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 Records Quality Index
1997-2005 Criminal History Records
Maricopa County
May
2006
Arizona Records Quality Index
1997-2005 Criminal History Records Maricopa County Performance Measures
ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
Chairperson J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief
Vice-Chairperson ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney
JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff
DUANE BELCHER Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson
DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director
CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff
JENNIFER ECKSTROM City of South Tucson Mayor
TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff
TERRY GODDARD Attorney General
DANIEL HUGHES Surprise Police Department Chief
BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney
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 MITCH HALFPENNY Senior Research Analyst JANICE SIMPSON Research Analyst
VACANT Chief Probation Officer
JOY LITZENBERGER Research Analyst
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank those who contributed to this report. Particular thanks go to the Structured Decisions Corporation for their expertise in the development of an Arizona specific Records Quality Index. The Arizona Department of Public Safety's participation and cooperation in preparing and contributing data to this project is greatly appreciated.
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
D.C. Britt, Arizona Department of Public Safety Stephanie Burroughs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Stefanie Cargill, Arizona Department of Public Safety David Einstein, Structured Decisions Corporation John Halka, Arizona Department of Public Safety Pat Nelson, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Systems Improvement Program Manager Robin Neray, Structured Decisions Corporation Cynthia Pellien, Arizona Department of Public Safety Gerard Ramker, Bureau of Justice Statistics Georgene Ramming, Department of Public Safety Steve Stilwell, Steve Stilwell, Inc. Don Thomas, Maricopa Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems
This project was made possible by Grant No. 2004 BJ-CX-K029 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. This report is available in alternate formats by contacting the Commission office at (602) 364-1146.
Introduction Fundamental to an effective criminal justice system are the coordination and maintenance of accurate criminal history records. Quality information provided through an efficient record-keeping system is a necessary component not only for the success of crime control strategies, but for individual case processing, individuals seeking employment, security personnel, community safety, and firearms purchases. Records are reported and accessed by local, state, and federal justice systems. Though most crimes are prosecuted under state law, the individual systems are interrelated and all rely upon criminal justice records. Currently, criminal history records are collected and maintained by each state in a central state repository database. In Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. ?41-2205, the coordination and maintenance of criminal history records in a central repository are fulfilled by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), which oversees database operations. The repository database, Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH), holds all state offender and criminal history records including fingerprint files, arrest information and disposition information. Arizona has made great strides in recent decades in maintaining and improving records in the criminal justice system. Currently in this technological age, it is increasingly important to maintain reliable information as the state and its contributing agencies increase their levels of record automation. Record integrity and accessibility are crucial as the direction of the criminal justice system progresses toward a more integrated and automated system. Over the past decade much attention has been directed toward the volume, importance and increased potential for use of criminal history records. Significant resources and energies have been put toward the maintenance and improvement of record systems. As progress is being made, the need to institute standardized measures for the performance and improvement of criminal history records and record systems becomes increasingly evident. The use of standardized measures to gauge effectiveness validates the importance of criminal history information, generates an avenue for increased accessibility and utility of record information, and provides baseline information for decision makers and funding sources. Effective and ongoing evaluation is essential to the criminal justice process at local, state and national levels. The Records Quality Index (RQI) created by the Structured Decisions Corporation (SDC) is an evaluation instrument for criminal history records systems at the national level with an independent state component for comparison. As a logical next step, Arizona SAC is implementing the RQI model as applicable for evaluating criminal history records in Arizona, furthering the benchmark standards for demonstrating performance, identifying deficiencies, and advancing successes.
1
As a barometer of records quality, RQI serves to exhibit performance and target specific problem areas for future funding cycles. The structural development of RQI includes outcome measures of timeliness, completeness, and processing. This framework serves as a measure of overall performance, as well as a strategic tool for record system administrators and record managers to improve performance and efficiency of record processing. Further benefit is given in the ability to demonstrate performance according to a recognized measure. As funding continues to diminish, emphasis is increasingly given to the ability to demonstrate effectiveness. Progressively, as the RQI tool becomes an accepted standard within individual states at the local level of analysis, it may become a common reference tool for major funding sources in granting and allocating resources. The overall benefit that is delivered through the implementation of a standardized evaluation tool for criminal history record systems at multiple levels should not be understated. The potential for increased record utility in the hands of managers, administrators and decision makers starts with a foundational assessment and moves toward a more integrated process of the coordination of strategies at multiple levels. Research Purpose The purpose of this study is to implement standardized performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of criminal history record systems. This study makes benchmark use of the RQI tool designed by the Structured Decisions Corporation as a model for evaluating records quality in Arizona. The use of RQI at the national level has set a standard for determining the effectiveness of criminal history record systems. Its provision of independent state components allows for furthering its use beyond the national standard. The Statistical Analysis Center has chosen to model its evaluation of Arizona records contained in the ACCH according to the RQI design. Adopting the evaluation method for this study of Arizona's records system serves to validate the benefit of establishing standardized performance measures and delivers an evaluation summary that can be used by grant administrators and policy makers, as well as record system managers and practitioners. The measures used in this study focus on records timeliness and completeness, as well as measure outcomes based on a weighted scale. Using independent measures for completeness and timeliness equips the reader to recognize the areas of performance even if there is limited exposure to the system processes. Making use of standardized measures allows for comparison over time and for comparison across geographical regions and across jurisdictions.
2
Methodology The Arizona Statistical Analysis Center (SAC), in conducting this evaluation of criminal history records maintained by the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH), followed specific methodological standards. SAC chose to tailor its evaluation method after the model used to evaluate records nationally. The Structured Decisions Corporation devised an assessment tool called the Records Quality Index (RQI) which assesses the status of records quality at both the state and national levels. The evaluation was conducted on records within the ACCH repository at the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The Statistical Analysis Center received data from DPS in the form of a flat file containing records through calendar year 2004. The file was put into an SPSS database for analysis. In addition, SAC received a worksheet from DPS with data that followed the format used in the Records Quality Index (RQI). Since the focus of SAC's evaluation was accuracy, timeliness, and completeness, and different components of the RQI measuring tool speak to these efficiencies, the RQI implement or a modification of it, is a good fit for use at the state, county and agency levels. The tool as implemented is comprised of three measures: a weighted set of outcome measures for the state, a timeliness process measure, and a completeness process measure. Separately, SAC staff created an Excel spreadsheet to implement the RQI outcome measure formula. Data provided by DPS was then put into the spreadsheet for calculation and to test the ability to replicate measures. During this process, SAC maintained communication with analysts from the Structured Decisions Corporation for quality assurance and fidelity to the RQI instrument. The instrument's mathematical structure incorporates the priorities of federal programs in its use of primary indicators for assessing the performance of criminal history record systems. SDC utilizes outcome and process measures in its RQI calculation. Background of Criminal History Records In Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. ?41-2205, the coordination and maintenance of criminal history records in a central repository is fulfilled by the DPS, which manages database operations. They are responsible for collecting, storing, and disseminating complete and accurate Arizona criminal history records. The repository database, Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH), holds all state offender and criminal history records including fingerprint files, arrest information, and disposition information. The usefulness of criminal history records is of critical importance to every reach of the justice system as well as the community beyond the justice system. From employment and licensing decisions to the amount of bail an arrestee must post, decisions are made based upon criminal history data. The usefulness and availability of criminal history records affect criminal case processing and crime control strategies, and are also used
3
for non-criminal justice purposes. As such, the importance of a central repository to maintain and provide information about individuals' past criminal involvement in a timely, accurate and complete manner is essential. Records contained in the repository consist of data collected on individuals by criminal justice agencies describing arrests, detentions, charges and their dispositions, sentencing, and release information. A criminal history record is originated following an arrest by law enforcement once a crime is believed to have been committed. During the booking process, arrestee information is obtained, and a photograph and full set of fingerprints are taken, which initiate a fingerprint card and a record. This is the point of origin of a criminal history record. This criminal history record, once initiated, is the official form that records information on arrest, conviction, sentencing, and probation matters on an individual. It is also used to submit information to the DPS central state repository of criminal history information referred to as the ACCH. The criminal history record communicates arrest data, whether a charge was amended or dismissed, if defendant was found guilty in court, if the defendant received a jail or prison sentence, if probation was given as a sentence, and if probation was extended or revoked. The statutory definition of criminal history record is recorded in A.R.S. ?41-1750.Y.5 which states: "Criminal history record information" and "criminal history record" means information that is collected by criminal justice agencies on individuals and that consists of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments and other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising from those actions, sentencing, formal correctional supervisory action and release. Criminal history record information and criminal history record do not include identification information to the extent that the information does not indicate involvement of the individual in the criminal justice system or information relating to juveniles unless they have been adjudicated as adults." "Criminal justice information" is differentiated from "criminal history record" defined in the same statute, A.R.S. ?41-1750.Y.7, as: "information that is needed for the performance of their legally authorized and required functions, such as criminal history record information, citation information, stolen property information, traffic accident reports and wanted persons information. Criminal justice information does not include the administrative records of a criminal justice agency."
4
Timeliness Measure P1(s) Timeliness of Arizona Records in the Central State Repository: The timeliness process measure designated by the descriptor P1(s) reflects the average elapsed time in days from arrest date to the date the final disposition was entered into the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH). The average Arizona elapsed time is compared to the national average of elapsed time.
Maricopa County Records Quality Index Timeliness Process Measure P1 1997-2003 1997 Maricopa County Arizona National Median 294 268 238 1998 293 271 217 1999 295 274 212 2000 294 275 220 2001 299 277 204 2002 259 249 207 2003 221 227 196
As can be seen in the chart below, Maricopa County decreased the number of days between 2002 and 2003 that elapsed between the arrest date and the date the final disposition was entered into ACCH. In 2003, Maricopa took less time than the State as a whole, but more time than the national median.
Timeliness Process Measure, P1 (Maricopa County)
350
300
250 Number of Days
200
Maric opa County A riz ona National Median
150
100
50
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 Ye ar 2001 2002 2003
5
Completeness Measure P2(s) Completeness of Arizona Records in the Central State Repository: The completeness process measure designated as P2(s) reflects the "cohort" of records completeness, i.e. records of arrest made in the same time period. This is reflected in the form of a decimal proportion of those arrests that have final dispositions entered compared to the total number of arrest records for that time period.
Maricopa County Records Quality Index Completeness Process Measure P2 1997-2003 1997 Maricopa County Arizona National Median 54.3% 61.5% 71.1% 1998 51.9% 58.3% 70.9% 1999 52.9% 58.5% 72.0% 2000 57.0% 61.1% 69.1% 2001 52.3% 57.0% 66.9% 2002 60.7% 63.1% 67.5% 2003 61.5% 70.2% 68.5%
In 2003, Maricopa County had a lower rate of records completeness than the State of Arizona or the nation.
Completeness Process Measure, P2 (Maricopa County)
100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% Percent Complete 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 Ye ar 2001 2002 2003
Maric opa County A riz ona National Median
6
Records Quality Index (RQI) of Criminal History Records in Arizona The Records Quality Index (RQI) is a numerical index score based on process measures of timeliness and completeness and weighted state outcome scores. Utilizing a single overall score provides a value to indicate progress over time, as well as to evaluate performance in comparison to the national median RQI scores.
Maricopa County Records Quality Index Index Score 1997-2003 1997 Maricopa County Arizona National Median 45 56 62 1998 46 56 68 1999 55 65 90 2000 81 93 99 2001 76 89 128 2002 111 120 132 2003 161 179 167
Maricopa County had a lower Records Quality Index score in 2003 than the state as a whole and a slightly lower score than the national median.
Maricopa County and Arizona Records Quality Index, RQI (AZ)/ Na tiona l Records Quality Index, NRQI
200 180 160 140 Index Score 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 Ye ar 2001 2002 2003
Maric opa County A riz ona National Median
7
Elapsed Time to Data Entry Two stable measures of Criminal History Records are the time between the date of disposition to the date of disposition entry, and the time between the date of arrest and the date of arrest entry. With the implementation of electronic fingerprinting programs, many arrests are entered immediately, which has contributed to the decline in the number of days to arrest entry. Arizona totals in the tables and charts below include only entries at the county level. These measures are not comparable to national data, as many states do not have the technological capability to determine these measures. For more detailed elapsed time data, refer to Appendix B.
Elapsed Days from Date of Arrest to Date of Arrest Entry (Mean) Maricopa County 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 7.1 29.1 36.4 42.7 30.3 17.3 16.6 33.4 Maricopa County 11.7 27.6 37.6 34.9 26.1 20.3 22.5 34.7 Arizona
2005 14.9 17.7
In 2005, Maricopa County took an average of 14.9 days to enter an arrest compared to 17.7 days for the entire state.
Elapsed Time from Date of Arrest to Date of Arrest Entry (Mean) Maricopa County
45.0 40.0 35.0 Elapsed Time (Days) 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Ye a r 2002 2003 2004 2005
Maric opa County Arizona
8
Elapsed Days from Date of Disposition to Date of Disposition Entry (Mean) Maricopa County 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Maricopa County 386.9 235.4 183.7 283.5 248.8 237.2 260.6 233.8 Arizona 409.8 285.0 208.0 300.3 315.2 265.7 438.4 264.1
2005 221.1 266.6
Maricopa County consistently took less time to enter dispositions into ACCH after final disposition than the state as a whole. In 2005, Maricopa County took an average of 221.1 days to enter a disposition, whereas the state took an average of 266.6 days.
Elapsed Time from Date of Disposition to Date of Disposition Entry (Mean) Maricopa County
500.0 450.0 400.0 350.0 Elapsed Time (Days) 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Ye a r 2002 2003 2004 2005 Maric opa County Ariz ona
9
Number of Dispositions Entering the Repository Maricopa County
Maricopa County Arizona 1997 84,634 146,324 1998 160,628 295,646 1999 115,123 190,981 2000 125,239 198,195 2001 173,666 282,112 2002 201,290 298,911 2003 208,490 405,132 2004 218,206 337,191 2005 193,336 326,235
The chart below shows the number of total dispositions in Arizona, as well as the Maricopa County dispositions. As can be seen, a large proportion of dispositions in Arizona occur in Maricopa County.
Number of Dispositions Entering the Repository Maricopa County
450,000 400,000 350,000 Number of Dispositions 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Ye a r 2002 2003 2004 2005
Maric opa County Arizona
10
Electronic Disposition Reporting Prior to 1998, no dispositions were submitted to the state repository electronically. In 1998, prosecutors in Arizona submitted 1.3 percent of all dispositions electronically, and the courts submitted 0.1 percent electronically. By 2005, electronic submissions of dispositions had increased to 4.1 percent by prosecutors, 9.1 percent by the courts, and a very small percentage by other sources. However, 86.8 percent of submissions were still done on paper. Maricopa County closely mirrored the state in electronic dispositions. In 1998, the first year that any dispositions were submitted electronically, 2.7 percent of all dispositions in Maricopa County were electronic with the remaining 97.3 percent being submitted on paper. In 2005, 11.5 percent of all dispositions were submitted electronically. During that year, 6.4 percent of dispositions were submitted electronically by prosecutors and 5.1 percent were submitted electronically by the courts. Electronic reporting of all dispositions is Arizona's goal. Errors are reduced and submission rates by agencies improve when electronic submission is used. The time spent on each disposition also decreases.
Electronic Disposition Reporting in Maricopa County Electronic vs. Non-electronic Reporting
100% 90% 80% Percent of Submissions 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 Ye a r 2002 2003 2004 2005 Paper Submissions Elec tronic Submissions
11
As shown on the chart below, prosecutors originally filed the majority of dispositions. The courts have steadily increased the percent of dispositions submitted and now submit the majority of electronic submissions. Electronic Dispositions Maricopa County Submissions by Reporting Agency
18.0% 16.0% 14.0% Percent of Submissions 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 Y ea r 2002 2003 2004 2005 Other Courts P r o s e c u t or
12
Appendix A Outcome Measure O(s) The RQI structure for the outcome portion of the index is a set of weighted measures that reflect the goals for criminal history records at the national level. Included in the weighting factors are automation of record submission, participation in Federal Bureau of Investigation's III database, database flags and submissions to national registries. These items may be viewed as enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of the criminal history record as well as its utility. Timeliness Measure P2(s) The timeliness process measure designated by the descriptor P2(s) reflects the average elapsed time between the arrest and the final disposition. This measure would reflect the timeliness of the overall record. Timeliness was also measured at key stages of entry into the ACCH. Measures of timeliness include elapsed time from date of arrest record to date of entry of arrest record into ACCH as well as the disposition date to date of entry of disposition record into ACCH. Completeness Measure P2(s) The completeness process measure designated as P2(s) at the state level reflects the "cohort" of records completeness, i.e. records of arrest made in the same time period. This is reflected in the form of a fraction of those arrests that have final dispositions entered compared to the total arrests records for that time period. Index Score The overall performance measure is a numerical index score based on the outcome and process measures identified and includes a scaling factor for comparability among states. Bringing the assessment to a single numerical score allows at a glance an indication of progress over time as well as performance in comparison to the national score. 41-2205. Criminal justice information system central repository A. There shall be a central repository for the collection, storage and dissemination of criminal history record information. The department of public safety shall operate the central repository pursuant to the rules and regulations adopted by the commission. The department of public safety shall conduct annual audits to insure each criminal justice agency is complying with rules and regulations governing the maintenance and dissemination of criminal history record information. B. Each criminal justice agency shall report criminal history record information, whether collected manually or by means of an automated system, to the central repository pursuant to the provisions of sections 41-1750 and 41-1751 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp).
13
41-1750. Y. Central state repository; department of public safety; duties; funds; accounts; definitions 4. "Central state repository" means the central location within the department for the collection, storage and dissemination of Arizona criminal history records and related criminal justice information. 5. "Criminal history record information" and "criminal history record" means information that is collected by criminal justice agencies on individuals and that consists of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments and other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising from those actions, sentencing, formal correctional supervisory action and release. Criminal history record information and criminal history record do not include identification information to the extent that the information does not indicate involvement of the individual in the criminal justice system or information relating to juveniles unless they have been adjudicated as adults (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp). For more information regarding the Structured Decisions Corporation and the Record Quality Index please visit their web site at http://www.sdcorp.net.
14
Appendix B Elapsed Time for Arrest and Disposition Data Entry
Elapsed Time from Date of Arrest to Date of Arrest Entry (Mean) 1997
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona 3.0 18.9 16.3 17.7 39.3 7.8 9.5 7.1 39.2 18.2 6.1 22.4 15.7 87.1 12.7 11.7
1998
14.8 33.4 22.3 32.0 60.7 55.6 17.6 29.1 32.4 23.5 19.5 43.7 22.6 35.4 13.0 27.6
1999
121.8 44.2 35.9 44.8 39.2 39.9 34.7 36.4 40.0 36.8 38.4 45.1 37.5 29.4 40.8 37.6
2000
20.3 28.4 7.6 23.1 36.7 5.2 18.4 42.7 80.8 14.1 14.5 9.6 5.3 15.6 11.9 34.9
2001
15.9 33.2 11.3 15.2 48.3 6.3 28.2 30.3 56.0 23.7 15.6 9.8 11.7 14.2 12.6 26.1
2002
9.3 34.2 10.7 22.5 48.1 12.0 18.1 17.3 30.3 23.4 31.3 10.5 15.1 16.1 29.3 20.3
2003
18.7 54.9 16.5 22.6 67.4 8.9 28.6 16.6 30.8 40.9 37.9 19.8 30.0 15.8 18.9 22.5
2004
40.2 43.7 43.3 33.6 66.4 18.2 42.5 33.4 27.7 27.8 47.0 28.2 11.3 10.9 12.5 34.7
2005
51.1 15.8 29.5 14.9 53.7 26.7 69.5 14.9 7.4 13.0 26.2 19.4 35.4 6.4 7.6 17.7
Number of Arrests Submitted to Central State Repository by County 1997
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona 1,176 5,188 11,000 4,006 1,173 629 2,827 214,185 8,658 6,451 51,271 10,740 2,947 9,694 11,206 341,151
1998
1,124 5,774 10,821 5,118 811 572 2,270 227,014 11,937 5,872 52,458 9,340 3,116 7,864 9,388 353,479
1999
1,404 6,102 13,665 4,999 1,190 352 2,412 250,054 14,538 6,565 63,609 12,160 3,624 8,301 11,230 400,205
2000
1,648 5,819 13,739 4,628 1,319 503 2,498 259,465 14,196 6,098 56,647 12,500 3,692 10,602 10,592 403,946
2001
1,390 6,552 13,398 5,123 1,422 615 3,075 249,899 14,391 6,656 65,260 14,021 4,064 12,269 10,843 408,978
2002
1,452 5,515 14,676 5,869 1,415 713 3,102 254,566 14,309 6,046 65,731 14,695 4,380 10,033 12,154 414,656
2003
1,983 8,971 14,784 5,189 1,465 725 3,155 253,380 15,225 7,829 73,387 14,578 4,196 15,559 14,227 434,653
2004
1,486 9,642 14,899 5,963 1,513 596 2,855 256,778 16,713 8,066 89,541 13,158 3,687 16,258 14,293 455,448
2005
1,953 10,225 15,236 5,875 1,505 734 3,074 260,319 18,486 9,154 88,006 13,859 4,536 17,629 13,327 463,918
15
Elapsed Time from Date of Disposition to Date of Disposition Entry (Mean) 1997
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona 414.6 407.6 434.1 416.6 433.2 453.1 400.7 386.9 417.4 437.0 469.5 407.4 449.0 444.6 416.2 409.8
1998
193.6 263.8 253.9 261.0 349.1 411.4 230.7 235.4 176.4 311.3 443.2 266.3 312.8 291.9 265.5 285.0
1999
323.9 226.2 179.3 223.4 144.8 202.2 194.1 183.7 144.7 188.1 332.6 130.5 143.7 261.8 210.4 208.0
2000
493.2 362.5 291.3 251.6 178.0 189.4 251.7 283.5 275.2 277.2 457.1 203.3 183.8 257.1 255.0 300.3
2001
218.6 228.6 237.2 222.1 135.0 203.0 255.6 248.8 259.0 260.7 659.4 229.6 226.0 231.9 204.1 315.2
2002
302.6 261.8 236.6 365.5 206.8 260.3 340.0 237.2 296.7 252.6 422.4 173.3 357.6 274.6 351.0 265.7
2003
361.7 399.1 266.2 276.0 228.4 510.8 442.3 260.6 334.5 317.4 812.4 291.3 350.7 400.1 261.3 438.4
2004
357.3 281.6 207.5 256.1 148.8 370.0 408.6 233.8 337.5 352.8 404.1 248.2 226.7 334.1 253.5 264.1
2005
291.1 197.5 226.7 161.2 177.3 255.7 364.3 221.1 270.1 371.6 474.5 269.1 174.3 301.5 107.9 266.6
Number of Dispositions Submitted to Central State Repository by County 1997
Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona 832 3,243 4,053 2,396 980 113 84,634 6,090 1,627 24,413 2,813 1,771 4,228 8,096 1,035 146,324
1998
1,131 4,694 8,674 4,554 1,440 904 160,628 10,741 4,964 61,429 7,739 3,329 10,567 12,614 2,238 295,646
1999
846 3,820 4,814 3,005 812 272 115,123 7,939 2,225 28,665 5,716 2,290 6,349 7,576 1,529 190,981
2000
1,041 4,148 6,233 2,680 918 213 125,239 7,374 2,101 24,247 7,006 2,189 6,198 7,043 1,565 198,195
2001
1,290 3,679 9,165 3,552 1,215 369 173,666 9,334 2,610 48,243 7,706 3,024 7,760 8,896 1,603 282,112
2002
1,223 3,290 8,024 3,965 1,452 426 201,290 9,937 3,231 30,646 9,805 3,233 9,188 10,817 2,384 298,911
2003
1,232 3,986 8,719 4,490 1,113 553 208,490 9,992 3,821 122,854 11,260 4,130 8,224 13,453 2,815 405,132
2004
1,792 7,580 9,934 5,133 1,152 754 218,206 13,307 2,459 36,125 11,636 2,856 10,568 12,934 2,755 337,191
2005
1,594 7,747 11,518 4,380 1,232 513 193,336 13,442 3,285 54,451 9,993 2,937 8,608 10,620 2,579 326,235
16
For more information please contact: Pat Nelson Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Systems Improvement Program Manager (602) 364-1152 pnelson@azcjc.gov Steve Ballance Statistical Analysis Center Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (602) 364-1157 sballance@azcjc.gov Janice Simpson Statistical Analysis Center Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (602) 364-1186 jsimpson@azcjc.gov
17
