Parts o f this publication appeared in "Arkansas and Arizona: Reforming Troubled
Youth Corrections Systems" publzshed by the Centerfor the Study of Youth Policy;
June, 1992. Many people corztributed the language used in various Commission and
Task Force publications, sonze of which is contained in this booklet.
Additional copies may be obtained by contacting:
Arizona Department of Youth Treatment und Rehabilitation
1624 West Adams, Room 302
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 542-3987
Typesetting and Design by: Stephen R. Anderson
Printed: June, 1993
Table of Contents
Forward
A Lawsuit Points The Way ................................................................................... 1
The Early Years .................................................................................................3.. .
Response To The Lawsuit ..................................................................................5. .
Select Commission Created .................................................................................. 6
Commission Findings .......................................................................................7.. ..
Commission Recommendations ..........................................................................9.
Task Force Created .........................................................................................1..1..
Defining "Least Restrictive Environment" .......................................................1..2
Legislation To Reflect The New Direction .......................................................1. 3
Overview Of H.B. 2326 ...................................................................................1.3..
Task Force Continued ..................................................................................1. 4
New Director Hired .........................................................................................1..4.
Partnership Formed ..........................................................................................1..4.
Another Look At Committed Youth .................................................................1..5
Consent Decree Negotiated ..............................................................................1..5
Consent Decree Components ............................................................................1..5
Committee To Monitor Compliance ..................................................................1. 7
Governor Makes Commitment ........................................................................1..8.
Challenges Remain ..........................................................................................1..8.
Public Policy Must Be Well Thought Out ..............................................1. 8
Due Process Rights Must Be Protected ..................................................1. 9
Questions Remain Unanswered ..............................................................1.9
References .....................................................................................................2...1..
Appendix A .....................................................................................................2..2..
Appendix B .....................................................................................................2..3..
Appendix C ....................................................................................................2..4.. .
Appendix D ......................................................................................................2..9.
Appendix E .....................................................................................................3..0..
Appendix F ......................................................................................................3..1.
Forward
Jan The intent of this publication is to describe Arizona's reform
christian process over the last three and one half years. My hope is that it will be
of assistance to professionals in other states, and more importantly, that
it will serve to remind us of our own beginnings. It has been an honbr and
an inspiration to work with Bill Jamieson, Mike Hawkins, and Dinky
Snell as well as with Commission and Task Force members who have
worked so hard to improve Arizona's system. They can be proud of
being part of an effort which resulted in the most comprehensive
research ever conducted on Arizona's committed youth, a set of recom-mendations
that established a new direction, omnibus legislation that
reflected that new direction, and the selection of a ncw director to
implement that new direction. It is my hope that, having come this far,
we will not let the reform falter.
.Iohnson v. Upchurch forced Arizona to face the shortcomings of A'ice W' our juvenile justice system and to do something about them. It is sad, but
true, that many reforms are backed into, especially those which are
costly and affect a segment of the population it is easier lo regard as
someone else's problem.
The separdtion of adult and juvenile corrections, the creation ofthe
Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation, the successful
search for a director for that new agency who would strive to make the
name reflect the tivth of what the mission of the agency would be, all of
these things are positives grown out of a negative.
The Governor's Commission on Juvenile Correclions came up
with 42 recommendations for reform. The Governor's Task Force on
Juvenile Corrections was then put in place to oversee the implementa-tion
of those recommendations. The people who served on the Cominis-sion,
many of whom also served on the Task Force, are a remarkable
group of dedicated, knowledgeable human beings, and a resource the
State of Arizona has been most fortunate to have. That description also
fits those who later brought their special talents to the Task Force.
The self-effacing leadership of our Executive Director, Jan Chris-tian,
has been invaluable. She possesses a depth of concern for the
students DYTR serves, as well as thorough familiarity with how the
system has worked, is working and should be expected to work as the
Consent Decree is implemented.
It has been a privilege to serve as Chairman of the Task Force for
the past two years. 1 am proud of the progress which has been made by
the Department, and the part the Task Force has played in that progress.
The task is not completed, though thc Task Force will cease to exist on
June 30 of this year. Continued interest andvigilance will be required on
the part of individuals and groups to keep the reform on track. I have
every confidence that the people I have corne to admire so much during
our association at this initial phase are up to the challenge and I will be
pleased to work with them to meet the challenge.
Arizona's Troubled Youth:
A New Direction
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
A Lawsuit On April 6, 1986, Matthew Davey Johnson, then a resi-
Points The dent of Catalina Mountain Juvenile Institution (CMJI) north
Way * of Tucson, filed a civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court,
naming then Superintendent James Upchurch as defendant.
The suit alleged that Johnson's constitutional rights had been
violated. Matt Johnson had been committed to the Depart-ment
of Corrections (DOC) on September 10 of the previous
year and had been incarcerated since his commitment. Much
of his incarceration was spent in Yucca Cottage isolation,
including 50 consecutive days on "motivational hold", a
program developed by James Upchurch. In a previous letter to
the agency, Matthew's father had called the cottage "a house
of horrors".
Grace Mcllvain, Johnson's appointed attorney, arranged
for the participation of the National Center for Youth Law, an
advocacy organization based in San Francisco. Shortly there-after,
Johnson's complaint was amended to include a class
action for injunctive relief on behalf of all CMJI residents. The
class action sought a court order that the Department of
Corrections eliminate a number of practices alleged to be
unconstitutional. Named as defendants were the Director of
the Department of Corrections, the Assistant Director for
Juvenile/Community Services, and the Superintendent of
Catalina Mountain Juvenile Institution.
On July 29, 1987, the Court certified a class in Johnson v.
Upchurch, consisting of all juveniles incarcerated in Catalina
Mountain Juvenile lnstitution on or after the date of class
certification, except any juveniles who elected not to partici-pate.
Certification allowed the action to go forward.
The plaintiff class alleged that the Department of Correc-tions
violated the constitutional rights of juveniles in several
areas: disciplinary practices, particularly the use of isolation
and conditions in the isolation unit; use of handcuffs and
shackling; rehabilitative care and treatment; medical care;
educational programming; inappropriate placement, evalua-tion
and classification; visitation, correspondence and access
to counsel; and parole revocation procedures.
* For an overview ol significant dates in the lit~gationp rocess, see Appendix A
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Throughout 1987 and 1988, the plaintiffs engaged in
extensive pretrial discovery, including tours of the facility by
expert witnesses retained by plaintiffs, the deposition of over
40 DOC employees, the review of thousands of pages of logs
and journals at Catalina Mountain, and the review of over
15,000 pages of other documents.
At the Court's direction, plaintiffs' counsel submitted a
268-page document with additional extensive appendices
simply called "CMJI Proof of Facts". The document began by
describing the juvenile justice system in Arizona as a "system
run amuck" and attacked virtually every aspect of institu-tional
life at CMJI. Disciplinary practices and procedures, for
example, were described as "arbitrary and cruel".
The following quotes are from that document:
The disciplinaiy systenz at CMJI is nzuch like the
disciplinaly systems in the adult institutions operated
by the defiiulunts, except the adult institutions are better.
Defendants do not consider Yucca Cottage a treatment
cottage nor do they use it to isolate juveniles who
constitute a serious and imminent threat to themselves
and other,s. Instead, they use it to punish residents
who have violated, or who have been accused qf
violating, institutional rules; to tempol-arily confine
new adnzissions; to temporarily confine parole
violator-s; to conjirze residents who are considered
I-isksfo r, suicide; and for medical quarantine.
DefendantSanz Lewis couldnot identrjj any sigrzificant
differences between Yucca Cottage cells and cells in
(.ell block6 atFlorence Prison which hou.sesArizona's
Death Row.
The cells in Yucca Cottage are 8 112 feet square.
Defendants c o n j k juveniles as young as 11 years
old in these cells foi-24 hours a day with nothing to do.
Defendants do not pmvide then7 with education,
counseling, exel-cise or recreation. They get no reading
material. They eat all qftheir meals in their cells.
Defendants know that juveniles confined in Yucca
Cottage have cut themselves, hanged themselves,
drunkpoison, banged their heads andjists against the
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
walls, thrown feces, urine, blood, andfood, swallowed
screws, and engaged in other bizarre behavior. Yet
defendants have not analyzed the patterns qf Yucca
Cottage confinement and the lengths of stay.
Because of the high incidence of attempted hangings
in Yucca Cottage, Yucca staffbegan wearing scissors
on their belts in late 1987.
According to the document, the "heart of the problem"
was that the same agency ran both the adult prisons and the
juvenile institutions. There were many advocates in Arizona
who agreed. Correctional philosophy and case law suggest
different missions for adult and juvenile corrections. The
administrative responsibility for both of these functions being
vested in a single department rendered the juvenile system
fiscally, philosophically, and programmatically subservient
to the adult system.
In 1966, Justice Abe Fortas had written in Kent v. United
States that "... there is evidence, in fact, that the child receives
the worst of both worlds in the Juvenile Court; that he gets
neither the protection afforded to adults nor the solicitous
care and regenerative treatment postulated for children." This
assessment was consistent with the decision issued not long
after in the landmark due process case, In Re Gault, which had
its roots in Arizona's own Gila County. It appeared to some
Arizonans that not much progress had been made in the
twenty years between the words of Abe Fortas and the lawsuit
filed by Matthew Davey Johnson.
The Early Arizona's juvenile institutions had been managed by a
years Board of Control until being assigned to a newly-created
Department of Corrections in 1968. In 1970, there were
approximately 900 juvenile institutional beds in Arizona. In
1980, there were approximately 350 beds. Much of the bed
reduction could be attributed to the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 which sought to
exclude status offenders from correctional institutions, and to
the Hoover decision in 1979 (ARS 41-1608 Amended) that
reduced the jurisdiction from 21 to 18 years of age.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
The early 80s were watershed years. In 1983, the Arizona
Legislature issued findings and policy guidelines with an
unmistakable tone. The legislature found that the "deterrence
of juvenile crime can be best achieved by instituting strict rules
and policies . . ." and suggested that "loss of freedom ... must
be meaningful" (Arizona Laws: 1983, Ch. 257, Section I.
Supplementary Pamphlet. Title 8, p. 503). The legislature
mandated a full day of physical labor for incarcerated youth
and mandated length of confinement guidelines based on the
adult criminal code. As a reflection of this changing public
policy, Arizona's institutionalized population began to rise
dramatically. From 1981 until the time the class action lawsuit
was filed, the institutionalized juvenile population rose by
99%. The adult prison population experienced similar growth.
Both systems saw an increase in the numbers of less serious
and less violent offenders being incarcerated (Arizona Depart-ment
of Corrections Data Handbook, 1988).
By 1989, Arizona had 844 secure correctional beds for
juveniles in 5 facilities. Adobe Mountain Juvenile Institution
(AMJI) with 376 beds for males and Black Canyon Juvenile
Institution (BCJI) with 120 beds for females were north of
Phoenix. Catalina Mountain Juvenile Institution (CMJI) with
168 beds for males, and the site of the litigation, was north of
Tucson. The Pinal Mountain Juvenile Institution (PMJI), ap-proximately
100 miles east of Phoenix, had 140 beds for males
and the Alamo Juvenile Institution (AJI) located on the grounds of
the Arizona State Hospital had 40 beds for emotionally disturbed
males. It was apparent that the wild fluctuations in the number of
secure beds for committed youth in Arizona was not related to
crime rates or population size, but rather to public policy.
There was growing concern among advocates that the
juvenile system was falling victim to the ever-increasing needs
of the adult system. Private providers were able to have "Pur-chase
of Care" funds assigned to a separate line item in an
attempt to protect community-based options. According to
former State Senator Jacque Steiner, this was seen as a "huge
breakthrough" at the time. It was clear, however, that adult correc-tions
continued to be funded at the expense of juvenile corrections.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Advocates were also concerned by the increasing opera-tional
and philosophical similarities between adult and juve-nile
corrections. In 1985, Sam Lewis became Director of the
Department of Corrections. Under his supervision, in keeping
with the direction established by the legislature, many steps
were taken to make the two more alike. Administrative,
security, and program staff were encouraged to transfer back
and forth between adult and juvenile institutions. The hiring
and training process was identical for the different institu-tions.
Newly hired employees went through a 240-hour Acad-emy
during which they were exposed to 40 hours of weapons
training and 4 hours on the subject of adolescents. Uniformed
security guards were placed in the juvenile institutions and
juvenile residents were required to wear uniforms.
It was into this system that Matthew Davey Johnson was
placed, and it was in response to this system that the class
action suit was filed.
Response The State retained private attorneys Ronald Lebowitz and
T~ ~h~ Louis Goodman to defend the State in the Johnson v. Upchurch
Lawsuit case. The defendants then began to reexamine Arizona's entire
juvenile corrections system in light of applicable case law.
The question of whether an incarcerated delinquent
juvenile had a constitutional right to treatment had been
addressed by a number of the Circuit Courts of Appeals,
including the Ninth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Ari-zona.
In every jurisdiction that has considered the issue, the
court's analysis begins with the notion that juvenile court
proceedings are civil, not criminal. Juveniles are not convicted
of crimes in juvenile courts; rather, they are found to be
delinquent, and delinquency is considered a condition. The
various circuit courts have concluded that delinquency, like
mental illness or retardation, must be treated-not pun-ished-
when it is the basis for incarceration.
In April, 1988 the lawsuit was amended to compel compli-ance
with federal law mandating special education for handi-capped
youth and the State Board of Education and State
Superintendent of Public Instruction were added as defendants.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Litigation was to help accomplish in Arizona what advo-cates
alone had been unable to do. During the early months of
1989, private counsel met with the defendants, legislative
leadership, and Governor Rose Mofford. On May 17, 1989,
Governor Mofford wrote Judge Richard Bilby of the United
States District Court to inform him of her intent to appoint a
Commission "to review the juvenile correctional system in
Arizona, and develop a plan that is in accordance with
presently recognized law". She also expressed the support of
her administration for Senate Bill 1034, which would separate
juvenile from adult corrections, creating the Arizona Depart-ment
of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). It would also create a
separate school system requiring North Central Association
accreditation by 1995*. In recognition of these efforts, the
Court postponed the trial of Jolohrzson v. Upchurch to give
Arizona the opportunity to establish a new direction and plan
for juvenile corrections. Senate Bill 1034 was signed into law
on June 23, 1989.
Select Governor Mofford issued Executive Order 89-22 on Sep-
~ ~ tember 2~2, creating a~ Select Commiission on J~uvenile Corr~ec- Created tions. The 23-member Commission (see Appendix B) was
chaired by Bill Jamieson, the former Director of the Depart-ment
of Administration and the Department of Economic
5ecurity. At the time of his appointment, Mr. Jamieson was
working as a political consultant and was serving as a Deacon
with the l.,piscopal Diocese in Phoenix.
By the time of the first Commission meeting on Novem-ber
6, Commission staff had already begun researching similar
efforts in other states. Contacts were made with juvenile
justice professionals in Alabama, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia,
Oregon, and Texas, as well as with over a dozen consultants,
associations, and foundations. Everyone contacted was willing
to share research, information, and suggestions related to
process and to direction.
The C:ommission had just over six months to issue its
report. During the first two months, members had the oppor-tunity
to hear from national juvenile justice professionals
regarding trends in juvenile justice, to review case law and
details of the Johnson v. Upchurch case and to learn about
-- " The Arisona chapter of Lhc American Astociation of U n ~ v e r ~W~ toym cn (AAUW)
actively advocated for Lhi, component.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
current programs, policies, and practices in Arizona. Members
toured correctional and private provider programs and facilities
in Arizona. A delegation also went to Utah to tour facilities and
to learn about Utah's reform process.
At the third meeting, Richard Gable, of the National
Center for Juvenile Justice, facilitated a discussion regarding
the mission of juvenile corrections. Members identified 26
items as being important to the success of juvenile corrections.
These items were consolidated into a rough draft for consider-ation
by the members at the fourth meeting in February.
During this time, areas in need of further research were
identified and research was begun.
In February and March, Public Hearings were held in
Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma, and Flagstaff so that members could
hear regional concerns and solicit recommendations. Over
145 people attended the hearings, with 54 people giving
testimony and many others submitting written testimony. At
the March meeting of the Commission, members were given
an Executive Summary of the hearings as well as recommen-dations
from the hearings, legal findings and Commission
findings. A mission statement was approved and recommen-dations
began to be formalized. It was clear that the Commis-sion
recognized the need to differentiate between adults and
juveniles and was committed to a "least restrictive environ-ment"
philosophy.
Commission In April, preliminary research findings were presented.
~ i ~ dInitiial f~indin~gs v~erifi ed what the Commission members had
been hearing over the last few months. Once the research was
consolidate^, an interesting perspective on commitment
emerged. For example, only 15.1% of committed youth had ever
been adjudicated for a violent offense (see Appendix C, Table 2).
In addition, considerable variations across couilties on a
variety of delinquency history indicators were identified (see
Appendix C, Tables 1-3).
On the average, juveniles committed from Pima
and the smaller counties had longer delinquent
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
histories than Maricopa County commits. Addi-tionally,
the referral and adjudication histories of
juveniles from Pima and the smaller counties were
typically more extensive.
Maricopa County juveniles were also significantly
more likely to have fewer petition adjudications for
delinquent offenses (two or less) than youth com-mitted
froni Pima and the smaller counties.
The most serious adjudication for Maricopa County
youth was significantly less likely to be for a major
(class 2 or 3') felony offense.
Fernales were much more likely to be committed for less
serious offenses (see Appendix C, Tables 4-6).
Females, on the average, were referred to the juve-nile
court somewhat more frequently than males
but this pattern was reversed when only delin-quent
referrals were considered.
Females were significantly more likely to have
fewer petition adjudications for delinquent of-tenses
(two or less) than males.
The most serious adjudication for females was
significantly less likely to be for a major (class 2 or
3) felony offense.
Female? were rignificantly less likely than males to
have been placed on intensive probation at some
time prior to commitment.
The types of services received by the commitment popula-tion
and the frequency with which these services were pro-vided
varied considerably (see Appendix C, Table 7).
Youth from Pima County were much more likely
than youth frorn Maricopa County to receive day
support services or residential treatment services
prior to commitment.
Juveniles from Pirna County were more likely to
-' No- you th was comn~ittedin 1'189 for a Felony I .
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
receive program services prior to commitment than
youth from other counties.
Substantial differences between Pima and the smaller
counties were revealed in all five service areas.
Minority youth were less likely to receive services prior to
commitment (see Appendix C, Table 8).
Anglo youth were more than three times as likely
to have been hospitalized prior to commitment
than minority juveniles and almost twice as likely
to have been placed in residential treatment.
Anglo youth were more likely than minority youth
to receive counseling services.
Arizona had no commitment guidelines other than to
restrict commitment to youth who had been adjudicated
delinquent. In spite of the diversity of the youth, state law
required that all committed youth be incarcerated.
Commission After conducting a total of seven meetings, the Commis-
Rmommendations sion issued its Report to the Governor.
The Report condemned overlapping the roles of the child
welfare system and juvenile corrections:
Children who are neglected, abused, dependent, and
mentally 01, rmotionally handicapped need services, but
they should not be committed to the correctional system
unless their behavior puts their communities at risk. They
should not have to wait for meaningful intervention until
their needs become so overwhelming aid complex that
they are droppedat the doorstep ofjuvenile corrections out
of sheer fiustrution or because they have, in fact,finally
become a danger to their cc~mmunities.
"I have seen too many children adjudicated
delinquent as a direct or indirect result of mental
health, educationalandlor dependency needs which
were not met.''
(Karen Santoro, attorney; in public hearing testimony, 1990)
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
The Commission's Report emphasized the importance of
reclaiming the vision of the juvenile court system in America:
In Arizona, the juvenile correctional system is based
on the adult correctional model, emphasizing control
and de-emphasizing rehahilitative treatment. This
enzphasis on pzinishment and control is inconsistent
with the mission of the Arizona juvenileQustice system.
The Report condemned Arizona's over-reliance on insti-tutionalization:
Arizona has a responsibility to protect the public
from youth who present a threat to public safety. The
State also has a responsibzlity to objectively assess
the eff'ectiveness of existing institutional programs
undplacementpo1icie.s. Secure institutions, one of the
most costly of alternatives, are curently used for all
committed youth regardless of their treatmeizt needs or
delinquent y lzistory. Such a practice is not consistent
with individualized treutn~enot r fiscal responsibility.
The Commission clearly recognized that some youth
require secure care, but questioned the ability of Arizona's
institutions to meet their needs:
There is no doubt that there are young people in
Arizona who have clearly demonstrated that they
present a threat to public well-being. Because ofthe
severity oftheir ofenses, nzany of these youth nzust he
confined to a secure setting fir intensely supervised
treatment. The overall operation and daily schedule
do not al~1uysp romote treatment. In addition, the
size, structure, and overall design of the current
juvenile institutions do not reflect or promote a
treatment-oriented environment. The Comnzission
believes that present institutions should be smaller
and that juveniles should he housed in individual
rooms where appropriate.
'(The fact is, vast impersonal institutions are
incapable of responding to a juvenile's real crisis in
his actual environment, showing him alternatives
within his real-world terrain, tailoring programs
that respond to his individual needs. I am sure you
Task Force
Created
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
have experiencedalso that human behavioralchange
does not occur at arm's length. It occurs within
arms' embrace.''
(A1 Ro\en, A\\l\t,lnt Ch~ePt ~obatronO tt~ierM, ohdve County, In publ~c
he'irlng tejtlmony 1990)
Small, treatment-oriented, regionally based institutions
were recommended for youth who demonstrated a threat to
public safety. A continuum of community-based services was
proposed to serve the diverse needs of committed youth.
Issues such as minority over-representation, family involve-ment,
and staff training were also addressed by the 42 recom-mendation
s. The final recommendation was for the creation of a
Task Force to ensure implementation of the recommendations.
Governor Kose Mofford quickly appointed private attor-ney
Michael D. Hawkins, formerly a U.S. Attorney, to chair the
twenty member Task Force (see Appendix D). Some weeks
earlier, Bill Jamieson and Jan Christian, Executive Consultant
to the Commission, had discussed Arizona's reform efforts
with Ira Schwartz and Russ Van Vleet of the Center for the
Study of Youth Policy (CSYP). Mr. Jamieson and Ms. Christian
had initially agreed that Arizona needed the opportunity to
establish its own direction. Once Arizona had clearly articu-lated
a direction, however, it appeared that CSYP would have
valuable resources to offer the state. Mr. Hawkins agreed and
invited CSYP to participate in Arizona's reform process.
On July 1, 1990, the Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections (ADJC) was formed. Carol Hurtt, who had super-vised
juvenile corrections when it was a division of adult
corrections, was named as Director. On July 31, just over three
years after the court certified a class in Johnson v. Upchurch, the
Task Force held its first meeting.
With a gubernatorial election on the horizon, the make-up
and future of the Task Force was uncertain. Its role and
scope was also somewhat unclear. The Task Force, however,
began work related to the Commission recommendations.
Much of the work was assigned to Committees.
Defining
"Least
Restrictive
Environment"
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
The Secure Care Committee was charged with
operationalizing the concept of "least restrictive environ-ment"
by establishing objective confinement criteria to assess
"risk to public safety". Wayne Stewart, Juvenile Division Chief
of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, served as Chair.
Other members were: Ernesto Garcia, the Director of Court
Services for the Maricopa County Juvenile Court, David Quantz,
the Juvenile Division Supervisor in the Pima CountyAttorneyls
Office, Jack Rose, a community college faculty member and
former police chief, Dan Flores, a private businessman, A1
Rosen, the Assistant Chief Probation Officer inMohave County,
Linda Scott, a Juvenile Court Judge in Maricopa County,
Barbara Cerepanya, a Deputy Public Defender in Maricopa
County, and Carol Hurtt, Director of ADJC. With the help of
Robert Ortega from CSYP and Gregg Halemba, who had
conducted the research for the Commission, Committee mem-bers
identified factors that would be taken into account.
Referrals, petitions and adjudications were all weighted, with
adjudications weighted most heavily. The major factors se-lected
were: the age at which the youth first entered the
system, the seriousness of offense, the number of offenses in
the past year, and the number of offenses on record. Also
considered in the scoring were substance abuse, school atten-dance,
and probation history.
By weighting these factors and assigning scores to indiv-iduals,
the Committee was able to look at the 1989 database in
a new way. Of the 889 newly-committed youth who were
automatically incarcerated in 1989, the Committee agreed
that only 204 fell into the "high threat" category of the Secure
Care Criteria Index. As a result, the Committee unanimously
recommended an initial cap of 450 secure beds for Arizona
with the understanding that the number could be further
reduced by developing an array of alternatives for youth, an
evaluation system not requiring secure care and a system for
conditional release revocation to better protect the constitu-tional
rights of youth. The members acknowledged that
successful reduction of secure beds would only occur if effec-tive
community-based programs were developed. They rec-ommended
that funding should follow the youth in order for
this to occur.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Legislation
To Reflect
The New
Direction
Overview Of
H.B. 2326
The Legislative Committee, chaired by businessman Dan
Flores, began work on an ambitious omnibus bill to revamp
the juvenile corrections statutes. Their intent was to create
legislation to reflect an emphasis on accountability and treat-ment
rather than punishment. House Bill 2326 was intro-duced
in the 1991 legislative session with support from
Governor Mofford. Representative Dave McCarroll was one of
the primary legislative sponsors of the bill, which enjoyed bi-partisan
support. Due to the need for a run-off election, Governor
Symington did not take office until the session was underway. He
was, however, quick to show his support for HB 2326.
House Bill 2326 passed in the 1991 legislative session and
was signed into law by Governor Symington. It changed the
name of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
(ADJC) to the Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabili-tation
(DYTR) to reflect the new direction.
It mandated:
A diagnostic psychological evaluation and educa-tional
assessment for each youth (941-2815).
Development of an individual treatment plan for
each youth (341-2815).
Development of Length of Stay Guidelines (consis-tent
with public safety considerations) setting forth
minimum and maximum review dates (941-281 6).
A system of community-based programs (541-281 7).
* Secure care for youth who pose a threat to public
safety and for chronic offenders who cannot be
controlled in a less secure setting (341-2816).
* Protection of the due process rights of youth in the
revocation of conditional liberty (341-2819).
Intergovernmental agreements between DYTR, the
Department of Health Services and the Depart-ment
of Economic Security specifying procedures
for sharing funding expertise and training oppor-tunities
to better serve mentally ill and develop-mentally
disabled youth (341-2821).
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Task Force In spite of taking office in the midst of the legislative
Continued session, Governor Symington placed a high priorityon the Task
Force. By assigning Charline Franz, his Special Assistant for
Human Resources, as liaison to the Department of Juvenile
Corrections and to the Task Force, the Governor indicated
clearly that youth in the correctional system were to be viewed
as troubled children in need of services. Mr. Hawkins, who
resigned to give Governor Symington the opportunity to make
his own appointment, was replaced by Alice W. Snell, a woman
active in Arizona civic and community affairs for 35 years.
On May 15, Governor Symington issued an Executive
Order continuing the Task Force. The order clearly delineated
the responsibilities of the Task Force and clarified that the
Executive Director (formerly the Executive Consultant) would
serve at the Governor's pleasure. The make-up of the Task
Force was changed somewhat (see Appendix E), but most of
the original members continued to serve.
New Following Carol Hurtt's departure in the summer of 1991,
~ i Gov~ernor S~ymingto~n askedt the Ta~sk Force~ to con duct a
Hired national search for a new Director of DYTR. Ms. Snell formed
an ad hoc Search Committee to do just that. She sought an
ethnic and gender balance, and both urban and rural represen-tation.
From the Task Force membership, she selected Raner
Collins, a presiding juvenile court judge, Dave Hedgcock, the
director of a not-for-profit adolescent residential treatment
center, Daniel Flores, aprivate businessman, Barbara Cerepanya,
a deputy public defender, Ann Stanton, a law professor, Al
Rosen, an assistant chief probation officer, and David Quantz,
a chief deputy county attorney. Ms. Snell chaired the ad hoc
Committee. The Committee strongly recommended the ap-pointment
of John R. Arredondo, from the Texas Youth Com-mission.
Governor Symington quickly appointed Mr.
Arredondo, who became Director on December 3, 1991.
Partnership Following Mr. Arredondo's appointment, the Task Force
~~~~~d began to enjoy a true partnership with the Department for the
first time. Mr. Arredondo moved quickly to develop a Five Year
Plan taking care to incorporate most of the original Commis-sion
recommendations.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Another In conjunction with the Secure Care Committee, DYTR
Look At revised the original Secure Care Criteria lndex and adopted a
Committed Guideline for the Use of Secure Care (See Appendix F) to create
Youth a common language in order to begin discussions aimed at
reaching a consensus on the use of secure care. Length of
Program Guidelines were also adopted. Initial research using
the Guideline demonstrated that the diversity evident in re-search
on the 1989 commitment population still held true in
1992". Of the 254 youth committed between May 15 and
August 15 of 1992, 57% scored "low", 31% scored "medium"
and only 12% scored "high". As before, youth committed from
rural counties were more likely to score "high" and females were
still much more likely than males to score "low" (90% versus
53%). It was clear that if the proposed Guideline for the Use of
Secure Care and the Length of Programming Guidelines were
implemented, the original 450 bed cap would provide enough
secure beds to hold youth scoring "medium" for an average of
six months and youth scoring "high" for an average of nine
months, and still provide 189 beds for youth returning to secure
facilities due to lack of success in the community.
Consent
Decree
Negotiated
With new leadership in place, the state began to explore
the possibility of negotiating a consent decree in the Johnson
v. Upchurch lawsuit. Not satisfied with the initial consent
decree draft prepared by the state, Task Force members drafted
their own proposal and submitted it to the state. The docu-ment
submitted to the Court by the attorneys for the plaintiffs
and defendants contained much of the language from the
Task Force version. OnMarch 25,1993, Judge Bilby conducted
a Fairness Hearing on the proposed consent decree. He indi-cated
that he would be making some changes to the document
and that the parties could either sign the decree or a court date
would be set. Both parties agreed to the revised decree and it
was formally entered on May 5.
Consent The Consent Decree language clearly reflects the
D~~~~~ Commission's Report to the Governor, House Bill 2326, and
Components the Task Force's version of the Consent Decree.
* Debbie Willis, with the Center for the Study of Youth Policy, assistcd in the analysis of
the data..
15
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Section 1V 1(A) is a good example:
The principle which shall guide the Department in its
decisions regal-ding out-of-home placement of
delinquent youtlz is that every youth conznzitted to the
custody of the Departnzerzt has a right to reczive
individualized care and treatment in the least
restrictive setting consisterzt with the youth's needs
and tlze protection of the public. The presumption
shall be that each youth's best itzterests are served by
renzaining in his or her home community ~.~itl?
izecessary sen~ic,e.sprovided there, provided that the
youtlz poses no undue risk to the c,omnzunity. The
Department shall c.ontinue its ejforts to develop urzd
inzplenzent a plan to work with conznzitting cocrrts to
ilzcrease community based services for youth not
appropriate for secure cure.
Section VI 1 is also consistent with the work of the
Commission and Task Force:
The goal which shall guide the Department in the
adnzinistration of its secure institutions is to provide
a safe, humane, urzd caring environnzmt,for youth
and access to rzeeded services that will contribute to
izornzul growth and de~~elopnzrvzTt.h e Departnzent
recognizes the inzportance of involving a youth'sjbmily
in rehabilitative c;fjorts and .slzall nzaintain pr-ogram
conzponents arzdjlexibility irz visitation to encourage
fbnzilies to visit and participate in treatment.
The Consent l>ecree requires DYTR to:
Conduct a diagnosticreview for each committed youth.
Use a standardized, objective classification or risk
assessment instrument as the basis for determining
the appropriate level of restrictiveness.
Llmit the use of secure care to youth who pose a
threat to public safety, or who have engaged in a
pattern of conduct characterized by persistent and
delinquent offenses that, as demonstrated through
the use of other alternatives, cannot be controlled
in a less secure setting, or who have had their
conditional liberty revoked pursuant to statute.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Develop and implement a continuum of care.
Involve the private sector in the provision of a
complete array of treatment services.
Assess the aggregate treatment needs of committed
youth and available treatment services annually.
Provide specialized programming for sex offend-ers,
violent offenders, and substance abusers.
Develop a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of treat-ment
programs through objective outcome measures.
Provide each youth with a handbook (available
also in Spanish), outlining rights, rules of conduct,
and potential sanctions for infractions.
Confine, on the average, not more than 110 youth
in Catalina Mountain School, 240 youth in Adobe
Mountain School and 30 youth in the treatment
component of Black Canyon School unless addi-tional
facilities are constructed*.
The Consent Decree is very specific in the areas of health
care, educational services, disciplinary practices, and parole
revocation. It recognizes that all youth have a right to equal
access to a full continuum of services "regardless of their
gender, ethnicity, country of origin, or race."
The Consent Decree requires DYTR to prepare a detailed
implementation plan, and to implement most of the changes
in the secure facilities within eighteen months of the order.
The decree will remain in effect for a minimum of four years.
Committee A "Committee of Consultants" has been named to moni-
T~ it^^ tor Arizona's compliance with the Consent Decree. The plain-
ComDliance tiffs named Russ Van Vleet with Center for the Study of Youth
Policy. Mr. Van Vleet has worked with the Task Force and
DYTR and is very familiar with Arizona's situation. He has
served as Director of Court Services in Salt Lake City and as
Director of the Utah State Division of Youth Corrections. The
defendants named Allen Breed to the Committee. He is the
* Pinal Mounfarlt Juvcnile lnalil~~trown as transferred to thc adult system tn 1990 and Alan10 Juvenile
Instifullon was clo~cd~ n 1992. Thls "cap" of 380 does not ~ncludey outh in sccure contract placement,
or qccurr d~agnortic $elvlcrs. I1 15 conrl\tcnt with lire 450 hcd "cap" adoptcd by Lhe Task Forcc.
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency and has served as a Special Master for
a number of state and federal courts. He is also the former
Director of the National Institute of Corrections. Both parties
agreed to the appointment of Peter Leone to the Committee.
His appointment was also approved by Judge Richard Bilby.
Dr. Leone had been serving as a Special Master in the area of
special education. He is an Associate Professor in the Special
Education Department at the University of Maryland.
Governor In a letter to Mr. Arredondo dated April 22, Governor
~~k~~ Symington wrote, ''As compliance with the Consent Decree
Commitment will require additional state resources to DYTR, please be
advised that I will direct all necessary powers of my office
toward that end, including, if necessary, addressing the issue
in special session of the Legislature."
Challenges Many challenges remain. As Ms. Snell said in testimony
~~~~i~ during the Fairness Hearing, "There are times when I marvel
at the progress we have made and there are times when I
despair at the amount of work that remains."
The lawsuit focused on the "back-end" of the rystem and,
as a result, so did the Commission and Task Force. The
Commission recognized the need for a broader look when it
called for an evaluation of Arizona1$ entire juvenile justice
system "so that public policy can be made in an informed way
and so the role of juvenile corrections in the overall juvenile
system can be more clearly defined and articulated ."
This was a recognition of the fact that corrections does not
exist in a vacuum and that until it is examined in context,
meaningful reform will be limited.
Public The Commission stated in its Report to the Governor:
Policy Must
Be Well "Dec,isiorz-making regarding juverzile,justicc matters
in Arizona has jkequently been based on political or Thought slzort-term economic considerations rather tlzan
Out research, case law, and long-term cost benefit."
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
Serious problems still exist in the way public policy is
made in Arizona. For example, Arizona continues to be tempted
to create policies or programs that would result in more youth
being transferred to adult court without any clear evidence
that such policies will enhance public safety or utilize limited
resources more efficiently. The Task Force adamantly opposed
two such proposals in the 1992 legislative session. One would have
"assumed" transfer on a variety of offenses and the other would
have created a "youthful offender program". Although both pro-posals
were defeated, it is safe to assume that they are not dead.
Arizona needs a strong, independent, non-partisan orga-nization
to promote balanced juvenile justice policy. In Sep-tember
1992, the Task Force unanimously recognized the
need for just such an organization.
Due Process
Rights
Must Be
Protected
Of continuing concern to the Task Force and its ad hoc
Due Process Committee, chaired by ASU I'rofessor Ann Stanton,
has been the need for greater protection of youths' due process
rights. Of particular concern is the fact that in Maricopa
County, as a matter of policy, the Maricopa County Attorney's
Office does not file petitions on new offenses committed by
youth on parole unless there is a decision to file a request for
transfer. As a result, these youth do not receive hearings in
juvenile court on the new offenses. County detention facili-ties
and juvenile courts are designed to provide the level of
security and the types of hearings appropriate for youth who
have been accused of crimes. To expect DYTR to institute a
process to provide this service and this level of due process
when the courts are designed to do so, seems to be, in the
words of one Task Force member, "a horrendous waste of time
and assets". DYTR will not be able to find solutions to prob-lems
like these without the cooperation and commitment of
other agencies and entities.
Questions
Remain
Unanswered
Arizona spends millions of dollars each year in the area of
juvenile justice and yet we are unable to answer basic ques-tions
about that system. How is that money spent and to what
end? What youth are we locking up and why? What are the
conditions in our detention centers and institutions? How are
decisions made regarding placement of and services to delin-quent
youth? How is it working? In the absence of answers to
Arizona's Troubled Youth: A New Direction
these basic questions, how are we to make informed decisions and
create effective responses to problems of concern to all of us?
A new direction has been established. A direction that
builds on our best hopes instead of pandering to our worst
fears. It will take tremendous public participation and politi-cal
will to protect and to build upon that progress, but the
result will be stronger and safer communities and youth better
prepared to successfully meet life's challenges.
References
Arizona Department of Corrections (1988, October). Data Handbook. Arizona Department
of Corrections, Human ResourcesJDevelopment Division Planning Bureau.
Arizona Laws 1983, Ch. 257, Sec. 1 Supplementary Pamphlet, Title 8, p. 503.
Govemor's Select Commission on Juvenile Corrections (1990, May 17). Report to the
Governor. Phoenix. AZ: Author.
Halemba, G. J. (1990, September). Profile Study of Juveniles Committed to the Arizona DOC
During 1989. Mesa, AZ: Research and Information Specialists, Inc.
Johnson V. Upchurch; Consent Decree No. Civ. 86-1 95 TUC-RMB (Arizona 1993).
Johnson v. Upchuvch No. Civ. 86-195 TUC-RMB (Arizona 1986).
Meeting Minutes of the Governor's Select Commission on Juvenile Corrections.
Meeting Minutes of the Govemor's Task Force on Juvenile Corrections.
National Center for Youth Law (undated). CMJI Proof of Facts. Submitted to the United
States District Court on behalf of plaintiffs in Johnson v. Upchurch case. San Francisco,
CA: Author.
Van Vleet, R.K., R.M. Ortega, and D.A. Willis. (June, 1991). Secure Care in Arizona:
Developing and Applying Criteria for Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study
of Youth Policy.
Appendix A
Johnson v. Upchurch: Significant Dates*
April 6, 1986 ............. Case filedon behalf of Matthew Davey Johnson, aresident of CatalinaMountain
Juvenile Institution (CMJI), alleging general civil rights violations.
June 27, 1986 ............ Court appointed counsel to represent Johnson, who amended his complaint and
moved for preliminary relief. Soon thereafter, Johnson was released from Yucca
Cottage and provided additional services.
April 8, 1987 ............. Court granted plaintiff's motion to file a Fourth Amended Complaint on behalf
of seven residents of CMJI; plaintiff's move to proceed on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs.
July 29, 1987 ............. Court certified a class.
May 26, 1988 ............ Court appointed Dr. Peter Leone, Professor of Special Education, University of
Maryland, as Special Master for Special Education.
November 10, 1988 ... Dr. Leone filed areport identifying deficiencies in the Department's institutional
educational programs.
May 17, 1989 ............G overnor Rose Mofford advised the court that the state was moving toward
comprehensive reform.
July 19, 1989 ............. Court denied without prejudice plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction as
moot.
September 22, 1989 ... Governor Mofford created the Select Commission on Juvenile Corrections.
April 27, 1990 ........... Court granted plaintiff's motion to file a Sixth Amended Complaint alleging
unconstitutional parole revocation procedures.
May 17, 1990 ............ Commission issued its "Report to the Governor" making 42 recommendations
including the creation of a Task Force to oversee implementation.
June 5, 1990 .............. Governor Mofford signed an Executive Order creating a Task Force.
July 1, 1990 ............... Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections created.
August 20, 1990 ........ Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgement on the grounds that there
were genuine issues of material fact.
October 16, 1990 .......T he parties reached agreement on individual claims for damages by Matthew
Johnson and M.G., a named plaintiff and class representative.
May 15, 1991 ............ Governor Fife Symington signed an Executive Order continuing the Task Force.
October 22, 1991 ....... Court awarded interim attorneys fees for plaintiffs.
June 28, 1992 ............ Parties resolved all pending issues concerning attorneys fees
March 25, 1993 ......... Court conducted Fairness Hearing on Consent Decree.
March 26, 1993 ......... Court proposed revisions to the Consent Decree.
April 23, 1993 ........... Parties agreed to revised Consent Decree.
May 5, 1993 ..............J udge Bilby signed Consent Decree.
June 30. 1993 ............ Task Force ceased to exist.
Mo\t of thesc dates are excerpted from the Consent Decree. Some minor discrepancies with other records appeiu to exist.
Appendix B
Commission Members -
Bill Jamieson, Jr., Chairman
Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Bud Bolton Ph.D.
Organiziational Diagnostics, Inc.
Ray Borane
Deputy Superintendent
Department of Education
Barbara Cerepanya
Deputy Public Defender
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office
Ernesto Garcia
Director of Court Services
Maricopa County Juvenile Court
Toni Neary Harper
Director
Governor's Office for Children
James M. Howard
Chief Counsel
Attorney General's Office
Dr. Rodney Jilg
Executive Director
Southern Arizona Mental Health Center
Samuel A. Lewis
Director
Department of Corrections
Linda Moore-Cannon
Director
Department of Economic Security
Mike Palmer
Representative, District 8
Arizona House of Representatives
Jack Rose
Faculty
Glendale Community College
Wayne Stewart
Juvenile Division Chief
Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Arjelia "Argie" Gomez
Division Director of Juvenile Services
Arizona Supreme Court
Dave Hedgcock
Executive Director
New Found.dtion
Carol L. Hurtt
Director Designee
Department of Juvenile Corrections
Don Kenney
Representative, District 19
Arizona House of Representatives
James E. McDougall
Presiding Juvenile Court Judge
Maricopa County
Ruben B. Ortega
Chief of Police
City of Phoenix
Peter Rios
Senator, District 7
Arizona State Senate
Ivan L. Sidney
Past Chairman
Hopi Tribe
Dr. Morrison F. Warren
Professor Emeritus of Education
Arizona State University
Commission Staff
Jan Christian
Executive Consultant
Kathy Hill
Programs and Projects Specialist
Judy Blake
Administrative Secretary
Boyd Dover
Assistant D~rector
DHS Division of Behavioral Health
Appendix C
Table 1
Offense Class of Most Serious Adjudication by County
Offense Class -
Most Serious
Adjudication
Maricopa Pima Other Totals
Felony 6 or Less 45.9% (90) 39.5% (64) 19.7% (31) 35.9% (185)
Felony 4 - 5 28.6 (56) 17.9 (29) 21.7 (34) 23.1 (119)
Felony 2 - 3* 25.5 (50) 42.6 (69) 58.6 (92) 41.0 (21 1)
Totals 100.0% (196) 100.0% (162) 100.0% (157) 100.0% (515)
Chi Square = 45.491 p < 0.001
* No Juvenile in 1989 Commitment Population had ever been adjudicated on a first
degree felony charge (i.e., Murder 1)
Table 2
Offense Class by County if Most Serious Adjudication is for a Violent Offense
Adjudication For
Violent Offense -
Most Serious
Marico~a Pima Other Totals
No Adjudication
For Violent Offense 87.8% (172) 86.4%(140) 79.6% (125) 84.9% (437)
Felony 4 2.0 (4) 1.2 (2) 0.6 (1) 1.4 (7)
Felony 2 - 3* 10.2 (20) 12.3 (20) 19.7 (31) 13.8 (71)
Totals 100.0% (196) 100.0% (162)** 100.0% (157)** 100.0 (515)**
* No Juvenile in 1989 Commitment Population had ever been adjudicated on a first
degree felony charge (i.e., Murder 1).
** Discrepancy due to rounding.
Table 3
Mean Scores on Selected Delinquency Indicators by County
Average Score
Delinquency Indicators Maricopa*
Age At First Referral 13.5
Age At First Adjudication 14.9
Age At 1989
ADOC Commitment 16.1
Length Of Delinquency
History (yrs.)** 2.6
Referrals - AllY** 6.2
Referrals - Delinquent**** 4.9
Past Year - All Referrals 3.8
Past Year - Delinquency Referrals 3.0
Adjudications - All***** 2.5
Adjudications - Delinquentq*** 2.0
Past Year - All Adjudications 1.9
Past Year - Del. Adjudications 1.5
Other
13.5
* Any variance in Maricopa County referral data as presented in the MCJCC Commit-ment
Profile Report (1990) is probably the result of differential treatment of warrants
and citations for alcohol and curfew. These arc not included in current analysis.
** Computed by subtracting Age At First Adjudication from Age At 1989 ADOC
Commitment.
*** Includes all referrals (or adjudicated petitions) for delinquent, status and probation
violation offenses.
**** Only includes referrals (or adjudicated petitions) which include onc or more
delinquent offenses.
***** Total number of petitions on which a juvenile was adjudicated. ISa youth was adjudicated
on multiple counts contained on one petition, this was counted as one adjudication.
Table 4
Number of Delinquent Adjudications by Gender
Delina.u encv"
Adjudication Males Females Totals
0-2* 57.8% (267) 86.0% (43) 60.5% (3 10)
3 21.9 (101) 10.0 (5) 20.7 (106)
4 or More 20.3 (94) 4.0 (2) 18.8 (96)
Totals 100.0% (462) 100.0% (50) 100.0% (5 12)
I Chi Square =15.425 Gamma = 0.621 p < 0.001
I * One youth in the 1989 commitment population was committed to Adult Department of
Corrections on a violation of probation originating from a status offense adjudication.
According to court records contained in the central office field file, this youth had
never been adjudicated for a delinquent offense.
Source: Halemba, G. J. (Sept. 1990). Profile Study of Juveniles Committed to the
Arizona DOC During 1989.
Table 5
Prior Regular Probation or Intensive Probation (JIPS) by Gender
Probation
Experience Males Females Totals
No Prior Probation 21.1% (98) 27.1% (13) 21.7% (111)
Regular Probation Only 44.2 (205) 56.3 (27) 45.3 (232)
Placed On JIPS* 34.7 (161) 16.7 (8) 33.0 (169)
Totals 100.0% (464) 100.0% (48)** 100.0% (512)
Chi Square = 6.397 Gamma = -0.285 p = 0.041
* Includes prior times on JlPS if youth was terminated or returned to regular probation
prior to commission of offense(s) resulting in Adult Department of Corrections
commitmenl.
** Discrepancy due to rounding.
Source: Halemba, G. J. (Sept. 1990). Profile Study of Juveniles Committed to the
Arizona DOC During 1989.
Table 6
Mean Scores on Selected Delinquency Indicators by Gender
Delinquency
Indicators Males Females Totals
Age At First Referral 13.3 13.5 13.3
Age At First Adjudication 14.8 15.1 14.9
Age At 1989 ADOC Commitment 16.3 15.9 16.3
Length Of Delinquent History (yrs) 3.0 2.4 3.0
Referrals - All 7.8 8.7 7.9
Referrals - Delinquent 5.6 4.3 5.4
Past Year - All Referrals 4.1
Past Year - Delinquent Referrals 2.8
Adjudications - All 3.5
Adjudications - Delinquent 2.5
Past Year - All Adjudications 2.3
Past Year - Delinquent Adjudications 1.6
Table 7
Treatment Services Received by County
Maricopa Pima Other
Type Of Service Received County County Counties Totals
Counseling Services 63.0% 65.4% 36.2%* 55.8%
Day Support Services 7.0 57.0 3.3" 21.4
Psychological Evaluations 70.5 72.3 42. I*** 62.6
Residential Treatment 8.0**** 24.5 19.7 16.6
Hospitalization 20.0 19.5 12.5 17.6
* Chi square = 33.865; p < 0.001
** Chi square = 173.251; p < 0.001
*** Chi square = 39.036; p < 0.001
**** Chi square = 18.952; p < 0.001
Source: Halemba, G. J. (Sept. 1990). Profile Study of Juveniles Committed to the
Arizona DOC During 1989.
Table 8
Treatment Services Received by Race
Type Of Service Received Anglo Minority Totals
Counseling Services 65.1% 46.7%* 55.8%
Day Support Services 17.1 25.6** 21.4
Psychological Evaluations 71.8 53.7""" 62.6
Residential Treatment 21.8 11,6*"** 16.6
Hospitalization 27.5 7,9***** 17.6
* Chi square = 16.721; Gamma = -0.360; p < 0.001
** Chi square = 5.009; Gamma = 0.25 1; p = 0.025
*** Chi square = 17.223; Gamma = -0.375; p < 0.001
**** Chi square = 8.938; Gamma = -0.361; p = 0.003
***** Chi square = 32.071; Gamma = -0.633; p < 0.001
Source: Halemba, G. J. (Sept. 1990). Profile Study of Juveniles Committed to the
Arizona DOC During 1989.
Appendix D
-Ta sk Force Members (July 1990-June 1991)
Michael D. Hawkins, Chairman Arthur Lebowitz
(May, 1990-March, 1991) Co-Principal
Partner Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts South Mountain High School
Attorneys at Law
David M. Quanta
Alice W. Snell, Chair Juvenile Division Supervisor
(April, 1991-June, 1991) Pima County Attorney's Office
Marcor P. Andrade
Aasistant to the Mayor
C~tyof Phocnrx
The Honorable Raner C. Collins
Presiding Juvcnile Court Judge
Pima County Juvenile Court
Daniel A. Flores
President
UltraProducts Corporation
Arjelia "Argie" go me^
Director, Juvenile Justice Scrvices Division
Arizona Supreme Court
Carol L. Hurtt
Director
Department of Juvenile Corrections
Dr. Rodney Jilg
Executive Director
So~tthemA ri~onaM ental Health Center
Department of Health Services
A1 Rosen
Assistant Chief Probation Officer
Juvenile Division
Mohave County Probation Department
Wayne Stewart
Juvenile Division Chief
Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Linda Moore-Cannon
Director
Department of Economic Security
Jack Rose
Faculty
Glendale Community College
The Honorable Linda K. Scott
Juvenile Coul~Ju dge
Maricopa County Juvenile Court
Doris Turner
Task Force Staff
Barbara Cerepanya
Deputy Public Defendcr Jan Christian
Maricopa County Public Defender's Officc Executive Consultant
Boyd Dover
Assistant Director
Division of Behavioral Health
Department of Ilealth Scrvices
Ernesto Garcia
Director of Court Services
Mar-icopa County Juvenile Court
Il'tve Hedgcock
Executn e D~rector
Ncw Foundailon
Judy Blake
Adminirtrative Secretary
Bill Jamieson. Jr.
Episcopal Dioce\c of Arizon
Appendix E
Task Force Members (July, 1991-June, 1993)
Alice W. Snell, Chair
Eugenc Moore (July, 1901-November, I99 1)
Intc~im Dlre~tor
Department of Youth Treatment & Rehabil~tatron
John R. Arredondo
Director (December, I99 l -June, 1993)
Department of Youth 'Treatment & Rehabilitation
Mary Black
Executive Director
Black Family and Child Services
Barbara Cerepanya
Attorney at Law
Carl Craig
Dan~elA Flores
Pics~dent
Ultra Products Corporation
Dave Hedgcock
Exccutlve Director
New Foundation
Julieta Bencomo
The Honorable H. Stewart Bradshaw
Presiding Juvenile Court Judge
Yuina County Juvenile Court
The Honorable Raner C. Collins
Presiding Juvenile Court Judge
Pima County Juvenile Court
Boyd Dover
Dover Consulti~lg
Jeanne Halpin
Bill Jamieson, Jr.
Episcopal Diocese of Ari~ona
Dr. Rodney Jilg
Deputy Assistant Director
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Department of Health Services
Arthur Lebowitz
Principal
South Mountain High School
Maurice Miller, ACSW
Chief Executive Officer
Northern Arizona Behavioral Heath Authority
A1 Rosen
Assistant Chief Probation Officer
Juvenile Division
Mohave County Probation Department
Wayne Stewart
Juvenile Division Chief
Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Arlyn Larson
Vice President
Corporate Planning and Development
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation
David Miller
Executive Director
La Hacienda Foster Care Resource Center
Dav~d M. Quantz
Chief Deputy County Attorney
Plma County Attorney's Office
Ann Stanton
Professor, College of Law
Arizona State University
Doris Turner
Task Force Staff
Jan Christian
Executive Director
Judy Blake (July, 1991-June, 1992)
Carol Martula (July. 1992-January, 1993)
Stephen R. Anderson (January, 1993-June, 1993)
Administrative Secretaries
Appendix F
Guideline for Use of Secure Care
PLEASE PRINT
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION Commitment Date:
Youth's Name. _- County.
First Middle Last
K#: DOE: -_ Judge.
White (non Hispanic) - Black (non Hispanic) --
Mexlcan National -- American IndianIAlaskan Native
Hispanic (non Mexican National) ___ Pacific IslanderIAsian
Seriousness
Class Offense Points Class Offense Points
Felony 1
Felony 2 CAP
Felony 2
Felony 3 CAP
Felony 3
Felony 4 CAP
Felony 4
Felony 5 CAP
Felony 5
Feiony 6 CAP
Felony 6
Misdemeanor or
VOP
Felony 1 [lo]
Felony 2 CAP [a]
Felony 2 161
Felony 3 CAP [el
Felony 3 141
Felony 4 CAP PI
Felony 4 [2]
Felony 5 CAP [21
Felony 5 [I 1
Felony 6 CAP [ I ]
Felony 6 [ol
Misdemeanor or
VOP PI
None [ol -
Seriousness Score [Present + Prior]
Aaaravatina Factors
MOSTS ERIOUPSR ESEADNJTU DICATOEFDF ENSE. MOSTS ERIOUPS RIAODJRUD ICATOEFDF ENSE:
Use of dangerous weapon [firearm, knlfe Use of dangerous weapon [firearm, knife
or explosive]' [2] or explosive]' [ I ] .-
Serious bodily harm* [2] -- Serious bodily harm" [I]
Sexual Offense [21 - Sexual Offense 111 -
None [o] - None 101 -
"Designate weapon andlor injury: 'Designate weapon andlor injury.
Aggravating Score
- Pr~orD elinquent Adjudlcat~onsw lthin Past Year [Exclude Most Ser~ousP resent Adjudicated Offense]
0 prior adjud~cat~ons (01 3 prior adjud~cations [6]
1 prior adjudicat~ons [2] . . 4 prior adjudications [a]
2 prior adjudicat~ons [4] . 5+ prior adjud~cations [lo]
Recency Score
Chronicity - Prior Delinquent Adjudlcat~onso n Total Record [Exclude Adjudications Within Past Year]
0 pr~oar djudications [0] 3 prior adjudications [3]
1 pr~oar djudications [I] 4 prlor adjudications [4]
2 prior adjudications [2] -- 5 prlor adjudications [5]
Chronicity Score
Aae at First Adiudication
Age at F~rsAt djudication
Age 16 or older [ol - -
Age14or 15 ill .
Age 13 or younger [2] "Age" Score
Total Score Total Score
Scores Lenqth of Proaram Guideline
0 - 9 6-10 months of community programming (Multi Disciplinary Team to determine level and type
of programming)
10-17 9-1 9 months (3-9 months secure prograrnrnlng; 6-10 months community programming)
18andabove 12-25 months (6.15 months secure prograrnmlng; 6-10 months community programming)
NOTE: Youth committed for Felony 1 shali have thelr Length of Program Guideline individually assigned.
FACTORS THAT RESULT IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Check ALL that ADDI~
Youth scored 10 or more and is
12 years of age or younger
Youth scored 10 or more and is
mentally handicapped
Placement recommendatlon of
staff differs from Gu~del~nseco re
recommendation
Youth scored 10 or more and is
physically handicapped
Youth scored 9 or below but
rece~vedp olnts for "aggravating
factors" --
Rev~ewIS requested for the
reasons ~ndicatedb elow --
NOTE: Automat~c revlew IS required ~f any one of these is checked
Placement RecornmendationlComments
Completed By:
Rev. 911 7/92 Date:
Page 2 of 2
