing in 1994, the vast majority of releases have been non-discretionary. The figure "Adult Prison Admissions and Releases" seen below, tracks the level of Arizona prison admissions and releases over the period 1990-2004. As shown, both admissions and releases have risen over the course of the decade. The exception is that admissions dropped significantly in 1999, because of the aforementioned lag in commitments from Maricopa County. Figure 31 ADULT PRISON ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES 1990-2004 20, 000 18, 000 16, 000 A dm is sions /Re le a se s 14, 000 12, 000 10, 000 8, 084 8, 000 6, 007, 139 0 4, 000 2, 000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 7, 105 7, 781 8, 256 8, 889 8, 581 9, 327 10, 008 11, 223 9, 977 10, 566 11, 807 11, 600 12, 697 12, 602 11, 528 14, 448 13, 507 14, 198 14, 961 14, 999 13, 649 13, 216 13, 454 15, 664 15, 922 16, 531 17, 331 17, 234 Ca le nda r Year A DMISSIONS RELEA SES Another way to look at prison population growth is as a function of two factors, the level of admissions and average time served in prison. Independent of the trend in admissions, as time served decreases, releases tend to increase, causing a population decrease. On the other hand, as time served increases, releases tend to decrease, while population tends to increase. The figure "Average Time Served for Prison Releases" below, tracks average time served prior to release for inmates released over the period 1990-2004. As indicated, time served has gradually increased over the past 14 years, primarily because of harsher penalties for dangerous and repetitive offenders under Truth in Sentencing. Arizona Crime Trends: A System Review 56 Figure 32 Average Time Served for Prison Releases 1990-2004 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 A ve ra ge Time Served (Months) Ca le nda r Year PRISON POPULATION FORECASTING One of the responsibilities of the Research Unit of the Arizona Department of Corrections is to maintain a current viable inmate population forecast. This forecast forms the basis each year for the Department's appropriation request and for the 5Year Bed Plan. The use of regression analysis assists in projecting future inmate population in various categories based on the currently observed variation in the longerterm population trend. This often involves estimates of the impact of new legislation and of new departmental policies that may affect population growth. These estimates are calculated from determinations of impact on admission levels and time served. OFFENDERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION The figure "Offenders under Community Supervision" below, tracks the number of offenders under community supervision following release from ADC custody over the period 1991-2004. This does not include those released to probation supervision by county authorities. Shorter community supervision terms under Truth in Sentencing laws than under the former criminal code have led to a trend in offender population under community supervision that does not follow the trend in releases and admissions into prison. While more inmates are released into community sup |
|
|
| A |
|
| B |
| C |
|
| D |
| E |
| F |
| G |
| H |
| I |
| J |
| L |
| M |
|
| N |
| O |
| P |
|
| R |
| S |
|
| T |
|
| U |
| V |
| W |
| Y |
|
|