Report to the Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas: Local Revenue Sharing and Court Funding Formulas

              Report to the
Interim Committee on
Statutory Funding Formulas
Local Revenue Sharing
and
Court Funding Formulas
Prepared by
The Staff of the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee
October 1993
Foreword
This report has been prepared in accordance with the
provisions of Laws 1993, Chapter 38, which created
the Interim Committee on Statutory Funding
Formulas and provided for the JLBC Staff to compile
a listing of statutory funding formulas for the
Committee's consideration. This report represents a
compilation of Local Revenue Sharing information
and Court funding formulas.
Local Revenue Sharing
Sales Tax Distribution
Local Revenue Sharing
and
Court Funding Formulas
Summary and Table of Contents
Page No.
Table A: Taxable Activities under the Consolidated Distribution System
Sales Tax Distribution Flowchart
Table B: State Transaction Privilege and Severance Tax Distribution
to Counties 1987- 88 through 1992- 1993
Table C: State Transaction Privilege and Severance Tax Distribution to
Municipalities for Fiscal Year 1992- 1993
Income Tax Distribution 6
Table D: Distribution of Income Tax as Urban Revenue Sharing to Municipalities
in N 1992- 93 7
Lottery Revenue Sharing 8
Lottery Revenue Flowchart
Table E: Distribution Summary of Various Revenue Sources
Court Statutory Programs
Judgeships
Adult Intensive Probation Supervision ( AIPS) 13
Adult Probation Enhancement 14
Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision ( JIPS) 15
Juvenile Probation State Aid 16
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas
LOCAL REVENUE SHARING
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 1 -
SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION
Laws 1985, Chapter 298 consolidated the tax rates of the Transaction Privilege Tax, Education Excise Tax, Special
Excise Tax for Education and the Temporary Business Transaction Taxes for each taxable activity into one Transaction
Privilege Tax rate. Also, these and other taxes collected in the same manner and time as the Transaction Privilege Tax
were combined into a single distribution system. The tax collections for each taxable activity were divided by statutorily
defined percentages into ( 1) a Distribution Base and ( 2) a Non- Shared portion. Tax collections in the Distribution Base,
which include parts of the Transaction Privilege Tax, the Severance Tax, and the Rental Occupancy Tax, are shared
between counties ( 38.08%), municipalities ( 25%) and the state ( 36.92%). The Non- Shared portion, which is allocated
solely to the State General Fund, consists of those taxes comprising the Distribution Base and 100% of tax receipts from
the Use Tax and Transaction Privilege Tax License Fees.
Table A below depicts the taxable activities under this consolidated distribution system together with their corresponding
percentage allocations and tax rates. All taxes listed in this section appertain to this system and all are gross receipts
taxes, except for the Severance Taxes.
TAXABLE ACTIVITIES
Transporting & Towing
Non- Metal Mining, Gas & Oil Production
Utilities
Communications
Railroads & Aircraft
Private Car - Pipelines
Publishing
Printing
Restaurants & Bars
Amusements
Rentals of Real Property
Rentals of Personal Property
Contracting ( Mtrl. only)
Feed Wholesale
Retail
Severance: Metalliferous Mining
Severance: Timbering
Hotel- Motel
Pre- 7/ 74 Contracting
Pre- 5/ 83 Contracting
Rental Occupancy Tax
Use Tax
Use Inventory Tax
DISTRIBUTION
BASE
NON -
S m D
STATE
TOTAL
TAX
RATE
- 1/ Tax rate for rentals of real property ( Commercial Leases) will phase down to 3 . O%
for FY 1995 and to 2.0% for FY 1996, 1.0% for FY 1997, and is eliminated on
7/ 1/ 97 and thereafter.
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 2 -
SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION FLOWCHART
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 3 -
Sales & Severance Tax Receipts
FY 1993 Collections: $ 2,095m
Non- Shared Portion
( See ' Igble A)
Distribution Base
( See Table A)
-*---+;- L +
/-- x-
General
($ 1,357m) I Fu" 1 Cities
25%
($ 184~~ 1)
Allocated on Latest
U. S. & Special Census
Population Estimates
General
Fund
36.92%
($ 273m)
Allocated on Average oE
( 1) Proportion of Total
Assessed Valuation
( 2) Proportion of Total
Sales Taxes Collected
in Each County
Counties
38.08%
($ 281m)
( 1 ) Required Appropriations:
( a) DOR Admin. Expenses
( b) DES
( c) Tourism: $ 2 million & 75% of
1/ 2% Growth in ' Itansient Lodging
( d) County Property Tax
Relief: $ 10 million
( e) Disease Control:
$ 2.97 million
( 2) Remaining Balance: Gen~ ral Fund
*, .? Y , P C , 1; i *" 1 d , , ; s +
TABLE B
Apache
Cochire
Coconino
Oilr
Graham
G m n i a
lrpu
Maricopa
Mohavc
Navajo
Pi.
Pinal
Santa Cnn
Yavrpai
Yumr
STATE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE Ah.' n SE VERA h'CE TAX DISTRIBL'TION TO COUNTIES
198748 THROUGH 1992- 93
County dhtributions rfe bawd on M i v e arsuscd valuation and mlsr in be county
Pigurw may not add to toulr due to munding
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 4 -
CITIES BY COUNTY
APACHE
Eagrr
Springcrvilb
St. Johns
COCHISE
Bcmn
Birbec
huglor
Huochuca C i
Sivra V i ~ h
Tombfitone
Willcox
COCONJNO
Fbgataff
Fdonia
Page
Wfiinmr
GIU
Glob
Haydm
Miami
hyson
Winkelm
GRARM
Pimr
Safford
Thatcher
GREENUE
Clifton
Duncnn
PAZ
Parktr
Qu; uttrite
MA RJCOPA
Avondale
Buckeye
C~ rcfkc
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Minpv
Founuin H i
Gila Bend
Gilbert
Okndale
Goodycor
Gurdalupe
Lihf~ idPa rk
Mbsr
hsad'w Valley
Pdorh
i'hodi
TABLE C
STATE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE A, W SEVERANCE TAX
DISTRIBUTlOh' TO 131 C'NICIPA LITIES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992- 93
COUh'T Y TOTAL
S591.319
CITIES BY COLINTY AMOUNT COUN N TOTAL
Queen Cnxk SIT-. 903
Scottsdrk 8,432,646
Surprrse 461,722
Tc~ npe 9,201,481
Toliuon 287.459
Wielccnburg 292,710
Younplown 164,799 S 126.605,85?
I l f OHAVE
Bulliid City 1.423.095
Colorado City 157,279
Kinpmcur . . 824.774
Lake H. vuu City 1,579,467
NA VAIO
Holbrook 343,796
Pip- Lakcmidc 157,030
Show Low 325,418
S t t ~ ~ I k k 238,512
Taylor 156.760 ( 1)
Wilow 59S, 807 a 1,777,313
PIMA
Manna 141,784
OK) Vollay 432,430
Sourb Tuomn 341; 627
Tucrolr 26,280,986 27,196,619
PINAL
Apche Junction 1. l73, lbS
Cw Gnndc 1,236,895
Coolidp 449,081
Eby 061,403
Fiomoc 486,877
Kcamy 146,647
Mammoth 119.612
Superior 224,832
SANTA CRUZ
Nogaler 1,263,483
Patagoni. 51,570
YA VA PAI
Camp Vcrde 404.737
CIiio Valley 3 13 $ 85
Chrkdrk 138,997
Cononwood 383.667
Jerome 26,127
Prarcou 1.7223 ,974
Prcrcott VaUsy 575.8 12
Sedonr. 500,492
YUMA
Sari Luis 284, SSO
Sameflon 330.951
WcHtnn 69,109
Y urn 3560,688 4,245299
TOTAL EI84,318,9SS . $ 1 ed$ l 8,955
( 1) Taylor's dhtribution was oauUy 5142,412 due to an ~ djustrncm~ a~& l at yulr end ior ovcrpymm of municipal lnla tax.
City dietributioac ore buad on rtlativo population.
Figurea may not add to roul due to rooding.
Interim Committee on Statutorv Fundina Formulas - s -
INCOME TAX DISTRIBUTION
The Department of Revenue transmits individual and corporate income tax collections to the State
Treasurer for deposit into the Urban Revenue Sharing Fund and state General Fund. The amounts
apportioned to each fund is determined as follows:
( 1) 12.8% of the net proceeds from state income taxes collected two fiscal years prior to the
current fiscal year is deposited into the Urban Revenue Sharing Fund which is then distributed
to incorporated cities and towns:
Each municipality receives an amount based on the proportion their population bears to the
total population of all municipalities as reported by the latest United States decennial
census or special census. See the exhibit on the next page for the FY 1993 distribution.
No later than the tenth day of each month, the State Treasurer transfers an amount equal
to one- twelfth of each municipality's total entitlement for the current fiscal year.
A new municipality shall share in the fund beginning the first month of the first full fiscal
year following incorporation.
( 2) After the distribution from the Urban Revenue Sharing Fund, the balance is deposited in the
state General Fund.
The State Treasurer shall also deposit into the tax refund account of the state General Fund
amounts sufficient to meet the requirements for tax refunds. Afterwards, the Director of
the Department of Administration is responsible for drawing all amounts necessary to pay
refunds and maintaining the account to ensure that there are enough monies to make
refunds and that there are no excess monies which should be transferred to the state
General Fund. Any monies remaining in the account by the last day of the fiscal year
exceeding $ 500,000 is transferred back to the state General Fund.
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 6 -
TABLE D
DlSTRIBUTION OF INCOAIE TAX AS URDAN REVENUE SliARIdVG
TO II~ UNICII'ALIT~ EISN 1992- 93
CITlES BY COVh
APACHE
& par
Spr~ ngcrvilla
St. Jollru
COCI~ ISE
Bmron
Bisboc
Douglnr
Hurchucl City
Sicm Viru
Tombstone
W1llcox
COCONINO
Fkptaff
Fredonia
Page
Wdhw
GILA
Globc
Hayden
Miami
a Payson
W~ nkelman
GRAHAM
Pi.
Safford
Thatcher
GREENLEE
CllAon
Duncan
U PA2
Parker
Q ~ r t u i l e
MARICOPA
Avondaic
Buckeye
carefree
Cave Cnek
Chandler
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Gila Bend
Gilbett
Olendrle
Goodycar
Guadalupt
Lilchficld Park
Mesa
Pundiue Vslky
Pcnrin
Phncnix
CA OF TOTAL CITIES BY COUiVTY
Quucn Crcck
Ss~ lttsdole
Sttrpnsc
Tanlrct
Tnlluon
Wickenhuq
Youngtown
MONA YE
Bulllrcnd City
Colorado City
Kingman
Lakc HIVRSUC ' iy
M VAJO
Holbruok
PinclopLnk~ idc
Show Low
Snowflake
Taybr
Winslow
PIMA
Mnmr
Or0 Volley
South Tuocnn
Two4
PINA L
Apache Junction
Carp Gmda
Coolidge
Eluy
F! omcr
Kcamy
Mammoth
Superior
SANTA CRbZ
Nopler
Patapnim
YA VAPAl
Camp V- rJe
Cllino Valley
Clarkdoie
Cn~ nnwood
Jcnbme
PrtrcoU
Pmscott V; rllay
Sdonn
Y LIMA
.% IIL uia
S\~ incn~) n
Wclllr~ n
Yulr~ n
AMOUNT
S 1 72,426
8,409.335
460.449
9,175,251
286.665
29 1,902
164,344
% OF TOTAL
0.094%
4.579%
0.25 1 A
4.996%
0.156%
0.159%
0.089%
( 1) Per an order from the Auditor General's Office, the distribution for Somerton was reduced by $ 1 12,597 for violation
of their Expenditwe Limitations in FY88 and N 90.
( 2) Per an order from the Auditor General's Office, the distribution for Wellton was reduced by $ 10,711 for violation of
their Expedturc Limitation in N90.
LOTTERY REVENUE SHARING
Distributed Lottery revenues consist of sales, license fees, and interests derived from the sale of Lottery
tickets less prizes paid, vendor commissions, and administrative expenses. The distribution of Lottery
revenues is detailed in a flowchart found on the next page. The flowchart shows that local governments
receive a significant share of these revenues through the Local Transportation Fund Assistance ( LTAF)
and the County Assistance Fund ( CAF).
By statute, the LTAF can receive up to $ 23,000,000 each fiscal year from revenues deposited in the
State Lottery Fund. Any incorporated city or town may apply to the Department of Transportation for
a share of these funds. Each city or town receives an amount in the proportion their population bears
to the total population of all applying cities, except a city or town is entitled to a minimum of $ 10,000.
The LTAF monies are mainly used for transportation purposes -- up to ten percent may be for cultural,
educational, historical, or other programs as described in A. R. S 8 28- 2603.
By statute, the CAF can receive up to $ 7,650,000 each fiscal year from revenues deposited in the State
Lottery Fund; however, for the past two years a session law has reduced the distribution to $ 7,468,000.
The reduction was taken from Maricopa and Pima counties' share of CAF monies, but is offset by
increased library grants. Rural counties still receive $ 7,150,455 of the total, while Maricopa and Pima
counties receive the remaining $ 317,545. For the rural counties the monies are divided equally -- in
FY 1993 these counties received $ 550,035 each. For FY 1993, Maricopa county received $ 156,953
and Pima county received $ 160,592.
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 8 -
LOTTERY REVENUE FLOWCHART -
Lottery Revenues
( Sales, Fees, Interest)
FY 1993: $ 259m
State Lottery Fund
Appropriations:
( 1) Expenses & Commissions
- Up to 20% of Sales
- Advertising up to 4% of Sales
( 2) Repayments to General Fund
( 3) Commerce & Econ Devt Fund
- At least 32.5% of sales from
2 special instant games
LTAF ($ 23M)
- Requesting Cities
- Allocated by population
County Assistance Fund( S7.468m)
( 1) Rural Counties: S7.150m; $ 0.550 ea
( 2) Maricopa: S0.157m
( 3) Pima: S0.161m
Heritage Fund ($ 20m)
( 1) State Parks: $ lorn
( 2) Game & Fish: $ 10m
State Lottery
Prize Fund
- Apx 47.5%
, J Prize
I Awards
I
f
1 Prize Fund
Prize CASA Fund
- 30% of UPF
.
General Fund
- State gets remaining
balance: FY 93 $ 38Am
TABLE E
DISTRIBUTION SlBMARY OF
VARIOUS REVENUE SOURCES
( S Millions)
Repared by: JLBC Staff
October 14, 1993
SALES TAX
D iCo ntrol
Counties:
Regulu
Rapty Tax Relief
Citica d Towns
Tourism Fund
Ret. insd by G e d Fund
TOTAL
FY 1990 FY 1991
INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE INCOME TAX
URBAN REVENUE SHARING
FY 1989
AMOUNT
3 . O
242.2
0.0
159.0
2.0
1391.0
17973
AMOUNT
3 . O
249.5
10.0
163.8
2.0
1442.3
1870.7
AMOUNT
3 . O
230.1
0.0
151.1
0.0
1340.8
1724.9
% CHANGE
0.0 96
5.3 %
-
5.2%
-
3.7%
4.2%
% CHANGE
0.0%
3.0%
-
3.0%
0.0%
3.7%
4.1%
FY 1992
CitiM d TOWM
R e W by G e n d Fund
TOTAL
% CHANGE
15.4%
10.4%
-
10.4%
-
7.3 %
8.0%
AMOUNT
3 . O
259.9
10.0
170.7
0.0
1498.3
1941.9
FY 1993
% CHANGE
0.0 %
4.2%
0.0%
4.2%
- 100.0%
3.9%
3.8%
AMOUNT
3 . O
280.8
0.0
184.3
0.0
1626.5
2094.6
FY 1989 FY 1990
LOTTERY
A CHANGE
0.0%
8.0%
- 100.0%
8.0 %
-
8.6%
7.9%
AMOUNT
150.6
1023.3
1173.9
AMOUNT
144.0
968.5
1112.4
FY 1991
% CHANGE
4.6%
5.7%
55%
% CHANGE
10.2%
10.9%
10.8%
Locd Tramp. Assist. Fund
Counties
Heritage Fund
Econ. Development
Retained by G e d Fund
TOTAL
AMOUNT
166.9
1268.0
1434.9
% CHANGE
10.8 %
23.9%
22.2%
FY 1992
FY 1989
FY 1993
AMOUNT
176.1
1272.4
14485
AMOUNT
23 . O
7.7
0.0
0.0
69.4
100.0
FY 1990
AMOUNT
183.7
1422.6
16063
% CHANGE
5.5 %
0.3 %
0.9%
FY 1991
% CHANGE
0.0 %
0.0%
-
-
101.2%
53.4%
AMOUNT
23 . O
7.7
0.0
3.1
79.0
112.7
FY 1992
% CHANGE
4.3 96
11.8%
10.9%
AMOUNT
23.5
7.7
11.8
2.4
42.8
88.1
FY 1993
96 CHANGE
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
13.8%
12.7%
AMOUNT
23 . O
7.7
20.0
6.6
35.2
92 5
% CHANGE
2.2%
0.0%
-
- 22.6%
- 45.8 %
- 21.8 %
AMOUNT
23 . O
7.5
20.0
4.2
38.4
93.1
% CHANGE
- 2.1 %
0.0%
69.5%
175.0%
- 17.8%
5.0%
A CHANGE
0.0%
- 2.6%
0.0%
- 36.4%
9.1 96
0.6%
COURT STATUTORY PROGRAMS
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 11 -
AGENCY: Superior Court
PROGRAM: Judgeships
Stututory Citation: A. R. S. $ 5 12- 121, 12- 128, and Article VI Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution
Program Description
Superior Court judges hear all types of cases except small claims, minor offenses, or violations of city codes and
ordinances. In addition, the Superior Court is responsible for supervising adults and juveniles who have been placed on
probation.
FY 1994 Funding
General Fund Countv Funds*
$ 6,100,900 $ 6,100,900
Pursuant to A. R. S. $ 12- 128, the state funds 50%, or $ 49,100, of the total salary of $ 98,200.
* The counties' amount is an estimate of only Personal Services and Employee Related Expenditures costs. The
counties' share would be higher, since the counties provide administrative support and office space.
Eligibility Cderia
Constitutionally, each county shall have at least 1 judge of the Superior Court. Additional judges are added based
upon population. Per county, the number of judgeships allowed shall not exceed 1 judge per 30,000 inhabitants or
until a majority fraction of 30,000 is met. For example, a county with a population of 45,001 can have 2
judgeships, but a county of 45,000 can have only 1 judgeship. Judgeships are added upon petition by the County
Board of Supervisors and the Governor's approval.
Current Population Statistics
FY 1994 Judgeships
In the last 3 years, additional funding has been provided for 13 new judgeships: 1 in FY 1994; 6 in FY 1993; and
6 in FY 1992. The Courts' FY 1995 budget request includes 1 new judgeship established in Mohave County during
FY 1994 and 4 planned to be established in FY 1995 ( 1 in Cochise County, 2 in Pima County and 1 in Pinal
County). Based on population projections for July 1, 1994 and July 1, 1995, 14 additional judgeships could
potentially be requested. Starting in FY 1994, the Legislature only funded judgeships that had been established
and did not provide funding for judgeships anticipated to be established.
BenefitsSenices
Provides the state's only general jurisdiction court.
Mandatory vs. Optional
Once requested by the County Board of Supervisors and approved by the Governor, the judgeships are
established and the state is mandated to provide funding.
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 12 -
AGENCY: Superior Court
PROGRAM: Adult Intensive Probation Supervision ( AIPS)
Statutory Citation: A. R. S. $ 9 13- 913 through 13- 920
Program Description
Provides 100% state funding to the county superior courts to implement a highly structured and closely supervised
probation program, which emphasizes surveillance, work andlor education, home detention and payment of
restitution. An option, when considered appropriate, is the placement of a probationer in the Department of
Corrections' Shock Incarceration Program as part of the offender's intensive probation. The AIPS program was
created to divert serious, non- violent adult offenders from prison.
FY 1994 Funding
General Fund
Eligibility Criteria
Any adult offender: 1) who has been sentenced for criminal offenses, or technical violations of probation that are
not criminal offenses after June 30, 1985; 2) whose conviction is a Class 2 or 3, or those whose felony is either
a Class 4, 5, or 6 or an undesignated felony and who would have been recommended for incarceration with the
Department of Corrections; 3) who is probation eligible; and 4) whose score is within the limits of the uniform risk
assessment method for intensive probation supervision. The risk assessment considers the nature of the offense,
prior criminal history, substantial probability that the offender will remain at liberty without violating the law, the
length of the potential prison sentence, the potential harm to the victim, the attitude of the victim toward placing
the offender on intensive probation, incarceration for deterrence, patterns of prior behavior, the offender's potential
for employability, payment of restitution, performance of community service, and any other considerations that are
appropriate.
To participate in this program, offenders are required: 1) to maintain work or school activities and community
service for at least 6 days per week; 2) to pay restitution and monthly probation fee; 3) to establish residency at a
place approved by the probation team; 4) to remain at their place of residence except to attend approved activities;
5) to allow administration of drug and alcohol tests; 6) to perform at least 40 hours of community service work each
month, except for full- time students who may be exempted or required to perform fewer hours; and 7) to meet any
other conditions set by the court.
Current Population Statistics
FY 1994 AIPS Slots
Benefits/ Services
The adult probation team maintains close supervision and observation of the participating offenders by seeing each
probationer weekly, monitoring work andlor school through contact with employer or school officials, verifying job
search, monitoring conduct through weekly arrest record checking, monitoring and enforcing community service
work requirements, monitoring and enforcing curfew, ensuring payment of court- ordered fees, and administering
drug and alcohol tests. The team also reassesses each probationer's behavior, determining the need for different
placement- either more stringent or less depending upon the probationer's behavior.
Average Cost per Probationer $ 4,500
Mandatory vs. Optional
To qualify for intensive probation an offender must meet all of the eligibility criteria as stated in statute. In
addition, probation team caseloads are mandated. A. R. S. $ 13- 916B requires that a 2person team shall supervise
no more than 25 probationers at one time and that a 3- person team shall supervise no more than 40 probationers
at one time. For FY 1994, the General Fund appropriation funds 8 state FIE positions and 323 county- hired
positions.
- -
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas
AGENCY: Superior Court
PROGRAM: Adult Probation Enhancement
Statutory Citation: A. R. S. $ 9 12- 251 and 12- 262 through 12- 265
Program Description
Establishes a statutory caseload ratio of adult probationers to probation officers of 60: 1 and creates the availability
of state funding to supplement county funds in order to achieve or maintain a 60: 1 average caseload ratio. The
state has provided supplemental funding for the past 8 years.
FY 1994 Funding
General Fund County Funds Probation Services Fees
$ 13,648,600 NIA* N/ A*
* The Administrative Office of the Courts is collecting this data.
Eligibility Criteria
Any county that requests to participate in receiving funds and submits an acceptable plan to the Supreme Court and
needs supplemental funding to achieve and maintain the statutorily established average caseload ratio of 60: 1. The
funding must be used primarily for payment of salaries.
Current Population Statistics
FY 1994 Probationers
Benefits/ Services
The Supreme Court's Administration Office of the Courts provides statewide administrative assistance through 8
FIE positions. The remainder of the W i g goes to the counties, out of which 392 county- hired positions are
funded in order to attain an average caseload of 60: 1. Of these regular probationers, 90% or more are felony
offenders who without the probation program would be incarcerated in the Department of Corrections.
Average Cost per Probationer $ 650
Mandatory vs. Optional
The caseload ratio is statutorily mandated in A. R. S. 1 12- 251. Fundiig is predicated on the number of probation
officers needed to meet an average caseload ratio of 60: 1, based on the upcoming year's estimated number of
offenders who will be on probation.
- - - -
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas
AGENCY: Superior Court
PROGRAM: Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision ( JIPS)
Statutory Citation: A. R. S. QQ 8- 271 through 8- 278
Program Description
Provides 100% state funding to the county superior courts to implement a highly structured and closely supervised
juvenile probation program, which emphasizes surveillance, treatment, work, education and home detention. The
program was created to divert serious, non- violent juvenile offenders from incarceration or residential care and to
provide intensive supervision for high risk offenders on regular probation.
N 1994 Funding
General Fund
Eligibility Criteria
Any juvenile who: 1) has been adjudicated for delinquent acts or violations of probation originating from a
delinquent act; 2) would otherwise have been recommended for commitment to the Department of Youth,
Treatment, and Rehabilitation, or an out- of- home institutional placement; and 3) based upon nature of the offense,
prior delinquent history, needs, and risk to community, are in need of a highly structured program and close
supervision.
In addition, the juveniles are required: 1) to participate in 1 or more of the following for 32 hours per
week-- school, court- ordered treatment, employment, or community service; 2) if able, to pay required court- ordered
fees; 3) to remain at a place of residence, except as allowed and approved by the supervising probation officer; 4)
to allow administration of drug and alcohol tests; and 5) to meet any other conditions set by the court.
Current Popul&' on Stah'stics
FY 1994 JIPS Slots
Benefit/ Services
For the court- ordered time period, the juvenile probation team maintains close supervision and observation of the
participating juveniles by seeing each probationer weekly, monitoring school attendance and performance, assisting
in employment activities, closely monitoring participation in court- ordered treatment, arranging and providing
supervision of community service work, and ensuring, when probationer is able, payment of court- ordered fees.
The team reassesses each probationer's behavior determining the need for different placement- either more stringent
or less depending upon the probationer's behavior.
Average Cost per Probationer $ 5,400
Mandatory vs. Optional
To qualify for intensive probation a juvenile must meet all of the eligibility criteria stated in statute. In addition,
probation team caseloads are mandated. A. R. S. Q 8- 273( B) requires that a 2- person team shall supervise no more
than 25 juveniles at one time and that a 3- person team shall supervise no more than 40 juveniles at one time. For
FY 1994 the General Fund appropriation funds 7 state FTE positions and 94 county- hired positions.
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 15 -
AGENCY: Superior Court
PROGRAM: Juvenile Probation State Aid
Statutory Citation: A. R. S. $ 5 8- 203 and 12- 262 through 12- 265
Rogmm Description
Provides funding to Superior Courts for maintaining, expanding, or improving juvenile probation services. Pursuant
to a Supreme Court administrative requirement, a minimum of 80% of the funds allocated to each Superior Court
must be used to fund the salaries and employee- related expenditures of probation officers supervising juveniles on
probation to the Superior Court. Currently, all county juvenile courts, except Pinal County, participate in this
program. Pinal County wishes to begin participating in FY 1995.
FY 1994 Funding
General Fund
$ 1,694,000
Countv Funds
NIA*
* The Administrative Office of the Courts is gathering this information.
Eligibility Cdeeria
Any county that requests to participate and submits an acceptable plan to the Supreme Court and needs supplemental
funding to achieve and maintain a client to probation officer ratio of 35: 1, which is the suggested ratio in A. R. S.
8- 203B. The funding must be used primarily for payment of salaries.
Current Population Statistics State Funded Countv Funded - Total
FY 1994 Probationers 2,000 5, ooo 7, c" 30
BenefitsServices
The Supreme Court's Administration Office of the Courts provides statewide administrative assistance through 1
F'E position. The remainder of the funding goes to the counties, out of which 46 county- hired positions are
funded.
Average Cost per Probationer $ 300
Mandatory vs. Optional
The caseload ratio is suggested in A. R. S. 5 8- 203B. In several counties, the ratio of probationers to probation
officers is higher than the suggested 35: 1.
Interim Committee on Statutory Funding Formulas - 16-