Final report: Joint Oversight Committee on Anti-Gang Enforcement & Prosecution Programs

              JOINT OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON ANTI- GANG
ENFORCEMENT &
PROSECUTION PROGRAM!
February 1996
Arizona State Legislature
FINAL REPORT
Joint Oversight Committee on
Anti- Gang Enforcement and Prosecution Programs
INTRODUCTION
Establishment:
During the Ninth Special Session of the Forty- first legislature, $ 5,670,000 was appropriated to
the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission for the enhancement of statewide anti- gang
intelligence and enforcement programs. Monies were designated for the prosecution of street
gang related crimes, the training of police officers participating in anti- violence and anti- gang
enforcement programs, and street gang information analysis.
The Joint Oversight Committee on Anti- Gang Enforcement and Prosecution Programs was
established in Laws 1994, Ninth Special Session, Chapter 4*, to study state anti- gang
prosecution programs and recommend whether these programs should continue. The Committee
was also charged with reviewing reports submitted by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
as required by Laws 1994, Ninth Special Session, Chapter 3*.
* See Appendix A for the complete text of Laws 1994, Ninth Special Session, Chapters 3 and 4.
Membership:
The Committee was comprised of the following eight members:
Senator Patricia Noland, Co- chair Representative Tom Smith, Co- chair
Senator Larry Chesley Representative Robert Burns
Senator Victor Soltero Representative Phillip Hubbard
Senator Carol Springer Representative Laura Knaperek
The Committee was staffed by the following Legislative Research Analysts:
Joni Hoffman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Dominica Minore, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
Debbie Mosbacher, House of Representatives, Assistant to Judiciary Committee
Meetings:
The Joint Oversight Committee on Anti- Gang Enforcement and Prosecution Programs met on
January 3,1996 and January 22,1996.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that $ 1,000,000 be placed in the Gang
Intelligence and Team Enforcement Mission ( GITEM) budget for prosecutorial efforts. The
Committee also recommended that the Appropriations' Committees and the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee ( JLBC) determine the specific amount after receiving further information
fiom the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's compiled annual report.
Enabling Legislation
House Engrossed
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty- fi rst Legislature
Ninth Special Session
1994
CHAPTER 3
AN ACT
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS AND PRESCRIBING REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTI- GANG
ENFORCEMENT.
Be i t enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. ADDr~ Driati~ nD: urDose
A. The sum of $ 5,000.000 is appropriated from the state general fund
in fiscal year 1994- 1995 t o the Arizona criminal justice commission for the
purpose of enhancing the statewide anti- gang intelligence and enforcement
program. The commission shall use the monies to establish grants t o fund
programs and agencies approved by the commission t o enhance the investigation
of gang offenses and related criminal activity. The sum of $ 40,000 of the
monies shall be used by the auditor general for the audit required in section
4, subsection C of this act. The remaining monies shall be used solely for
the purpose of funding or training pol ice officers participating in community
antiviolence and anti- gang enforcement programs. Any monies unexpended or
unencumbered on June 30, 1995 revert t o the s t a t e general fund.
B. On a quarterly basis, the Arizona criminal justice commission shall
submit a comprehensive report regarding the program in subsection A t o the
governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of
representatives and the joint oversight committee on anti- gang enforcement
and prosecution programs i f established by law. The report shall be in a
form prescribed by the Arizona criminal justice commission and shall be
approved by the joint oversight committee on anti- gang enforcement and
prosecution programs i f established by law. The report shall include
parti ci pants receiving grants and expenditure detai 1 .
Sec. 2. A ~ ~ r oat~ i orni : DurDose
A. The sum of $ 670,000 i s appropriated from the state general fund in
fiscal year 1994- 1995 t o the Arizona criminal justice commission for the
purpose of enhancing prosecution of any offense relating t o criminal s t r e e t
gangs. The monies shall be distributed t o s t a t e , county and municipal
prosecution offices for the purposes of training prosecutors, providing
personnel and prosecuting any offense relating t o criminal street gangs. Any
monies unexpended or unencumbered on June 30. 1995 revert t o the state
general fund.
9. On a quarterly basis, the Arizona criminal justice commission shall
submit a comprehensive report regarding the prosecution in subsection A t o
the governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house of
representatives and the joint oversight committee on anti- gang enforcement
and prosecution programs i f established by law. The report shall be in a
form prescribed by the Arizona criminal justice commission and shall be
approved by the joint oversight committee on anti- gang enforcement and
prosecution programs i f established by law. The report shall include
participants receiving grants, expenditure detail and details of enforcement
and prosecution programs.
Sec. 3. A ~ ~ r o ~ r i a t i oDnur: D ose
The sum of $ 250,000 i s appropriated from the state general fund to the
department of emergency and mi 1 i tary affairs f o r f i s c a l year 1994- 1995 for
the purpose of allowing the national guard to support s t a t e and local law
enforcement agencies w i t h neighborhood recreation programs, communications
and street gang information analysis. Any monies unexpended or unencumbered
on June 30, 1995 revert t o the state general fund.
Sec. 4. Plan: ourDose: audit
A . Before any monies are expended from the appropriations made in
sections 1 and 2 of this act, the Arizona criminal justice commission shall
submit t o the governor, the president of the senate, the speaker of the house
of representatives, the director of the joint legislative budget committee
and the governor's office of strategic planning and budgeting a plan of
proposed expenditures and operations for the statewide anti - gang intell i gence
and enforcement program.
9. All monies allocated by this act shall be dedicated solely t o the
purpose of enhancing efforts t o deter, investigate and prosecute gang and
related criminal offenders and the legislature intends that this act be
treated as a general appropriation for this purpose.
C . By October 30, 1995, the auditor general shall perform a full and
complete audit of the grants and expenditures made in sections 1 and 2 of
this act and shall deliver a report to the governor, the president of the
senate, the speaker of the house of representatives and the joint oversight
committee on anti- gang enforcement and prosecution programs i f established
by law.
Approved by the Governor June 17. 1994.
Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State June 17. 1994.
Senate Engrossed
State o f Arizona
Senate
F o r t y - f i r s t L e g i s l a t u r e
Ninth Speci a1 Session
1994
CHAPTER 4
AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR A JOINT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON ANTI- GANG ENFORCEMENT AND
PROSECUTION PROGRAMS.
Be it enacted by the L e g i s l a t u r e o f t h e State o f Arizona:
Section 5. J o i n t o v e r s i q h t committee on a n t i - q a n q
enforcement and rose cut ion Droqrams
A. The j o i n t o v e r s i g h t committee on a n t i - g a n g enforcement and
prosecution programs i s e s t a b l i s h e d c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g members:
1. The chairmen o f the senate j u d i c i a r y committee and house o f
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s j u d i c i a r y committee who s h a l l serve as cochairmen.
2. The chairmen o f t h e senate a p p r o p r i a t i o n s committee and house o f
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a p p r o p r i a t i o n s committee.
3. Two members o f the house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , o f d i f f e r e n t pol i t i c a l
p a r t i e s , appointed by the speaker o f t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
4. Two members o f the senate, o f d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s ,
appointed by t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e senate.
B. The committee s h a l l :
1. Approve the format and i n f o r m a t i o n a l content o f r e p o r t s submitted
t o the committee by t h e Arizona c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e commission.
2. Study and make recommendations on s t a t e a n t i - g a n g enforcement and
prosecution programs.
3. By December 15, 1995, submit a r e p o r t and recommendations on the
programs t o t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e senate and t h e speaker o f t h e house o f
representatives and make a recommendation t o t h e f u l l 1 egi s l a t u r e regarding
whether the anti- gang enforcement and prosecution programs and appropriations
f o r those programs should continue a f t e r June 30, 1996.
Sec. 6. Delayed r e ~ e a l
This a c t i s repealed from and a f t e r December 31, 1995.
Approved by t h e Governor June 17, 1994.
F i l e d i n t h e O f f i c e of the Secretary o f State June 17, 1994.
H. B. 2003,9th Special Session ( 1994)
Title: appropriation; anti- pan^ enforcement propram
APPROPRIATIONS
.............................................. ........ F* iciil .... Y................ ....&...................'......;...... 6..... ...$
......: .: ..................;
1994-
1995
..... ..'............ ............ ;...... ............... .... ....:. :.:. Furp; o# 6 .................... ..........
To establish grants to fund ACJC- approved
programs to fund or train police officers
participating in the GITEM program.
r ............................... Ambung ....... ...................
$ 5 million*
............
Ti# ................
ACJC
................................................... ........ Rw6~ ..........................................
June 30,
1995
...................................... .................................
Cdmmexl# .................................................................
Before spending monies, ACJC
must submit a plan of proposed
expenditures and operations for
the GITEM program to the
governor, president of the senate,
speaker of the house of
representatives, director of JLBC
and director of OSPB.
ACJC must submit quarterly
reports to the governor, president
of the senate, speaker of the house
of representatives and the joint
oversight committee on anti- gang
enforcement and prosecution
programs. The report must
include participants receiving
grants and expenditure detail. A
*$ 40,000 of the $ 5 million appropriation will be given to the auditor general. The bill provides that the auditor general must perform a
full and complete audit of the grants and expenditures made to ACJC and report to the governor, the president of the senate, the
speaker of the house of representatives and the joint oversight committee on anti- gang enforcement and prosecution programs by
October 30, 1995.
..... ...... .....,..... ......... ......:. Am# hnf ...............................
$ 670,000
$ 250,000
1
.:.... T.........&...
ACJC
DEMA
. p...... :.' i...?........ p ...: i. 6gg
...................... ...........
Enhancing prosecution of any offense relating to
criminal street gangs. The monies shall be
distributed to state, county and municipal
prosecution ofices for the purposes of training
prosecutors, providing personnel and
prosecuting any offense relating to criminal street
gangs.
To allow the national guard to support state and
local law enforcement agencies with
neighborhood recreation programs,
communications and street gang information
analysis.
. R.... .3... ... Y.... &,$ 3 : :.:.:,:.;.: ii: y
...........................
June 30,
1995
June 30,
1995
F..... fs& I .:.: :...;.:.;.:+:.: f.:.:
... y............... e...:: .,. .... a..:............ +.
............... ................ ........ .
1994-
1995
1994-
1995
....... ..................... calllmats :.:.:.:(.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.. >>;.:.:.;.:.,.:.,.:.:.:.:. r:.,.:,
............................................
Before spending monies, ACJC
must submit a plan of proposed
expenditures and operations for
the GITEM program to the
governor, president of the senate,
speaker of the house of
representatives, director of JLBC
and director of OSPB.
ACJC must submit quarterly
reports to the governor, president
of the senate, speaker of the house
of representatives and the joint
oversight committee on anti- gang
enforcement and prosecution
programs. The report must
include participants receiving
grants and expenditure detail.
~ -
-
Meeting Minutes
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
JOINT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON ANTI- GANG
ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION PROGRAMS
Minutes of Meeting
January 3, 1996
Senate Hearing Room 3 - 1 : 30 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
Chair Noland called the meeting to order at 1 : 40 p. m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Senator Chesley
Senator Soltero
Senator Springer ( excused)
Representative Knaperek
Representative Smith, Cochair
Senator Noland, Cochair
Members Absent
Representative Burns ( excused)
Representative Hubbard ( excused)
Speakers Present
Joe Albo, Director, Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS)
David Gonzales, Captain, Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS)
Joseph R. Farmer, Program Manager, Drug Control and Systems Improvement, Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission ( ACJC)
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Michael A. Breeze, Bureau Chief, Gang Repeat Offender Bureau and Program Director for the
Community Anti- Gang Enforcement Program ( C. A. G. E.), Maricopa County Attorney ' s
Office
John Garcia, Controller, Maricopa County Attorney's Ofice
Ken Peasley, Chief Trial Counsel, Pima County Attorney's Ofice
Ralph E. Ogden, Sheriff, Yuma County Sheriffs Office
Dennis A. Garrett, Chief, Phoenix Police Department
Greg Eavenson, Chief Deputy Sheriff, Navajo County Sheriffs Ofice
Michael Garigan, Lieutenant, Tucson Police Department
Art Montgomery, Chief, Sierra Vista Police Department
Sophia Lopez, President and Founder of Mothers Against Gangs, Inc.( MAG)
David Marshall, Lieutenant, Scottsdale Police Department
Terry Ringey, Chief, PinetopILakeside Police Department
Paul Ennis, resident of the Simpson Neighborhood, Phoenix
Donna Neil, Chairperson, Westwood Community Association, Phoenix
Jack M. Williams, County Attorney, Graham County
Rusty Childress, President of Westwood Business Association and President of Childress Buick- Kia
Guest List ( Attachment 1)
Chair Noland addressed the Committee stating that by law this meeting is being held and by law the
members were statutorily appointed by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House to
gather information on the anti- gang enforcement and prosecution programs as part of the
Committee's statutory oversight duties. On December 12, 1994, Chair Noland requested reports
from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and updates on the Gang Intelligence and Team
Enforcement Mission ( GITEM) from all participating agencies. She expressed regret that the reports
from Arizona Criminal Justice Commission ( ACJC) and the Department of Public Safety ( DPS) were
submitted late yesterday ( Attachment 2). The Committee also received a letter from Governor
Symington in support of GITEM ( Attachment 3). Chair Noland requested that DPS present their
report to the Committee at this time since the original GITEM Legislation SB 1291, Chapter 200 -
Emergency, Laws 1994, hnded certain GITEM projects through DPS and also provided for
prosecutorial programs. The bill which followed, HI3 2003, Chapter 3, Laws 1994, Ninth Special
Session, also vested certain responsibilities with DPS through ACJC. The gang enforcement fbnds
were subgranted to DPS to fund the GITEM Program. ACJC has required that DPS submit monthly
reports detailing the activities of the GITEM Program.
Joe Albo, Director, Department of Public Service ( DPS), apologized for the lateness of his report.
He briefly summarized the formation of GITEM and the origin of its fbnding. The sum of $ 892,000
was originally appropriated for gang enforcement through SB 1291 and the program was to be
primarily administered by DPS. The intent of GITEM is to gather gang member intelligence and
assist other agencies with anti- gang enforcement. The basic creation of the statewide GITEM model
followed the anti- drug multi- agency task force which had been used in the drug effort. To enhance
the statewide anti- gang intelligence and enforcement program, $ 5,000,000 was appropriated through
grants for investigation of gang offenses and related criminal activity to the ACJC and to
prosecutorial programs. The bill which created this hnding in June of 1994 also requested that the
auditor general conduct an audit of these ~ nonies. The audit has been completed by Douglas R.
Norton, Auditor General, and copies have been made available to the Committee ( Attachment 4).
Mr. Albo briefly summarized the GITEM Program activities since its inception including statewide
data. He stated that during the first year of operation, GITEM had seven hlly operational squads
operating in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. Initial enforcement efforts consisted
Jomt Oversight Comm~ ttcco n Anti- Gang
Iinforccment and Prosccut~ onP rograms
0 1/ 03/ 96
primarily in the context of urban anti- gang efforts. In the last Special Session of the Legislature,
based upon an initiative by Governor Syrnington, an additional $ 2,000,000 was appropriated to form
regionalized sites. These funds allowed for the establishment of localized GITEM teams in Cochise
County, Yuma County, Coconino County, Navajo County, which maintain statewide coverage.
Mr. Albo added that the primary mission of GITEM is the training of local law enforcement agency
personnel to be returned to their local agencies as highly trained anti- gang officers; to gather data on
gang intelligence through the utilization of the Gang Member Identification Card ( GMIC); and to
engage in enforcement projects, both rural and urban in Phoenix and Tucson.
Mr. Albo informed the Committee that DPS has submitted a budget plan for next year that calls for
reductions in hnding totaling $ 1,346,600; $ 694,000 less in equipment purchases, $ 325,000 less in
employer related expenses ( E. R. E.); the elimination of several positions for a savings of $ 309, 700;
and a savings of $ 102,500 in operating and travel expenses, while still maintaining the same level of
commitment across the state ( Quarterly Financial Report, See Attachment 5).
Mr. Smith queried as to what type of evaluation has been built into the GITEM Program and what
are the results of the evaluation. Mr. Albo deferred this question to David Gonzales, Captain, DPS,
but remarked that the evaluation process will determine the number of gang sets identified in Arizona,
detail the number of enforcement efforts across the state and determine the impact of GITEM. He
stated that based upon the zero tolerance policy towards gang- related crimes and the heightened
presence of GITEM officers in neighborhoods, a notable reduction of 34 percent in the homicide rate
was attained. In the rural neighborhoods, GITEM is preventing new gangs from forming and existing
gangs from spreading.
Chair Noland inquired if the GITEM reduced budget has been submitted for appropriation and what
is the total amount. Mr. Albo replied the total request is for $ 5,597,500 and the budget has been
submitted as part of DPS' detailed budget. This amount covers the enforcement component of the
Program, not the prosecution portion. He commented that the ACJC appropriation had been moved
directly from the ACJC grant to the DPS budget for funding of enforcement in FY 1994- 95 during
the Ninth Special Legislative Session.
Chair Noland requested information on the inclusion of $ 70,000 in the budget for out- of- state travel.
David Gonzales, Captain, Arizona Department of Public Safety and commander of the GITEM Task
Force, addressed Mr. Smith's query as to the evaluation of GITEM. Captain Gonzales briefly
summarized the accomplishments of the GITEM Program since its inception. He stated that in the
first year of operation GITEM received 228 requests for service from local agencies. It is expected
that the amount of requests for service will double in 1996. He added that DPS is tracking the
expenditures of time and manpower expended on each service request. Another factor to look at in
evaluating the program is the identification of more than 8,500 confirmed gang members in Arizona,
which are now listed in the current gang data base.
. loin1 Ovcrsiglit Cornmiltcc on Anti- Gang
I { nforccment and l'rosecution Programs
01 103196
Mr. Smith inquired concerning the actual results of GITEM's involvement; i. e., reduction in crime
andlor the number of gang members; are gangs relocating in other states; do gangs return to the same
neighborhoods once GITEM has left? Captain Gonzales explained that the evaluation of GITEM7s
success is a very complex issue. The enforcement component is tied together with community,
church and business leaders' direct support and involvement in each neighborhood. The gang
activity for each neighborhood varies; therefore, GITEM must tailor the enforcement projects to the
norms existing in each community. In response to the query about gangs returning to the same
neighborhoods, Captain Gonzales replied the key is to follow up the initial anti- gang enforcement
with maintenance programs such as the heightened presence of officers in the neighborhood and
continue to work with community, church and business leaders to deter the gangs from returning.
Mr. Smith asked what is the most lasting positive effect of the GITEM Program. Captain Gonzales
responded that the presence of GITEM and other local agencies in a gang infested neighborhood
delivers a " wake up call" to the gang members that iaw enforcement is present and gang activities will
not be tolerated; and a " wake up call" for communities that they can make a difference and not to
give up.
Mr. Smith inquired if meetings are held with neighborhood associations to assist in " taking back their
neighborhoods" and accepting responsibility for the activities conducted in their neighborhoods.
Captain Gonzales replied this is one of the advantages of the multi- task force, having community-based
police and experts from many different local agencies who meet with neighborhood groups to
share their expertise in anti- gang enforcement. He asserted that the key to taking back a
neighborhood is working with the community because the brunt of the responsibility is on its
shoulders. Captain Gonzales mentioned that citizens provide much of the intelligence information that
assists law enforcement in locating drug dealers and gang members in their areas.
Chair Noland stated her recollection that the purpose of fbnding SB 1291 was for the enhancement
of the anti- gang activities and the deterrent and prosecution of gang members. She added that the
Committee needs to have statistics on the actual successful prosecution rate of gang members in
determining the success of this Program. She stated that there is a definite difference between the
original GITEM Program as defined in SB 1291 and the GITEM Program later developed during
the special session. She opined that, as the bill was loosely crafted, the original intent was to train
law enforcement officers from different jurisdictions through Arizona in anti- gang enforcement and
initiate their assistance on special gang- related problems. These highly- trained officers were to follow
a zero tolerance policy and follow through with gang crimes until the gang members were taken off
the streets.
Chair Noland reiterated the appropriations for the anti- gang programs statewide amounted to
approximately $ 8,000,000. She requested information on the success rate of these programs and if
officers from other jurisdictions are still being trained, or if the program has turned in another
direction.
. lolnt Ovcrsighl Commlttcc on Anti- Gang
I hforccmcnt and 1' 1- osccut~ onI' rograms
01 103/ 9G
Captain Gonzales assured Chair Noland that the Program continues to train officers from other
jurisdictions throughout the State of Arizona. He briefly summarized this aspect of the Program. He
stated there are approximately forty agencies assigned full time to GITEM statewide. Although there
have been exceptions, most agencies sign up one of their officers for one year. The grant funds cover
the officer's salary, overtime, E. R. E., training and other collateral expenses. At the end of the year,
the officer is a highly trained anti- gang enforcement officer. Helshe is then transferred back to the
agency to assist in training others. If the agency's officer is already trained in anti- gang enforcement,
then GITEM's involvement would be the enhancement of the already existing program..
Mr. Albo referred members to the GITEM report, Tab 5, detailing activity which involved 72
agencies throughout Arizona from July 1994 through June 1995 ( Attachment 6 filed with original
minutes in Chief Clerk's Office).
Chair Noland requested the actual number of prosecutions since the inception of GITEM. She
emphasized that this data will assist the Committee in determining the effectiveness of the tools given
to GITEM for the prosecution of gang members. In response to Chair Noland's query, Mr. Albo
stated that his agency has been unable to correlate that data.
Chair Noland reiterated that the actual numbers of gang- members prosecuted as a direct result of the
GITEM Program needs to be tracked. She added that these statistics assist the Committee in
monitoring the success of the Program.
Chair Noland repeated her request for information on the appropriation of $ 70,000 for out- of- state
travel. Captain Gonzales replied the $ 70,000 was requested for two primary reasons; to hnd the
collateral investigations out- of- state; and to fund specialized training courses for officers, which are
sometimes held out- of- state. Chair Noland requested DPS submit more detailed information to the
Committee on the out- of- state travel expenses. She added that conducting the training in Phoenix
would be less expensive.
Ms. Knaperek requested information on illegal alien gangs and asked if GITEM is working in
conjunction with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ( ZNS) on this problem.
Captain Gonzales replied the largest gang in Arizona, Wetback Power ( 1 2 sets), consists of illegal
aliens. He stated that GITEM has an investigative squad in Phoenix and Tucson which targets this
group. DPS has requested and received the assignment of one full- time INS officer and one full- time
Border Patrol officer to the GITEM Program at the expense of INS and Border Patrol. These two
officers also serve as liaison officers for their agencies, which supply additional manpower on special
GITEM projects.
In response to Mrs. Knaperek's query as to the success of this cooperative venture, Captain Gonzales
replied that GITEM is tracking the location of the illegal alien gangs.
Mrs. Knaperek asked if he had any recommendations on ridding Arizona of these illegal alien gangs.
Jo~ nOt versight Committee on Anti- Gang
I~ nforcemcnt; llld 1' 1- OSCCU~ PIrOog~ r ams
0 1/ 03/ 96
Mr. Albo stated that he was jnformed by Lieutenant W. F. Grasee, DPS, that the policy on arresting
illegal aliens comes from INS. He went on the to explain that the policy of JNS is that unless a gang
member is directly involved in illegal activity, heishe is not arrested. Since discovering that much of
the Wet Back Powers' gang activities are controlled and operated by prison gangs, GITEM is now
working with the Department of Corrections ( ADC)) to form a prison gang unit.
Senator Soltero requested a short version of the process for GITEM's initial involvement in a
neighborhood. Captain Gonzales related a scenario from the City of Tucson. He said that Tucson
has three officers assigned to GITEM full time. When they are made aware of a specific problem,
the Tucson team gang commander contacts the local GITEM commander or supervisor. They meet
to determine the situation and gather intelligence information. The local supervisors than form a plan
to target the specific problem in this neighborhood. Additional officers can be assigned from GITEM
or local police department if needed.
Senator Soltero asked if GITEM enhances the capabilities of other agencies in the form of manpower,
resources, etc. Captain Gonzales replied that GITEM not only enhances many of their capabilities,
but in many cases the local agencies turn the whole responsibility for anti- gang enforcement over to
GITEM.
Chair Noland queried as to the involvement of GITEM during special events such as the State Fair.
Captain Gonzales replied that historically gang members attend the Arizona State Fair. GITEM
prepares months in advance for an event such as this by formatting a plan, and bringing in extra
officers to work inside and outside the fair. As a result, no major incidents have occurred in the last
two years inside the Fair.
Mr. Smith asked if there are more or less gang members and/ or gangs in Arizona as a result of the
GITEM Program and has the crime rate increased? Captain Gonzales replied that because GITEM
and all statewide police departments have become more proficient at identifLing gang niembers in
Arizona, 17,000- 1 8,000 new members since the inception of the gang member data base, the statistics
show an increase in gang members. He added that anti- gang enforcement is making an impact and
targeting the hard- core gang members and working closely with neighborhood associations to make
their neighborhoods safer. He added that gang membership is increasing nationwide. Captain
Gonzales said that GITEM has identified approximately 850 gang sets operating in Arizona today and
estimates that this number will increase.
Mrs. Knaperek inquired about the criteria in determining the individuals who are placed in the gang
member data base. Captain Gonzales replied persons are placed into the gang member data base if
they meet two of the seven criteria established by law. Intelligence information is gathered utilizing
the Gang Membership Information Card ( GMIC). Several of the criteria used in deterniining gang
membership are self proclamation, specific types of tattoos and witness accounts.
Jo~ nOt vcrslght Comnxttcc on Anti- Gang
I < nf'orccmcnt and I'rosccut~ on I'rogams
01 103196
Further discussion ensued on this issue.
Captain Gonzales reiterated that the information regarding gang members is verified by supervisors
and analysts who screen GMIC's. The data base constantly purges itself of individuals when there
is no activity involving that person, no updates of gang activity, no criminal activity, etc. The input
of individuals is based on very specific criteria that distinguishes an individual from a gang member,
which officers document on the GMIC's.
Mrs. Knaperek asked if all state agencies have access to this database. In response to Mrs.
Knaperek's query, Captain Gonzales stated every police officer nationwide has access to this data
base. Local agencies also contribute to the data base.
Chair Noland inquired if Department of Corrections' ( ADC) gang members are included in the
database. Captain Gonzales replied that ADC gang members are also placed into the database. He
added that GITEM has a full- time gang liaison to ADC, where the gang problem is becoming very
significant.
Mrs. Knaperek asked about the possibility of an individual being placed into the data base by mistake.
Captain Gonzales said he is not aware of anyone in the gang member database who should not be
there. He emphasized that supervisors and analysts screen gang information cards very carehlly.
Senator Soltero expressed his concern about the increase in graffiti. Captain Gonzales answered that
the majority of grafiti incidents are not gang related. Tagging crews, groups of kids who enjoy
writing on walls, are mainly responsible. He added that GITEM does monitor grafiti activity very
closely because it does give law enforcement information concerning gangs.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Joseph R. Farmer, Program Manager, Drug Control and Systems Improvement, Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission ( ACJC), presented a brief overview of the grant application procedure. Mr.
Farmer apologized for the lateness of submitting the ACJC's report. He stated that the Arizona
Criminal Justice Commission ( ACJC) was tasked under HI3 2003, providing for a grant to DPS and
the elements of prosecution. The sum of $ 670,000 was appropriated to ACJC to enhance prosecution
of street gang- related crimes. The monies were distributed to state, county and municipal prosecuting
agencies to train prosecutors, provide personnel and prosecute offenses related to criminal street
gangs. The Commission required each prosecutorial agency to submit a problem statement application
describing their projects for review by the Drug, Gang & Violent Crime Task Force, and also the
Drug, Gang & Violent Crime Programs Committee ( See Grant Applications, Attachment 7).
Mr. Farmer continued that the ACJC presented an implementation plan for the GITEM Program to
the Arizona Drug, Gang & Violent Crime Task Force and the Drug, Gang & Violent Crime Programs
Committee for the implementation of the GITEM Program to Arizona on June 2, 1994. The GITEM
. lolnt Ovcrslght Conimlttcc on Antl- Gang
I lnforcemcnt and l> rosccution l'rograms
0 1/ 03/ 96
Program was approved and fbnding was awarded to DPS for the GITEM Task Force on June 8,
1994.
Mr. Farmer explained that because of the large component of law enforcement agencies and GITEM
officers who arrest offenders, the prosecutorial agencies have difficulty in determining which
offenders are arrested by GITEM officers on gang- related offenses versus those arrested by local law
enforcement on non- gang related offenses. He added that the Counties attorney have no method of
separating the offenders.
Chair Noland asked if ACJC had conducted follow up on the activities of the prosecutorial agencies
to determine if they are performing as they described in their applications for grant hnding. Mr.
Farmer replied he does conduct on- site visits with all fifteen Counties attorney, many sheriffs and
police chiefs to determine the actuality of their goals. He has discovered that the effective
prosecution of gang members is very complex, requiring a strong communication between law
enforcement agencies and the Counties attorney ofices. He assured the Committee that ACJC does
track the prosecutorial process and ACJC's report shows the overall picture of gang prosecution in
any county ( Report, See Attachment 8).
Chair Noland requested that ACJC submit an annual report in the future using standardized forms for
the Committee's review. Mr. Farmer replied an annual report is in the works and the Committee will
receive it shortly.
Jen- y Landau, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney General's Ofice, made
available to the Committee a copy of a twenty count indictment, which targeted gangs and was
successiil as a direct result of cooperation between the police departments, FBI and task force. I- Ie
added that this is an example of field work translated into the courtroom ( Attachment 9 ) .
Michael A. Breeze, Bureau Chief, Gang Repeat Offender Bureau and Program Director, Community
Anti- Gang Enforcement Program ( C. A. C E)., Maricopa County Attorney's Office, explained his unit
is attempting to identify hard- core violent offenders in advance of any investigational prosecution.
He stated that gang cases are identified by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in one of three
ways: 1) gang motivation; 2) special projects which target gangs; and, 3) identified hard- core
offender. There are four attorneys provided under the grant; two assigned to the Adult Division and
two to the Juvenile Division. A team prosecution is engaged wherein prosecutors in juvenile court
and adult court work together on gang cases in which a transfer to adult court is sought. In addition,
gang detectives and prosecutors work as a team which results in more effective prosecutions. His
office also employs an investigator who tracks the location of witnesses in gang- related cases to
ensure their appearance at trial.. When caseloads permit, C. A. G. E. offers training to law enforcement
officers on team prosecution. He stated the goal of C. A. G. E. is to continue the enforcement of the
Gang Offender Program, identifying hardcore offenders and the development of additional projects
targeting specific gangs ( Attachment 10 ).
. lolnt Ovcrs~ ghCt omm~ ttcco n Anti- Gang
I3nforccmcnt and l'rosccuf~ on l'ropams
0 1/ 03/ 96
Chair Noland asked if Maricopa County's initial allocation of $ 45 1,000 will be adjusted to $ 587,422,
and if the number of personnel will be increased.
Mr. Breeze deferred these questions to John Garcia, Controller, Maricopa County Attorney's Ofice
and Jerry Landau, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office..
Mr. Garcia, Controller, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, replied that there are presently four
prosecutors, one investigator, one legal assistant and support staff currently finded by the grant. In
addition, the following positions are partially knded ( 33 percent) by the grant: one legal assistant,
one juvenile prosecutor and one researcher.
Chair Noland repeated her question as to the adjustment of their allocation from $ 451,000 to
$ 587,422. In response to her query, Mr. Garcia stated that ACJC approved the reallocation of
$ 1 37,737 to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to enhance its program. He added that the fiJnds
were utilized for statewide training, diversion programs, anti- gang community programs and for the
purchase of equipment for its investigator.
Chair Noland commented that the additional finds were originally appropriated for the Witness
Protection Program, rural Counties attorney and emergency prosecution monies. These hnd were
reallocated to the Maricopa and Pima Counties Attorney Offices. She questioned whether any of the
other counties had emergencies, why the Witness Protection Program was scratched and why only
two counties were given additional hnding and not the other prosecutorial agencies. Chair Noland
added that the Committee is responsible for tracking all allocated grant hnding. She requested a
detailed breakdown from Maricopa and Pima Counties on expended grant monies.
Ken Peasley, Chief Trial Counsel, Pima County Attorney's Office, summarized the results of the
GITEM Program in Pima County. He stated Pima County was allocated approximately $ 273,000,
ofwhich approximately $ 255,000 was expended on personnel. The Pima County Attorney's Office
presently has two full- time adult gang prosecutors, supported by one investigator, one legal assistant
and one legal secretary. Mr Peasley added that he will provide the Committee with a more detailed
financial breakdown if requested. Pima County has formed a " Gang of the Quarter Program," in
coordination with the Tucson Police Department, Attorney General's Ofice, Sheriffs Department,
GITEM, U. S. Attorney's Office and the Tucson City Attorney's Office. Mr. Peasley stated that the
cooperation between all these different agencies was one of the major steps in the success of the
Program. The group assigned to this Program meets monthly or bi- monthly to collectively decide
which is the most troublesome gang in Pima County ( must meet written criteria), then collectively
focus additional resources on that particular gang set Another program initiated with grant finds
is the " Top Ten Gangster Program." These individuals must also meet written criteria before being
placed on the list. The goal of the Pima County Attorney's Ofice is the prosecution of these
gangsters to the maximum. Mr. Peasiey said that he believes the top 4- 5 gangsters in Pima County
have been successfiJlly eliminated, although some have been replaced. A third program Pima County
was able to initiate is the Para Los Ninos Program. The focus of this Program is the treatment of the
. loint Ovcrs~ ghCt omm~( tc0c1 1 Anti- Gang
Iinforccmcnt and Prosccutlon l'l. opan~ s
01 / 03/ 96
symptoms of the gang problem by attempting to intervene in the lives of young people who are
potential gang members. Pima County has enlisted support from schools, courts, community leaders
and business groups . This is a pilot project that is expected to operate over an 18 month period of
time. He added that Pima County hlly supports the GITEM Program and commended its assistance
and response time.
Chair Noland requested that Pima County also submit an annual report to the Committee for review
to assist in future funding.
Mr. Smith asked if there has been an increase in the prosecution of gang members as a result of the
GITEM Program in Pima County. Mr. Peasley replied there has been an increase in the prosecution
of gang members due to the cooperation of several local agencies, law enforcement and GITEM
working together.
Chair Noland asked if the legislation more clearly defining gang activity has been a useful tool in
prosecution. Mr. Peasley said that he feels the definitions and other existing statutes assisted in the
prosecution of gang members in Pima County.
Mr. Ralph E. Ogden, Sheriff, Yuma County Sheriffs Ofice, spoke in support of the GITEM
Program. The Program was underway in October 1995, and has been effective in his community.
Because Yuma is bordered by Mexico and California, several illegal alien gangs are present in this
area and Yuma County is working closely in a cooperative effort with INS to identify and eliminate
these gangs. He added that these gang members have been successfblly identified, which takes away
their anonymity. Further, he said he feels the Program has been successhl because of the numerous
persons in the community who have thanked law enforcement and prosecutors for reducing the gang
activity in their areas.
Dennis A. Garrett, Chief, Phoenix Police Department, spoke in support of the GITEM Program. He
said the Program has been a real asset to the City of Phoenix Police Department. He stated the
additional resources accessed through GITEM to address problems in Phoenix have been greatly
appreciated. He added that the level of communication and cooperation amongst community action
officers, neighborhood police, the network of community groups and neighborhood associations
needs to continue.
Greg Eavenson, Chief Deputy Sheriff, Navajo County, spoke in support of the GITEM Program.
He stated that the Program has been operating in his County since October 1995. He informed the
Committee that the major impact has been in the education of the communities and schools in the
awareness of gang presence in Navajo County and its impact on their criminal systems. Lieutenant
Evanson added that over a dozen gang sets have been identified in Navajo county. He added the
much initial set up time has been spent in organizing and training personnel.
lolnt Ovcrslght Col~~ nxttocnc Antl- Gang
I Jnforccmci~ ta nd l'rosccutlon I'ropams
0 1 103196
Chair Noland asked Lieutenant Eavenson if he believes the educational component will be beneficial
in deterring hrther gang growth. Lieutenant Eavenson stated he feels the education of teachers,
parents and students does act as a deterrent against gang growth. Through education, young people
are prepared for the time when they may be drafted by a gang. The enforcement aspect of the
GITEM Program deters criminal activity by their heightened presence in the community.
Michael Garigan, Lieutenant, City of Tucson Police Department, opined that this is one of the most
effective collaborative environments his department has been exposed to as police professionals.
GITEM is an entity the department uses as a tactical arm in the City of Tucson. He stated that the
additional resources available through GITEM allow law enforcement to go into a community with
strict enforcement. GITEM assists in the formation of a plan, and continued maintenance for that
neighborhood after the anti- gang enforcement component has completed its assignment. He voiced
his support for the GITEM Program and his desire to see hrther fbnding to continue these endeavors
and strategies.
Art Montgomery, Chief, Sierra Vista Police Department, spoke in support of GITEM and briefly
summarized some of the positive results. He stated that during 1992, 1993, and 1994 his community
experienced approximately twenty- five drive- by gang- related shootings. GITEM became involved
with the community in September of 1995 to assist in combating this problem. The consequences
were that there were only two drive by shootings in 1995, a total of three for the year. Mr.
Montgomery stated he is very supportive of the GITEM Program and would like it to remain in the
community because the Program does work.
Chair Noland asked if any of the gang members and gang- related activities involved military
personnel. Mr. Montgomery stated there had been several incidents involving base personnel, which
were managed by the military. He added the majority of gang activity is not base related.
Chair Noland read the names of others present to testify in support of the GITEM Program
Sheriff Joe Richard, Coconino County
Mary Sennate, Police Investigator, Mesa Police Department Gang Unit
Joseph Ruett, Leiutenant, Gilbert Police Department
Terry Burchett, Detective, Gilbert Police Department
Jennie Palomo, Program Coordinator, Mothers Against Gangs, Inc. ( MAG)
W. F. Grasee, Lieutenant, Department of Public Safety ( DPS)
( Tape 2, Side A)
Sophia Lopez, President and Founder of Mothers Against Gangs, Inc., spoke in support of GITEM.
She said a major positive outcome is the cooperation between GITEM and the community. GTTEM
has assisted the community in educating itself about gangs. GITEM counsels young people wlio are
Joint Ovcrs~ ght Committee on Anti- Gang
I3nforccmcnt and l'rosccutlon I'rograms
11 0 1103196
on the border line of becoming gang members. GITEM successfblly mentored two young people
who have since graduated from the academy and are now working at Adobe Mountain..
David Marshall, Lieutenant, Scottsdale Police Department, spoke in support of the GITEM Program.
He said the immediate response of manpower and intelligence information was invaluable in the
investigation and apprehension of the suspect in a recent homicide in his community. Lieutenant
Marshall stated that GITEM has made the community safer.
Chair Noland addressed Kent Komadina, Chief Counsel, Arizona Attorney General's Ofice. She
thanked him for the report submitted by his ofice on its activities and requested the submission of
an annual report in the fbture ( Report, See Attachment 11).
Terry Ringey, Chief of Police, PinetopILakeside Police Department, spoke in support of the GITEM
Program. He thanked the committee and DPS for recognizing that gangs are a problem in the rural
areas.
Chair Noland emphasized that one of the primary intents of SB 1291 was to assist the rural areas
through the allocation of funds for the training of personnel to form gang units within local law
enforcement agencies.
Paul Ennis, resident of the Simpson Neighborhood, Phoenix stated his appreciation to GITEM for
its involvement in his neighborhood. He added that a number of arrests were made and the residents
feel they have accomplished a moral victory over the gangs. Mr. Smith requested that Mr. Ennis
contact him with an update on the long- term impact of the GITEM involvement in his neighborhood
by the end of November 1996.
Ms. Donna Neill, Chairperson, Westwood Community Association, spoke in support of GITEM.
She stated she greatly appreciates GITEM showing the residents respect by allowing them to become
involved in the anti- gang enforcement and taking responsibility for their neighborhood. Ms. Neill
added that its assistance boosted the morale and gave hope to the residents of Westwood.
Jack Williams, County Attorney, Graham County spoke in support of the GITEM Program. He said
an emergency gang- related homicide occurred in his County several years ago. Graham County was
allocated $ 1 0,000 of emergency funding which enabled it to turn around the gang activity before it
spread in Graham County.
Rusty Childress, President of Westwood Business Association, and President of Childress Buick- Kia,
spoke in support of the GITEM Program. He said that GITEM has the ability to go right into a
neighborhood and accomplish a long- term impact. Local agencies are sharing information and
working with the justice system on anti- gang enforcement. Because of this Program many businesses
will be able to remain in the neighborhood He stated his hope that this Program will continue to be
funded.
. loin1 Oversight Committee on A~~ li- Gai~ g
l inforccmcnt and 1' 1- osccutlon l'rograms
0 1103196
Chair Noland thanked everyone for attending the meeting. She stated that further information is
needed regarding the fbnding for the prosecutorial component of the Program. She related that
another meeting may be necessary as further data is gathered and reviewed by the Committee.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3: 48 p. m
Diann Haney, Committee Secretary
( Minutes with attachments on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk and with the Committee Chairman.
Tapes on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
drh
0 1/ 08/ 96
. lolnt Ovcrsiglit Commiltcc on Anti- Gang
I JnSorccment and Proscct~ on I'rogranis
0 1/ 08/ 96
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
JOINT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON ANTI- GANG
ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION PROGRAM
Minutes of Meeting
January 22,1996
Senate Hearing Room 2 - 3: 00 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
Chair Noland called the meeting to order at 3: 10 p. m. and attendance was noted by the
secretary.
Members Present
Senator Chesley Representative Burns
Senator Soltero Representative Hubbard
Senator Springer Representative Knaperek
Senator Noland, Cochair Representative Smith, Cochair
Speakers Present
David Gonzales, Captain, Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS)
Joe Albo, Director, Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS)
Tim Connen, Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS)
Joseph R. Farmer, Program Manager, Drug Control and Systems Improvement, Anzona
Criminal Justice Commission ( ACJC)
John Blackburn, Maricopa County District Attorney's Office
Ed Cook, APAAC
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Chair Noland stated the ninutes of the last meeting will stand as submitted.
Chair Noland addressed the Committee stating that since the Committee last met she
found that there was a footnote in the budget that the Committee needed to make a
recommendation on the part of the GITEM funding, and especially as it has to do with that
part that goes to the prosecutors. There also have been some things recommended in
various budgets on the DPS funding and how that does or does not take place. Chair
Noland explained that she has tried to straighten it out because there were two different
bills and she wanted to be sure she understood exactly what had gone to help prosecute
the gangs; as well as what had gone to DPS. She asked that anyone correct her if they'd
like, stating that when the Legislature did the original anti- gang bill, which was S. B. 1294,
DPS received $ 892,000 for the GlTEM program and the prosecutors received $ 430,000,
and it was split out between the Attorney General and the various prosecutors. Then, in
S. B. 1003, which was in the 9th Special Session, the sum of $ 4,960,000 was granted to
DPS and $ 670,000 went to the prosecutors through ACJC. Chair Noland explained that,
currently, there is no recommendation in the JLBC budget for any funding for prosecution
on the GlTEM and anti- gang effort. The Governor's recommendation has $ 500,000 in it.
She asked that Senator Chesley update the Committee on what is going on with the DPS
side of the funding and what the total amount is.
Senator Chesley stated that he didn't bring notes with him, but basically what they talked
about in their last meeting was that about $ 4,000,000, in round numbers, was going to stay
with DPS and $ 1,000,000 was going to be sent out to the different organization, cities,
counties, that they were helping. Senator Chesley explained that originally, it was just the
opposite, DPS was going to keep a million and going to send $ 4,000,000 out. He stated
that he felt it was the opinion of the Committee that since we finally have an organization
that's doing what we've asked them to do and doing it well, the committee was opposed
to cutting off the funds for it. Senator Chesley stated that it was his philosophy that GlTEM
is working and that they are training people who then go back into the community, but
they've only been doing it for a year and we don't have the resources back in the
community to be able to do the kind af a job that he thinks is required, so they changed the
numbers around, so again, about $ 4,000,000 goes to DPS, $ 1,000,000 goes other places.
He explained that when they did that, they had talked earlier about ACJC and he had
asked everybody who was in the audience that day, including JLBC people, where the
money was for ACJC and not one person was able to tell them. He stated he still doesn't
know if it's in the budget, and if it is in a budget, where and whose budget it's in. It is NOT
in DPS's budget. His assumption is that it's dropped through the cracks and there is no
money budgeted or allocated for it at this time. Senator Chesley stated that he told the
committee that this was an issue that had to be addressed, that there is no sense getting
the gang members and letting them go, so his committee is favorably disposed to putting
money into the court side of it, although no dollar amount had been discussed.
Chair Noland apologized for the confusion that was created by the budget footnote, stating
that she believes this Committee needs to determine what the amount should be and make
a recommendation for the budget. She commented that it is her understanding that the
Governor is working on their side to look at the amount that was originally funded for the
prosecution, which is $ 1.1 million, that would be disbursed throughout the state for the
Attorney General to help out in the outlying areas, including Maricopa, Pima and all of the
small prosecutorial entities, in the same way they were funded the last time. Chair Noland
stated that she has a bill that takes care of the way it is funded, but believes a
recommendation is needed for the subcommittees. She further commented that she is
counting on both the Appropriation Chairs to help the Committee because it's very
confusing. Chair Noland added that she thinks DPS is straightened away so that they're
funded on the law enforcement side.
Senator Chesley commented that 1 . I ($ 1 . I million) was the number he had heard bandied
around and that no one can tell him why that's the right number. He added that the
Committee makes the recommendation and he doesn't have better information, that can
easily be amended to a different number. He stated he is concerned that nobody has
given him any kind of number or told him why 1.1 ($ 1.1 million) is the number.
Chair Noland explained that the $ 1 . I million was the combination of the two bills, both the
Governor's special bill and our anti- gang bill in the regular session before that, and it
specifically went to all of the entities. They have been reporting back and ACJC was to get
back to the Committee with the entire annual report, which was piecemeal the last time the
Committee met. She noted that ACJC was signed up to speak to the Committee if
necessary and that Mr. Albo was signed up to speak if necessary.
Senator Chesley stated he realized that is what the Legislature had done, but he still is not
sure that it is the right amount. He explained he doesn't know if it was too little or too much
and that he is not comfortable with the amount just because the Legislature did it before.
He noted that he had not read the whole ACJC report and that somebody needs to come
to him and explain the needs for this money.
Chair Noland asked Senator Chesley if gathering the rest of the information wouldn't be
part of what his Appropriations Subcommittee would do and added that she thought
everybody had better be there telling him exactly what they've done. Mrs. Noland stated
that what was needed now is a recommendation from this Committee as a general way to
proceed with the budget. She commented that it's a different way and she doesn't know
how it got there as a footnote in the budget.
Representative Hubbard asked Chair Noland if they were we talking here about just the
dollars for GITEM?
Chair Noland replied it is the prosecution portion of GITEM, because that was the footnote.
Representative Hubbard asked if that was all, just the prosecution portion?
Chair Noland replied in the affirmative.
Representative Burns suggested that since know one seems to know if the $ 1.1 million is
a good number or not, the Committee ought to make the recommendation back to Senator
Chesley's and Representative Hart's subcommittees without a number and that they find
the right number. He further stated he agreed with Senator Chesley that if we don't have
information to give an accurate number, the Committee shouldn't just say $ 1.1 million
because that's what it used to be.
Chair Noland stated she has done the homework on this, looking at all of the reports and
is comfortable with the $ 1 . I million, especially as the law enforcement end of things kicked
even more into gear. She added that the only number she wasn't personally comfortable
with was the $ 150,000 for the witness protection. She ex~ lainedth at this didn't get used
for witness protection but got divided between Pima and Maricopa Counties, rather
arbitrarily, and she wouldn't like to see that happen again. She added she would like to
see it, if it wasn't going to be used for what it was designated, either returned or be evenly
divided among all of the prosecutorial agencies to help them do what they did. She further
stated that the Legislature was told it was much needed, but maybe they just didrr't'have
an opportunity to use it, that sometimes there aren't witnesses who need to have the
protection from the gang members or their relatives. , .
Chair Noland continued that she is comfortable with at least $ 1,000,000 or $ 950,000, even
though she wasn't a big fan of this because she thought it was not very specific. She
stated she believes a better reporting mechanism is needed, but she was impressed with
the testimony and with what has been done, and added that another year will give
everybody a much better feel for both law enforcement side and prosecutorial side and
what is being done. Chair Noland commented that she would like to see it have another
year and that it still bears watching, and that her bill will say that the money goes directly
to the prosecutorial agencies, not go through ACJC.
Senator Springer stated she thinks the Committee needs some knowledgeable person
from JLBC to testify on how this is arranged. She noted that looking at the budget book,
in the Court system there is an additional $ 5,500,000 in new money that is allocated for
juvenile justice reform, which is allocated to things from the very front end through
treatment services and into incarceration projects. She wanted to know if their intent was
that some of this money be used for prosecution, because the references indicate that it
starts at the very front end, through the entire system.
Chair Noland explained her belief that it is a completely different thing in the juvenile
system and goes along with the juvenile justice reform bill. This has been in the adult
system all the time, dealing with adult gang members. She stated the Legislature kept it
separate when it created it three years ago and also during the Special and that she does
not believe it is overlapping.
Senator Springer indicated to the Committee that there is an additional $ 310,000
specifically in the recommendation for transfer of juveniles to the adult courts, and is
assuming that has to be for prosecution for the transfer of juveniles. She commented that
apparently there are two different budget recommendations and different aspects of some
of these problems.
Representative Smith clarified that GITEM is taken care of, that they are going to remain
in their present organization and get funding. The Committee is talking about specifically
the amount of money to be used for prosecution. He suggested there are two things the
Committee can do: subtract the amount of money for the witness protection agency
because they didn't use that last year and then recommend this much money for the
prosecution of the gang in conjunction with the GITEM program.
Senator Springer asked how do you identify which is which, the GlTEM program or other
normal prosecutions of drug or gang- related activities, when you get into the system? In
other words, you don't take a kid and say " This is a GlTEM kid" or " This is just a regular
pickup or a regular arrest under the regular statutes." How do you make that distinction?
Senator Noland explained that people were mixing up the juvenile system with the adult
system. She further explained that what they have been doing with the gangs is keeping
track of those of the referred cases by law enforcement that were the gang- related, and
they are in the adult system; there are some in the juvenile system, but the majority are in
the adult system. She added that part of the problem in getting this Committee up to
speed was having a comprehensive annual report. The Committee we received quarterly
reports from every different agency and had hoped that ACJC would put them all together
into one comprehensive report. They are going to have to convince Senator Springer and
Senator Chesley, and maybe at that point they'll have all the reports together and get it
delineated a little better so that it won't be confusing. That is what the Committee hoped
when it set up all those reports. You all approved the reports. That is was part of JLBC
and Appropriations Chairmen. She commented that she would have said, " Don't give me
all these quarterly things. I want it cumulative and I want to know what's going on .... In fact
we added all of those reports.
Representative Hubbard added a footnote to remind the Committee that over the past six
years this Legislature has passed a lot of new legislation pertaining specifically to gang
members per se, breaking new ground on some of the things that were done, and taking
other things from other states, namely California, or very special programs, and set up
recently the whole GlTEM division of DPS, which works hand in hand with the special
training for our prosecutors. He added that we've got this special police force going out
and rounding up these habitual predators and the rap sheet usually tells if they are habitual
by nature, regular GlTEM kids, or juveniles. He continued it would only make sense that
we continue working with the special law enforcement that is set up to capture these guys,
to keep up to date with the changing legislation that we pass for training our prosecutors
and then giving them the additional resources to not only educate them on how to do it, but
to go ahead and do it. He said he believes they have been doing a pretty good job, that
it is a subject area that he tends to watch very closely and is very happy with, specifically
the GITEM division of DPS. Mr. Hubbard added that he is one of the first ones, usually,
that moan and complain and some of the prosecutors and the way they handle some of
the juveniles issues, but not in this case because we are constantly passing stuff that deals
specifically with gang members. He noted that keeping abreast and having the resources
to use the training and go after them in the courtroom after we go after them in the streets
is absolutely necessary.
Chair Noland reminded the Committee that GlTEM is the adult portion of the crime bill
passed three years ago, as compared to the juvenile portion. She noted that the Governor
has $ 500,000 and she understands that is going to be increased in his recommendation.
Chair Noland asked Senator Springer is she wished to hear from JLBC.
Representative Burns requested that he be allowed to add on a little bit to what Mr.
Hubbard said. He informed the Committee that he just became aware of the Arizona
Prevention Resource Center today and understands that there's approximately $ 530,000
in the ' 94-' 95 budget. He added that their initial charge was to provide information related
to substance abuse, gang education and prevention and treatment programs, and to serve
as a referral agent for law enforcement activities. Mr. Burns commented that he doesn't
know where this ties in or if it ties in at all.
Chair Noland informed the Committee that was an anti- gang thing more for juveniles, that
many people worked on that one while she was in the House of Representatives and that
it's more the front end of the what they were talking about. This part was the hard line
gang members, taking them out of the community, arresting them, stopping the activities,
going into neighborhoods, going into other communities and training officers and also
providing prosecution, and special prosecution for some of the rural communities, in order
to stop the gang activities by arresting them and prosecuting them. Those are mostly
adults. There may be some juveniles, but it's mostly adults, and that's what this part has
been. This is a very confusing issue. It's hard trying to keep track of all this and that's why
things do fall through cracks. Mrs. Noland commented that It gets very confusing and then
we lose institutional memory, and wished the other member all the best after she leaves.
Chair Noland requested testimony from JLBC.
Jim Hillyard, ACJC analyst for JLBC, explained that he did not have with him at this time
information on how the $ 1.1 million was disbursed, nor whether that overlaps with monies
in the Department of Juvenile Corrections budget. He stated that he is relatively new to
this budget and, therefore, hesitant to speak extemporaneously, but could get that
information to the Committee very quickly if that would be helpful.
Chair Noland agreed that would and it would help if he would look at both bills and exactly
the total amount of money and also would garner the reports. She commented that she
was uncertain if this Committee would be able to meet again and she was open for any
recommendation. Mrs. Noland said she would like to hear from two people first to give the
Committee an idea of what is needed. She continued that last time the Committee heard
mostly from law enforcement, and after these comments the Appropriations people can
direct JLBC to do whatever it wants them to do because that's what they do best, adding
that the subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee are definitely going to need that
information. She indicated she would like to hear from the Attorney General's Office to
give the Committee an idea of what they did from the AG's perspective, and then would
like to hear from John Blackburn to give an idea of Maricopa County's efforts.
Kent Komendina, Chief Counsel to the Criminal Trials Section of the Attorney General's
Office, explained that within the Criminal Trials Sections is where they do their gang
prosecution and prevention efforts and that a lot of what they do is in rural counties in
support of requests from rural counties. He provided the Committee with the following
information: Most of the gang members they prosecute are at the upper end of the scale
of felonies; they have been involved with approximately ten capital murders; presently, on
the docket they have handled fourteen altogether; they have obtained 42 felony convictions
on adult gang members or juveniles that were transferred to adult court in the fifteen
months that they have been doing that, and have done it in five different counties. Mr.
Komendina stated that the Attorney General's Office has used approximately $ 108,000
each fiscal year for that effort, which pays for one prosecutor and support staff and, in
terms of whether they need more or less, they have enough business, unfortunately, to
fund another prosecutor, especially as they look into some of the connections between
prison gangs and the street gangs that are developing, which is something that the
Attorney General's Office has traditionally worked on as well. Mr. Komendina added that
if there were more funds available they would be looking to add a second prosecutor.
Mr. Blackburn, Special Assistant in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, stated that It
has been his privilege to work on this since its inception. He explained that there are both
juveniles and adults that are gang members, and his office identifies them for the courts
by using a form to make sure that they meet the description of a gang member. They are
then assigned into the gang unit. Mr. Blackburn presented the following statistics: for one
week, the week of September 2nd through the 8th, they had a total of 150 cases within the
unit; 18 new ones came in, 3 were violent case members, 15 were nonviolent; a total of
85% of them were to be prosecuted by that unit; for the month of October they had, just
for the downtown unit, 28 come into the unit, all accepted and prosecuted as gang
members; during that same period of time 12 gang members were sent to prison. Mr.
Blackburn stated that his office is doing with the money what the Legislature intended it to
do. Mr. Blackburn spoke to the issue of the witness protection money, admitting that his
office was slow in getting that going because they first had to identify and change their
internal policy to reflect how we were going to use it, and that they recently spent $ 13,000
very quickly in doing some relocations. Mr. Blackburn commented that the unit feels good
and feels it is doing what the Legislature intended, that it's a new and very productive unit.
He added that the unit is handling too many cases for the number of staff, that there is
some turnover and it takes some time to train new people coming in. He indicated it is their
intent to keep going and that with the sufficient funding they will be able to maintain and
do even better.
Senator Chesley asked Mr. Blackburn what the dollar amount spent is?
Mr. Blackburn responded that they had two funds that came in and spent 100% of the HB
2003 monies and approximately 40% of the SB 1290 monies. He continued that they are
automating the system to put it on line with the main computer.
Senator Chesiey reiterated his request for the dollar amount spent.
Mr. Blackburn replied that of the SB 2003, it was $ 317,058 and of the SB 1290 it was
$ 144,000.
Chair Noland stated to the Committee that it needs make a recommendation and that she
believe it should then leave it up to the Appropriations Committee to finally make a decision
on the absolute amount.
Senator Chesley moved that the Committee recommend $ 1,000,000, explaining it could
then be cut if necessary.
Senator Soltero asked what the amount was before.
Chair Noland replied $ 1,100,000.
Senator Chesley noted that he thought he should include in that motion that the money
should be in the court budget.
Chair Noland responded that it was not appropriate because it hasn't been in the court
budget before, it's been in the ACJC budget. She further commented that part of the
problem has been keeping the budgets straight. She added that she believes the
prosecutors don't want it in the courts budget because it puts them in a difficult position.
Chair Noland reiterated that the motion before the Committee was that it recommend
$ 1,000,000 be placed in the GlTEM budget for prosecutorial efforts.
The motion passed by a vote of 8- 0- 0.
Chair Noland noted that the recommendation includes the Committee's expectation that
the Appropriations Committee and JLBC will work on the specific amount after receiving
further information from the ACJC compiled annual report.
Adjourned at 3: 45 p. m.