State of Arizona
Arizona’s Comprehensive
Three Year State Plan 2012-2015
FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT
Submitted to the:
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
MAY 2012
by:
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
GOVERNOR BREWER’S OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES
and the
ARIZONA JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMISSION
Janice K. Brewer, Governor
Cassandra A. Larsen, Director, Office for Children, Youth & Families
John Raeder, Juvenile Justice Specialist
Cecil Patterson Jr., Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission Chair
Prepared by:
Staff
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families
FY 2012 FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM GMS REGISTRATION
The Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families registered for solicitation of the OJJDP
FY2011 Title II Formula Grant program on May 7, 2012 through the Office of Justice Program’s
Grant Management System and completed the Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) form.
ASSURANCE AND CERTIFICATIONS
The Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families has reviewed and accepted the
“Assurances and Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension, and Other
Responsible Matters; and the Drug Free Workplace Requirement” as outlined in the Office for
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Formula Grants Program Announcement.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
2
Program Narrative
ATTACHMENT 1
State of Arizona
Three Year State Plan 2012-2014
FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT
Arizona 3 Year Plan
3
A. PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (the Commission) and the Governor’s Office for
Children, Youth and Families are committed in continuing their efforts of collaboration and
coordination within Arizona’s juvenile justice system by directing available state and federal
resources to respond appropriately and effectively to the needs of at-risk and delinquent youth
and their families. The overall intent of the Commission is to uphold the core requirements of
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) and support a seamless continuum
of delinquency prevention, intervention, and accountability services.
In order to achieve the Commission’s goal, Arizona plans to distribute their 2012 award across
seven program areas, emphasizing programming that deinstitutionalizes status offenders and
alternatives to detention. Compliance monitoring will continue to play a significant role in 2012
activities. Other areas for funding include delinquency prevention, mental health, Native
American programming and disproportionate minority contact.
The State of Arizona remains unwavering in its duty to uphold the core principles of the JJDPA,
ensuring appropriate treatment and services for youth in and/or entering the system, and facilitate
positive outcomes for Arizona’s youth and their families.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
4
B. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE ARIZONA
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Arizona’s Juvenile Court System
Arizona’s formal juvenile justice system consists of 15 county juvenile courts and probation
departments as well as the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). The Arizona
Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice Services Division, (AOC/JJSD), provides
administrative support and oversight for the following county juvenile justice programs:
diversion, standard probation, intensive probation and treatment. The AOC/JJSD serves as the
coordinating agency for policy, service contracts, and payments to treatment providers that
comprise the continuum of treatment services authorized or ordered by the juvenile courts. The
AOC/JJSD is also responsible for management of state appropriations allocated to fund these
treatment and probation efforts. The AOC/JJSD regularly collaborates with the counties on the
establishment and monitoring of budgets for these services.
County Juvenile Courts and Probation Departments
In Arizona, county probation departments operate under the authority of a presiding juvenile
court judge. The 15 juvenile courts are a division of the Arizona Superior Court. Each presiding
juvenile court judge has the authority to appoint the chief juvenile probation officer/director of
juvenile court services. This position supervises the county probation department. County
probation departments provide the following services to youth who come into the juvenile
system: diversion, court/probation services, treatment and short-term detention. Once a juvenile
is referred for delinquent or incorrigible (status offense) behavior, probation officers begin to
monitor and supervise these youth who are in the intervention component of the continuum. The
youth have either been diverted from prosecution, or been adjudicated, but not committed to
secure care in the Arizona Department of Juvenile Correction, (ADJC). Typically, services
progress from less restrictive to more restrictive consequences.
Detention
Juvenile detention centers provide temporary and safe custody of juveniles pending court
disposition. Arizona has 14 such juvenile detention centers-two in Maricopa County and one
each in 12 other counties. Greenlee and La Paz Counties have agreements to use juvenile
detention centers in adjacent counties. More than 8,000 juveniles were detained in these juvenile
detention centers at some point during fiscal year 2011. The presiding judge of the juvenile court
is statutorily responsible for the supervision of the detention center. However, as mentioned
earlier the centers are primarily supported by their respective county governments. The Supreme
Court has administrative authority over all the courts and court programs, including juvenile
detention centers. This essentially means that the state contributes the large majority of the
funding as well as administrative oversight to the detention centers. The Administrative Office of
the Courts (AOC) holds this function in support of the Supreme Court.
The AOC has been working collaboratively with all 15 juvenile courts to develop detention
standards. Since 1998, the detention centers utilized minimum guidelines for operation. In
response to the Arizona Auditor General’s report released the end of 2007, the AOC created the
Detention Standards Task Force. The Task Force developed mandatory juvenile detention center
operational standards consistent with the recommendations of the Auditor General. The Task
Arizona 3 Year Plan
5
Force also developed statewide policies and procedures or standards for the Juvenile Court to
appropriately and consistently screen juveniles for detention.
Each juvenile detention center offers various services beyond secure care to detained juveniles.
These services minimally include education, healthcare services, nutrition, recreation and visits
from family members. A number of the centers also provide behavioral health services including
parenting skills, substance abuse treatment and anger management to name a few.
Diversion
Diversion is a process that allows a juvenile to avoid the formal court process and instead have a
referral alleging an offense adjusted if the juvenile complies with one or more conditions. To
adjust is to dispose of a case without the juvenile being required to go to court. If a referral is
adjusted, a petition is not filed. A petition is a document filed by the county attorney that seeks
to have a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent or incorrigible child. The conditions to be
completed are the consequences assigned in response to the juvenile’s behavior.
The goal of diversion is to direct youth away from formal court proceedings by assigning a set of
consequences, which, if successfully completed, result in avoidance of further court action.
Diversion referrals come from the police, school, and parents. Only youth that acknowledge
responsibility for their actions are eligible. Chronic felony offenders, violent felony offenders
and those arrested for drunk driving are not eligible for diversion.
Following a face-to-face meeting between the juvenile and a probation officer, diversion
consequences may be assigned directly, or the youth may participate in a community-based
alternative program (CBAP). CBAP’s focus on the involvement of the youth’s peers and
community volunteers in assigning consequences for delinquent acts. Examples of these
programs include Teen Court and Community Justice Centers (CJCs).
Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 8-321 specifies the consequences that a juvenile probation
officer may assign to diverted youth. The probation officer has the discretion to determine which
and how many consequences will be assigned to the youth. The options include: unpaid
community service work, counseling programs, education programs that address delinquency or
issues such as substance abuse, non-residential rehabilitation programs, restitution to victim, and
monetary penalty. County probation departments, service providers or non-profit community
organizations, can deliver these services.
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections operates and maintains two secure care
facilities for the custody, treatment, and education of committed juveniles. Each juvenile placed
in a secure facility receives rehabilitative services, appropriate to the juvenile’s age, risk, needs,
abilities, and committing offenses. This includes education, individual and group counseling,
psychological services, health care, and recreation. In addition, treatment groups and specialized
housing units focus on juveniles with histories of violence, substance abuse or sexual offenses.
A Unit Manager is the administrator for the housing unit, and each housing unit has a Program
Supervisor, a Caseworker, and Youth Correctional Officers to monitor each youth treatment
Arizona 3 Year Plan
6
plan. In addition, ADJC employs and contracts with health care professionals who manage and
deliver direct services, including medical, dental and psychiatric services to committed youth.
Each secure facility employs full-time medical staff that facilitates the provision of primary care
medical services seven days a week.
The two safe schools/facilities are described below.
Adobe Mountain School (AMS)
AMS operates secure care programming for male youth. AMS consists of 17 treatment units,
plus 4 units for youth with special behavior problems, such as substance abuse, sex offense or
mental health. It is located on Pinnacle Peak Road, just west of I-17 freeway.
Black Canyon School (BCS)
BCS operates intake for all committed youth and secure care programming for female youth.
BCS is located just south of the Happy Valley Road exit, west of the I-17 freeway.
Arizona’s juvenile justice system is governed by the principles of graduated sanctions,
recognizing that, in order to effectively hold juveniles accountable, consequences must be
appropriately matched to offenses and be equally responsive to needs for treatment and services.
Graduated sanctions is defined as a “systematic response to juvenile offenders that provides a
continuum of escalating and de-escalating interventions that can be closely matched to a youth’s
offense severity, level of risk, and treatment needs, and emphasizes accountability at each
level.”1
Adequate assessments are critical to determining appropriate sanctions and interventions for
juveniles and should drive decision-making to identify services and programming. In October of
2002, the Administrative Office of the Courts automated a Risk and Needs Assessment tool for
use across the state. This tool provides a standardized mechanism for capturing information to
assess risk, identify and prioritize needs, define case plan goals, highlight additional
requirements provided through the Needs Assessment, as well identify strengths and assets
through a Strength Assessment component.
Likewise, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections has enhanced its classification and
assessment tools to capture information about criminogenic factors and protective factors. The
Department’s Criminogenic and Protective Factors Assessment (CAPFA) was introduced in
April 2005. The CAPFA provides a comprehensive picture of the juvenile in terms of his or her
delinquent activities and beliefs, and also includes a review of the positive and non-delinquent
aspects of the juvenile’s life, which could then be built on for successful rehabilitation. The
CAPFA has been in development for a number of years, and is based on a model that has been
successfully utilized in other states. The CAPFA covers 12 different areas, (e.g. Medical, Mental
Health, School, Employment, Family, Alcohol and Drug Use, Aggression, Sexual Offending,
Social Influences, Use of Free Time, Skills, and Attitudes & Behaviors). An initial CAPFA is
completed with a juvenile when he or she is newly adjudicated to ADJC, and is re-assessed every
90 days until the juvenile is discharged from ADJC’s jurisdiction. As there are many dynamic, or
1
Wiebush, Rick. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Baltimore, MD. Definition provided at the OJJDP
sponsored “Advanced Graduated Sanctions Training” in Boston, MA. November 2002.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
7
changeable, items on the CAPFA, it is designed to capture progress made by the juvenile in the
different areas. The CAPFA is closely linked in ADJC’s database system to Continuous Case
Planning, a method that was introduced a month after the CAPFA in May 2005. The Continuous
Case Planning system utilizes the CAPFA information to assist the Multi-disciplinary Team
working with the juvenile to develop a case plan of needs that the juvenile has to work on before
successful rehabilitation. The case plan is based on the “Therascribe” program, a heavily
researched planning system assisting staff and the juvenile with goal, objective, and intervention
options in mapping and addressing the needs of the juvenile. This system identifies treatment
programming and interventions that can effectively assist the juvenile and is to be reassessed and
updated on a monthly basis.
Also essential to the effective administration of a system of graduated sanctions is a
comprehensive information management component. Arizona’s Juvenile Online Tracking
System (JOLTS) is a model information sharing system and provides the framework for the
collection of information as well as the built-in assessment tool. The combination of validated
assessments and comprehensive juvenile-specific data provides the foundation for effective case
planning and program delivery.
As outlined by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, sanctions are
identified according to a scale of increasing severity and are categorized as immediate sanctions,
intermediate sanctions, secure care, and aftercare. The essential principles of system of
graduated sanctions include: all juveniles are to be held accountable for each offense, a wide
range of sanctions/interventions must be available, system response should be equally concerned
with accountability, risk control, and service needs, and specific programmatic interventions
should be based on evidence regarding effectiveness of programming and services.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
8
C. ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE CRIME PROBLEMS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE NEEDS
1. ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE CRIME PROBLEMS
Arizona’s juvenile justice system includes a diverse array of services and programming. In order
to adequately address the complex needs of youth in the system, agencies and systems must
coordinate efforts. An understanding of the structure and function of the system as well as an
analysis of current trends provides the basic framework to move forward in developing solutions
that address emerging issues and fill service gaps.
The Commission utilizes the Administrative Office of the Courts as a major source of data for
analysis of juvenile crime and developing priority areas for funding. The data for this report is
extracted each year from fourteen juvenile courts’ Juvenile On-Line Tracking systems (JOLTS).
JOLTS is the automated juvenile court information management system which has been
operational statewide for more than seventeen years. Each juvenile court actively participates in
collecting and maintaining the data to ensure quality and accuracy
The number of juveniles processed in the juvenile justice system is influenced by several factors
such as legislative actions, law enforcement and prosecutorial practices, and the number of
juveniles ages eight to seventeen years old in Arizona’s population.
Juvenile arrests by offense type, gender, age and race
Juvenile arrests in Arizona automatically generate a referral to the juvenile court. As a result,
juvenile referrals are the first decision point tracked in the juvenile justice system.
Number and characteristics of juveniles referred to juvenile court
Arizona has seen a decrease in juvenile activity over the past few years, despite a continued
increase in juvenile population.
The data below reflects the characteristics of those juveniles, ages eight through seventeen, who
came in contact with the juvenile court system in FY11. The juveniles counted are those who had
a report submitted to the juvenile court alleging that the youth committed a delinquent act or
incorrigible behavior. Referrals can be made by police, parents, school officials, probation
officers, other agencies or individuals requesting juvenile court assume jurisdiction over the
youth’s conduct. Referrals can be “paper referrals” issued as citations or police reports to the
juvenile court or “physical referrals” in which the juvenile is physically brought to the court.
In 2010, there were approximately 1,029,751 juveniles ages eight to seventeen in Arizona.
From July 1, 2010 to June 31, 2011, 3.56% of these juveniles (36,639) were referred at least once
to Arizona’s juvenile courts. This represents about 1 in every 28.1 juveniles. These 36,639
juveniles generated 54,610 referrals, an average of 1.5 referrals per juvenile.
As illustrated below, 36,639 youth were referred to the juvenile court in FY11, which represents
an 11% decrease from FY10 and a 25% decrease in the number of juveniles referred since 2007.
Of the 36,639 youth referred; 51% were sixteen or seventeen years of age; males accounted for
66% of the referrals generated, 51% are first time offenders; 52% had misdemeanors as the most
serious offense; and 5% committed felonies against person offenses.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
9
Juveniles Referred
60,000
46,749
50,000
48,677
45,955
40,000
41,040
36,639
30,000
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
Severity of Most Serious Offense
Juveniles Referred FY11
1,894
Felonies Against Person
5.17%
Felonies Against Property
2,702
7.37%
Obstruction of Justice: Felony &
Misdemeanor
3,245
Misdemeanors Against Person
Ethnicity
Juveniles Referred FY11
Hispanic
14,158
38.64%
African American
3,297
9.00%
8.86%
Anglo
16,101
43.94%
3,554
9.70%
Native American
2,023
5.52%
Drugs: Felony & Misdemeanor
5,212
14.23%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
284
0.78%
Public Peace: Felony & Misdemeanor
9,167
25.02%
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
Misdemeanors Against Property
5,984
16.33%
Status Offenses
4,584
12.51%
Administrative
297
0.81%
36,639
100.00%
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
Number of cases handled informally and formally
All counties in Arizona are able to provide youth an opportunity to be diverted from formal court
processing. There are a few exceptions, however as referenced in A.R.S. §8-323, these include
youth who are chronic felony offenders, violent felony offenders, and those who are alleged to
have committed an offense involving driving under the influence.
The graph below represents the number of juveniles diverted from formal court proceedings. In
FY11, 17,109 youth were diverted, of those youth 60% were male; 42% were 16 or older; 72%
had committed public peace offenses, misdemeanors against property, and status offenses; and
67% were first time offenders.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
10
Juveniles Diverted
22,000
18,000
19,222
20,664
21,359
18,779
14,000
17,109
10,000
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
Severity of Most Serious Offense
Juveniles Diverted FY11
120
Felonies Against Person
0.70%
Felonies Against Property
277
Obstruction of Justice: Felony &
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanors Against Person
Ethnicity
Juveniles Diverted FY11
Hispanic
6,634
38.77%
1.62%
African American
1,324
7.74%
120
0.70%
Anglo
7,822
45.72%
1,820
10.64%
Native American
776
4.54%
Drugs: Felony & Misdemeanor
2,482
14.51%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
173
1.01%
Public Peace: Felony & Misdemeanor
4,863
28.42%
Misdemeanors Against Property
4,596
26.86%
Status Offenses
2,810
16.42%
Administrative
21
0.12%
17,109
100.0%
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
Number of delinquent and status offenders admitted, by gender and race, to juvenile
detention
Counties in Arizona are responsible for maintaining the secure custody of juveniles in need of a
restricted environment for their own protection and/or the safety of the community that is
separate from an adult jail or lockups.
The graph below represents the number of youth detained over the past five years. In FY11,
8,340 youth were detained at least once. Of the 8,340 youth detained at least once during this
time period, 4,420 (53%) were charged with a felony; 77% were male; 62% were 16 or older;
and 53% of those detained on a referral were for felonies.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
11
The ethnic breakout of youth held in detention centers across Arizona signal an overrepresentation of Hispanic youth being held. It is important to note that the graph below is only
an indication that there MAY be disproportionality occurring, but does not provide evidence of
such.
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
Ethnicity
Juveniles Detained FY11
Hispanic
3,711
44.50%
African
American
933
11.19%
3,058
36.67%
554
6.64%
49
0.59%
Anglo
Native
American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts FY 11
There has been a continued decline since 2002 of the number of youth detained. Some of the
decline can be attributed to the local efforts to implement the Juvenile Detention Alternatives
Initiative (JDAI) of the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
JDAI only allows for the detainment of a youth for two reasons. The first is a likelihood that a
juvenile will fail to appear for a hearing and the second being that the youth is a risk to himself
or others. This differs significantly from the rules of procedure for the juvenile court in Arizona
that allow juveniles to be held for five different reasons. These include: a likelihood that a
juvenile would not be present at a hearing; a risk of harm to himself or others; a need to hold for
another jurisdiction; the interests of the juvenile or the public require custodial protection; or as a
condition of probation.
When examining the offense type for detainment it is evident that there has been a reduction in
the percentage of felony crimes. Misdemeanor offenses have risen at some points during the last
ten years, but remained relatively stable with only a slight increase. While we can see a reduction
in referrals and detainment for serious crime and only a slight increase in less serious crimes,
Arizona 3 Year Plan
12
there seems to be a more significant and consistent increase in the detainment of youth for
administrative reasons or violations of probation.
This would potentially suggest that more alternative to detention and juvenile justice reform
strategies, such as the ones mentioned above, should be considered across the state. This is
especially true given the continued financial cuts impacting the local juvenile courts.
Other social, economic, legal and organizational conditions
As with many states across the country, Arizona has been recovering from a significant recession
and drastic cuts to available resources. Funding has been slashed across all systems impacting
the juvenile justice system. Substance abuse treatment funding has been cut by more than half
impacting detention centers that house a large number of youth requiring such treatment services.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
13
2. STATE PRIORITY JUVENILE JUSTICE NEEDS/PROBLEM STATEMENT
Priority Area 1
Delinquency Prevention (Federal Program Area 09)
Problem Statement
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (the Commission) recognizes that prevention is the
most effective and cost efficient juvenile delinquency control strategy. The Commission also
recognizes that in part, prevention efforts in the State of Arizona have contributed to the
comparatively stable number of juveniles referred to the juvenile court system. Prevention is
also essential for keeping status offenders from being securely detained in jails, lockups and
detention.
In FY11, 36,639 youth between the ages of 8 to 17 were referred to the Arizona Court System.
Based on the estimated juvenile population for Arizona, the 36,639 referred youth denote that 1
in 28.1 juveniles received a referral during this time. While this data demonstrates a continued
decline in the number of youth referred to the juvenile court annually, it emphasizes the critical
role that delinquency prevention plays in keeping youth from entering the juvenile justice
system. For complete information regarding the demographics of youth referred and detained,
please refer to the Arizona’s Juvenile Court Counts for FY2011.
In the data and needs analysis portion of this application, there is evidence for the need to
increase prevention, intervention and treatment services throughout the state in ways that meet
specific needs identified at the local level. The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission is
committed to continuing to support delinquency prevention programs in rural and urban areas in
specific ways that are responsive to local needs. In order to understand what types of programs
will best serve urban, rural, and tribal communities it is important to fully understand the gaps in
services and determine what programming, technical assistance, and capacity building is needed
before any type of programming can be instituted.
Data supports the need for better gender specific programming throughout the state. While the
proportion of referrals for girls and boys has remained constant in recent years, the decrease in
youth referrals is occurring at a quicker rate for boys than girls. Services for girls in the juvenile
justice system must address a girl’s unique needs. Prevention as well as treatment services must
address gender and cultural differences to have the greatest positive impact on a female. This
includes addressing substance abuse issues and issues of sexual or physical abuse. Programming
services must also be culturally competent for youth in the juvenile justice system and must
include family involvement. Other delinquency prevention and intervention efforts address
gangs in the community (including tribal land), mental health needs of children and their
families, youth homelessness, education and safe access to schools for children so that children
have a safe environment to learn, and that teachers and parents encourage their children to
recognize the importance of education.
The Commission will continue to support prevention efforts that are based on best practice
models and research based strategies. Program strategies must be based on sound needs analysis
Arizona 3 Year Plan
14
of the community, as well as realistic goals and outcome objectives, and every program must
have some form of process and outcome evaluation to ensure effectiveness.
Priority Area 2
Alternatives to Detention (Program Area 02)
Problem Statement
Alternative services provided to a juvenile offender in the community, as an alternative to
incarceration, is an increasing need within Arizona. The data and needs analysis portion of this
application provides evidence of the increasing need for alternatives for juveniles. In FY11,
8,340 juveniles were detained. Recognizing that many juveniles who receive a formal referral to
Juvenile Court are diverted from the system and the number of youth detained has remained
relatively constant, data supports the need to continue the support for alternative placements to
detention.
As already discussed, continued research and data demonstrate that better gender specific
programming is also needed through improved alternatives to detention. The juvenile justice
system treatment services and alternatives to detention must address unique needs of female
offenders. Gender specific juvenile justice system improvements and alternatives to detention
must be culturally competent and include family involvement.
Priority Area 3
Compliance Monitoring (Program Area 06)
Problem Statement
Arizona remains committed to supporting programs, research, staff support, or other activities
designed primarily to enhance or maintain the state’s ability to adequately monitor jails,
detention facilities, and other lockups to assure compliance with Sections 223(a)(11), (12), (13),
and (14) of the JJDP Act of 2002. As outlined in the data and analysis portion of this plan, the
number of youth who come into contact with the juvenile court system supports the need to
continually maintain and enhance the state’s monitoring capabilities to insure compliance with
the requirements of the JJDP Act.
Priority Area 4
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (Program Area 08)
Problem Statement
The secure holding of accused or adjudicated status offenders is a significant compliance issue
for the State of Arizona. Violations for adjudicated status offenders spiked in 2007. Since then
rates have significantly decreased however continue to put Arizona at risk of being found out of
compliance.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
15
Priority Area 5
Indian Tribe Programs (Program Area 22)
Problem Statement
The Commission is committed to working with all fifteen counties and twenty-two tribes
throughout the state. It is estimated that the American Indian population in Arizona is
approximately 5% of the juvenile population. While there are a significant number of tribal
communities, there appears to be a lack of understanding of the cultural differences between the
policy makers and tribal leaders on issues of children, youth and families and criminal
jurisdiction between local, state and federal agencies. Arizona’s vast tribal land areas are
geographically remote with few population centers and, as a result, have limited resources and
access to services to meet the needs of this population.
Many of these communities generally experience a host of social problems and circumstances
related to juvenile delinquency. The problems facing tribal communities can seem
overwhelming in light of the shortage of resources in many communities. It should be noted
that in regards to jurisdictional rights over Native American tribes, the State of Arizona does not
implement Public Law 280, or is considered a “non-P.L. 280 State.” Public Law 280 is a federal
statute enacted by Congress in 1953 that enabled states to assume criminal, as well as civil
jurisdiction in matters involving Indians as litigants on reservation land. However, Arizona
courts and local law enforcement agencies do not retain jurisdiction over crimes committed on
tribal land. If a Native American commits a misdemeanor on tribal land, they are subject to their
tribal codes; however, Native Americans who commit crimes off the reservation are subject to
Arizona’s State law. If a Native American commits a felony on tribal land, the matter is subject
to federal law, and the individual is detained under the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office for
prosecution. The two federal agencies that have investigative authority over felony crimes are
the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Due to the
jurisdictional differences between federal, state, and tribal law, there is no accurate reporting of
the number of crimes committed by Native American juveniles.
Priority Area 6
Disproportionate Minority Contact-DMC (Program Area 10)
Problem Statement
Despite long-term efforts over the last ten years, data continues to depict an over-representation
of minority youth within the juvenile justice system. Some degree of disproportionate minority
contact appears in most decision points along the juvenile justice continuum from referral to
diversion to adjudication and sentencing. The extent of the disparity depends on the specific
community and decision point. There are also variations in which minority group is most
affected.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
16
Priority Area 7
Juvenile Justice Systems Improvement (Program Area 19)
Problem Statement
Arizona, like many other states, continues to explore strategies to improve the quality of the
juvenile justice system at both the State and local level. Many communities across Arizona have
already adopted juvenile justice system improvement strategies such as the Juvenile Alternatives
to Detention Initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation or the Models for Change Initiative of
the John D. and Katherine T. MacArthur Foundation. However, additional work must be done to
examine the impact of policies that are effecting youth. These include discretionary transfers to
adult court, the over-representation of minority youth at various decision-points across the
system and an increase in low-risk non violent offenders being detained.
Priority Area 8
Mental Health (Program Area 20)
Problem Statement
Juvenile detention and correctional facilities continue to report a concern that their facilities have
become a default placement for youth with serious mental health needs. Instead of receiving
adequate outpatient and/or inpatient residential care, youth are being inappropriately committed
to secure juvenile detention facilities. These youth have specific needs, require medication and
demand more staff attention than the traditional delinquent youth. As a result neither the youth
with mental health needs nor the youth simply requiring detention receive the quality of care
they need and deserve. Often times the youth with significant mental health needs return to the
facilities due to being released without appropriate medication and/or an effective discharge plan
for continued treatment.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
17
D. PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIRST THREE CORE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE JJDP ACT AND THE STATE’S COMPLIANCE MONITORING PLAN
1. PLAN FOR DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STATUS OFFENDERS (DSO)
Arizona was in full compliance with de minimis exceptions of Section 223(a)(11)(A), the
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offender (DSO) requirement [Section 223(a)(11)(A)] of the JJDP
Act in 2010 and is expected to be in full compliance with de minimus exceptions of the DSO
requirement in 2011. As illustrated in Arizona’s 2010 Compliance Monitoring Report, 81 DSO
violations were reported during the calendar year. From this total, 40 involved accused status
offenders: 25 held in adult lockups and 15 held in juvenile detention centers over 24 hours.
Forty-one adjudicated status offenders held in juvenile detention and correctional facilities
account for the remaining DSO violations during this 12 month period. It is important to note
that from the 56 violations occurring in juvenile detention, 7 involved juveniles held pursuant to
a contract with the United States Marshals Office.
Violations across Arizona continue to decrease significantly in adult jails, lock-ups and juvenile
detention and correctional facilities. Although reporting periods have changed since 2008,
violations continue to diminish. To highlight the substantial progress achieved, rates below
include federal wards and out-of-state runaways.
Year
Violations
Rate
2008
495
31.30
2009
264
15.76
2010
81
4.85
Substantial DSO violation reduction from 2009 to 2010 has been due in part to the recent OJJDP
classification of the Minor in Possession/Consumption of Alcohol (MIP) as a delinquent offense.
Despite this change, the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families has continued to
discourage the secure confinement of juveniles charged with MIP absent additional delinquent
offenses. Even with MIP charges factored into the DSO total, violations are significantly reduced
by 30% from the previous year.
Year
Violations
Rate
2008
495
31.30
2009
264
15.76
2010
182
10.90
Since 2001, the Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families has been working with the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, State and Tribal Assistance Division
(STAD) to identify methods to illustrate Arizona’s commitment to complying with the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act core requirements. Numerous strategies and
activities have been implemented that reflect the commitment to reducing violations of holding
status offenders securely. These include an increased role by the Arizona State Advisory Group
in advocating for compliance throughout the State, funding a Status Offender Court and
incorporating the JJDP Act core requirements into the statewide peace officer training held
annually, as well as partnering with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on statewide
projects.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
18
Arizona’s State Advisory Group, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC), reviews
compliance issues on a regular basis. The Commission is informed of various issues affecting
compliance status around the state, and advised of completed and pending site visits.
Commission members are also advised of the state’s compliance status and invited to attend
upcoming site visits.
As part of its data analysis efforts, a workgroup of the Commission, known as the Compliance
Workgroup, utilizes a process in which violations are mapped out into the various violations
categories (what type of violations, circumstances behind violations, following up measures,
technical assistance needs, etc.). This has allowed the Compliance Monitor and workgroup
members to have a better understanding of each agency’s violations, invite law enforcement and
juvenile court staff to work with the workgroup to find resolutions, and to find appropriate
solutions to reduce recurring violations. This process will continue throughout the next 3 years as
all efforts must be maintained due to ongoing turnover and staff rotations. In addition, the
workgroup will strive to achieve full reporting of all non-exempt facilities to ensure that all
juveniles detained in law enforcement agencies are being tracked and accounted for.
The Governor’s Office of Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the Commission are
committed to ensuring that the safety and well being of Arizona’s youth are a top priority. This
includes encouraging other state officials to demonstrate their dedication to youth through this
policy and practice. Over the past several years, the dramatic decrease in statewide violations has
been due in large part to a comprehensive approach that utilizes resources to address the various
barriers to compliance. The following list highlights efforts that have helped the state achieve
full compliance with de minimus exception in 2010.
Collaborative Efforts Undertaken by GOCYF and AJJC
 Policy recommendations and enforcement
 Collaborative efforts involving law enforcement and community based organizations
 Status Offender Court in Maricopa County; devoting one day per week to conduct
hearings for status offenders to better address needs and coordinate services
 Funding Priorities targeting DSO, Alternatives to Detention and Prevention
 Information and visual aids on compliance requirements provided to all law enforcement
agencies, including the Arizona 2012 JJDP Act Calendar
 Laminated documents distributed to secure holding facilities providing guidance for
compliance with JJDP Act
 Encouragement for law enforcement department juvenile policies to mirror JJDP Act
 Training for specific facilities with compliance issues
 Publication and distribution of “State of Arizona Guide for Safe and Appropriate Holding
of Juveniles” reference binder to agencies containing JJDP Act compliance materials
 Continuous collaboration with agencies that detain juveniles to identify and resolve
compliance issues
Additional Strategies in Place to Address Arizona’s DSO Violations
 Partnerships with Law Enforcement Coalitions or Underage Drinking Efforts including:
o Arizona Peace Officer Training (AZPOST)
Arizona 3 Year Plan
19




o Arizona Statewide Underage Drinking Initiative
o Arizona’s Statewide Campaign “Draw the Line” Against Underage Drinking
Participation in Committee on Juvenile Court (COJC) and Juvenile Administrators
Meeting (JAM) quarterly meetings to provide an in-depth review of violations and
support efforts to reduce violations
Expansion of ongoing site visits to include non-secure lockups, allowing continuous
monitoring of every law enforcement facility in the state
Immediate follow up conducted on reported violations and agency’s responses to
violations
Violation Incident Report; the use of information to target contributing or causal factors
of violations
Juvenile Courts
Extensive work continues to address Arizona’s DSO violations. The GOCYF, alongside the
Commission, have established a strong relationship with the AOC to continue identifying and
implementing strategies aimed at reducing the state’s DSO violation rate. However, while
violations have decreased over the last several years, it is acknowledged that achieving full
compliance on a yearly basis is an ongoing endeavor. The placement of status offenders in secure
detention continues to remain a significant portion of the state’s DSO violations. These
violations are sanctioned by Arizona law, which states that juveniles found incorrigible may be
held in a juvenile detention center pending a hearing or as a condition of their probation. In order
to maintain full compliance with de minimus exceptions, the Commission and GOCYF have
approved strategies for implementation over the next 3 years to address violations that may or
may not conflict with state law.
Outreach and Technical Assistance
The majority of juvenile detention centers have implemented a screening tool to prevent the
admission of status and non-offenders. While most facilities do not allow law enforcement to
drop off status offenders, probation violations and warrants stemming from status offenses can
make secure detainment possible. Outreach to the juvenile courts will be increased to advise
judges, detention center administrators and probation officers of state and federal regulations.
These efforts will result in the broad understanding that detaining status offenders should occur
only as a last resort, pending a hearing or placement in out-of-home services. In these cases, the
federal Valid Court Order exception is recommended to ensure that the juvenile has been warned
and has received his or her constitutional rights prior to secure confinement. In addition to
outreach, the Compliance Monitor will provide each county Presiding Juvenile Court Judge and
Juvenile Court Administrator with a quarterly, detailed violation report.
Juvenile Referral Forms
An additional objective is to modify the juvenile referral forms. Currently, juveniles referred to
detention are not clearly distinguished based on whether they are an accused status or delinquent
offender. Modifying these forms to highlight juveniles brought in on a status offense warrant or
probation violation will alert staff to the urgency related to processing the juvenile within the 24
hour time limit. Through collaboration with the Commission, the GOCYF will work with each
county to add a field that notes when a status offender is referred, resulting in quicker hearings
and/or release times.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
20
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
Efforts underway to reduce juvenile incarceration include the expansion of the Juvenile
Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI). Over the past year, 4 additional counties have been
included for pilot implementation. This gives Arizona a total of 5 sites that are undergoing
juvenile justice reform, which is seen as a significant step toward statewide implementation. The
Juvenile Justice Specialist and Compliance Monitor will continue to remain involved with the
process. It is predicted the report findings and recommendations from the assessment will
support further efforts to address barriers to DSO compliance.
Law Enforcement
Arizona law prohibits placing juveniles in secure custody within an adult jail or lockup. In 2010,
approximately one-third of all DSO violations were in violation of ARS 8-305, which states,
“juveniles alleged to be…incorrigible shall not be securely detained in a jail or lockup in which
adults charged with or convicted of a crime are detained.” Due to the large portion of violations,
it is imperative that the state continues to implement strategies that further reduce these
incidents. In addition to the work that has been done in previous years, the GOCYF and the
Commission will collaborate to find innovative ways to address violations over the next 3 years.
Outreach and Technical Assistance
Technical assistance to law enforcement agencies will continue to occur through site visits and
trainings. All agencies that report a violation are required to submit a supplemental violation
report that includes circumstances of the violation, primary cause for the violation, as well as the
departmental follow up action taken to eliminate the likelihood of repeated violations. The
Compliance Monitor uses the information provided to address specific violations that occur at
individual agencies. In addition, high violation facilities will receive increased technical
assistance and agency specific training. Various agencies with limited resources, i.e. space and
staff, may require extra support to help reduce DSO violations. When needed, the Commission
has offered to draft a letter addressed to agency supervisors signed by the Commission
Chairperson emphasizing the importance of DSO compliance and funding consequences. This
type of ongoing collaboration is crucial to maintaining positive working relationships.
Training Materials
The large geographical size of Arizona, in addition to the regularity of peace officer turnover and
rotation, attribute to the need of ongoing distribution of compliance training materials. The
GOCYF and Commission have funded the development of such materials over the past several
years that includes reference binders, pocket cards and calendars. These materials will
continuously be provided to agencies as needed. Soon, efforts will concentrate on developing
online reference materials. The production of online state and federal juvenile holding
regulations will allow nearly every officer to access the appropriate information from any
location.
Updated Resource List
Law enforcement agencies often express the need for resources to help with issues caused by
staff shortages. Given that very few secure juvenile facilities will accept status offenders, officers
often have difficulty locating a safe place that can provide temporary supervision for juveniles
Arizona 3 Year Plan
21
pending notification of family members or Child Protective Services. Without such resources,
officers are often forced to bring the child to the substation to wait until a suitable guardian can
be found. For this reason, detention alternative centers for youth are in high-demand and
knowledge of available services is not always accurate due to the volatility of funding and
policies of confidentiality. The GOCYF and Commission will develop and distribute an updated
resource guide for law enforcement and juvenile court utilization. This list shall be revised
annually, initially in written form with the future intent to post online as well.
Activities, strategies, and timetable to address DSO violations in Arizona
Strategy
Site Visits
Provide FacilitySpecific Training
and Technical
Assistance
Follow-up on
Violations
Reported
Training Materials
Outreach to
Juvenile Courts
Status Offender
indicator on
Juvenile Referrals
Updated Resource
List
Arizona 3 Year Plan
Activity
 Conduct regular site visits to provide on-site
technical assistance and education regarding
DSO requirement
 Advise regarding new facility plans to assure
DSO compliance
 Collect policies to ensure, and when necessary,
promote consistency with DSO requirement
 Conduct visits that provide training and
technical assistance to high violating agencies
 Provide agencies with a signed letter from the
Commission to encourage DSO compliance
and emphasize importance of JJDPA funding
 Document violation causes and follow-up
when information not provided to disaggregate
sources of repeated violations and focus
training in these areas
 Distribute training and reference materials to
newly reporting agencies/staff regarding core
requirements
 Develop online access to training materials,
forms and other helpful compliance
information
 Education and training to Judges, Probation
and Detention Staff regarding JJDP Act
compliance and promotion of alternatives to
detention and/or the Valid Court Order (until it
is eliminated) when no alternative is available
 Quarterly violation reports to each county
jurisdiction
 Maintain involvement with statewide JDAI
efforts
 Work with each county to modify referral
forms to allow referring agency to indicate
when juvenile is a status offender
 Provide updated statewide list of community
resources available to law enforcement and
courts for alternatives to detention of status
and/or low risk delinquent offenders
Time Frame
 Continuous (20122014)
 Continuous (20122014)
 Continuous (20122014)
 Continuous (20122014)
 Continuous (20122014)
 July 2012-Dec 2013
 July 2012; annually
thereafter
22
In 2012, there have been no known changes that are predicted to impact the state’s DSO
compliance status. The 2011 Annual Compliance Report will be submitted to OJJDP in June
2012. Preliminary findings suggest that Arizona will again be eligible for full compliance of the
DSO requirement under de minimus exceptions.
2. PLAN FOR SEPARATION OF JUVENILES FROM ADULT OFFENDERS
Data from the Arizona 2010 Annual Compliance Report showed that no violations were reported
in core requirement of Section 223(a)(12) of the JJDP Act, which requires that juveniles not be
detained or confined in any institution in which they have contact with incarcerated adults.
Achieving full compliance with this requirement can be attributed to the cooperative relationship
between the GOCYF and the agencies that hold juveniles and/or adults within their facilities.
This collaboration has helped establish adequate record-keeping systems, departmental policies
that order the separation between juveniles and adults, and on-site inspections that allow the
Compliance Monitor to assess sight or sound contact risk. When concerns are raised, the
Compliance Monitor works with the agency supervisor(s) to address adult and juvenile contact
risks. This collaboration is especially important for agencies with space and/or staff limitations.
In Arizona, Separation violations are extremely rare. This is due in large part to ARS 8-305,
which contains statutory prohibitions against contact between juveniles and adults. In addition,
law enforcement academy training and continuing educational curriculum is explicit on the
matter of Separation. Despite these established safeguards, monitoring for the Separation
requirement continues to be a priority. While it is “common knowledge” to maintain separation
between juveniles and adults, it is less obvious to keep juveniles from having contact with trustee
laborers or inmates who may counsel juveniles during a “scared straight” presentation. The
collaboration between the Commission and Compliance Monitor aims to prevent contact in all
forms and to address these incidents when they occur.
Inmate Trustees
Site visits with agencies always include questions regarding the use of inmate laborers to
perform repairs or maintenance that might place them in contact with youth in custody.
Discussion of policies that address these issues has resulted in favorable outcomes that further
reduce the risk of contact. Examples include the restriction of such workers to performing tasks
outside of the facility, or the temporary transfer of juveniles into a separated correctional housing
unit until repairs are completed.
Scared Straight Programs
In addition to the issue of trustees, the compliance monitor regularly questions jail staff on
programs that utilize inmates to present to juveniles in hopes of deterring delinquency. These
programs are not in widespread use around the state but are occasionally requested locally by
community members, often parents of incorrigible children, as a desperate means to control
undesired behavior. When such programs are discovered, the Commission and Compliance
Monitor use evidence based research and the consequences of reduced funding to discourage this
practice.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
23
Juvenile Court
Arizona law supports the separate confinement of juveniles and adults in custody. ARS 8-305
states, “The County…shall maintain a detention center that is separate and apart from a jail or
lockup in which adults are confined where juveniles who are alleged to be delinquent or children
who are incorrigible…shall be detained when necessary before or after a hearing or as a
condition of probation.” All juveniles charged or adjudicated as delinquent or status offenders
are housed in a facility that is completely sight and sound separate from adult inmates. Arizona
has one joint use building that utilizes separate sections for adults and juveniles and is staffed by
the Sheriff’s Office and Juvenile Court staff respectively. This facility is inspected annually and
currently meets the requirements established by OJJDP, allowing it to be classified as a
collocated facility.
Law Enforcement
In addition to residential placement, separation of juveniles and adults during temporary
detainment is required under ARS 8-305, which states juveniles “accused of a criminal offense
or who is alleged to be delinquent may be securely detained in such location for up to six
hours…if the juvenile is kept in a physically separate section from any adult…and no sight or
sound contact between the juvenile and any charged or convicted adults is permitted…”
Therefore, separation is not only regulated by the JJDP Act, but is also required by state law.
Policies and procedures from agencies that may hold juveniles are regularly checked to
determine their compliance with state and federal laws and mandates. The Compliance Monitor
and the Commission work to ensure that every facility, even those that are not likely to detain
juveniles, have procedures in place that ensure separation does not occur.
The partnership with Arizona’s peace officer training oversight board, Arizona Peace Officer
Standards and Training (AzPOST) has resulted in an enhancement of the training that officers
going through the academy receive regarding procedures in accordance with the JJDP Act core
requirements. In early 2004, the AzPOST incorporated the Four Core Requirements and
associated procedures in processing juveniles under these protections in its AzPOST Board
Curriculum.
Collocated Facilities
Arizona has one collocated facility that is utilized by the juvenile court to detain juvenile
delinquent offenders and the sheriff’s office to detain adult criminal offenders. This facility
receives an annual on-site inspection to evaluate compliance with the criteria for approved
collocated facilities as outlined by OJJDP and included in Section 3.3, page 72 of the Arizona
Compliance Monitoring Policy and Procedures Manual. The ongoing monitoring ensures that
juvenile and adult inmates are sight and sound separated at all times. Both agencies operate
independently, utilizing separate staff and separate space for intake, residential, dining,
recreational, medical and educational functions. Policies do not explicitly prohibit adult
detention staff from working with the juvenile population; however, Arizona mandates specific
training standards for all detention officers who work with juveniles.
Waived or Transferred Youth
Arizona law allows for juveniles who commit certain felonies to be charged as adults (ARS 13501). Juveniles who are charged and convicted as adults are under the jurisdiction of the
Arizona 3 Year Plan
24
Sheriff’s Office. Several jails around the state hold juveniles remanded to adult court and are
housed in an area separate from adult inmates until they reach the age of eighteen. While
incarcerated, remanded juveniles receive educational services. In addition, detention personnel
who work with this population receive specialized training.
The Commission and Compliance Monitor work with agencies to promote adequate separation
policies and to develop strategies that reduce the risk of sight and sound contact between
juveniles and adults in custody. In addition to engaging with agencies that may securely detain
juveniles, monitoring is extended to exempt law enforcement agencies as well. Arizona has
many non-secure lockups, especially in rural areas. Site visits with these facilities are conducted
at minimum once every three years to determine secure or non-secure status. Once a facility is
changed to secure status, it will undergo an assessment of sight and sound contact risk. It is this
comprehensive approach to monitoring that helps to ensure juveniles are never subjected to
ineffective or inappropriate treatment that may cause further harm and impede their
rehabilitation.
Activities, strategies, activities to address Separation in Arizona
Strategy
Site Visits
Training Materials
Provide FacilitySpecific Training and
Technical Assistance
Updated Resource
Arizona 3 Year Plan
Activity
 Conduct regular site visits to assess sight and
sound contact risk and provide on-site technical
assistance and education regarding the Separation
requirement
 Work with departments regarding new facilities
to ensure compliance with Separation is
considered
 Collect agency policies to ensure procedures
maintain separation of juveniles and adults
 Conduct visits with “Adult Only” secure facilities
(i.e. jails) to verify no juvenile admittance
 Conduct thorough review of jail admissions to
monitor placement of juveniles when adults
present
 Discuss various contact scenarios (i.e. juvenile
provides false date of birth) with supervisors to
preemptively address possible risks
 Distribute training and reference materials to
newly reporting agencies/staff regarding core
requirements
 Develop online access to training materials,
forms and other helpful compliance information
 Conduct visits that provide training and technical
assistance to high violating agencies
 Provide agencies with a signed letter from the
Commission to encourage JJDPA compliance
and emphasize importance of federal funding
 Conduct annual visits with collocated facility
 Provide updated statewide list of community
Time Frame
 Continuous (20122014)
 Continuous (20122014)
 Continuous (20122014)
 July 2012; annually
25
List
resources available to law enforcement for
alternatives to detention of status and/or low risk
delinquent offenders
thereafter
In 2012, there have been no known changes that are predicted to impact the state’s Separation
compliance status. The 2011 Annual Compliance Report will be submitted to OJJDP in June
2012. Preliminary findings suggest that Arizona will again be eligible for full compliance of the
Separation requirement.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
26
3. PLAN FOR REMOVAL OF JUVENILES FROM ADULT JAILS AND LOCKUPS
Arizona was in compliance with numerical de minimis exception of Section 223(a)(13), the
Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups, or Jail Removal, core requirement of the
JJDP Act in 2010 and is expected to be in compliance with numerical de minimus exception of
this requirement in 2011. Data from the most recent compliance report completed in 2010 shows
that Arizona had a total of 106 Jail Removal violations. Eighty-one violations were caused by
holding accused juvenile delinquent offenders over 6 hours in a lockup or jail facility. All
juveniles involved were sight and sound separated from adults in custody. Accused status
offenders held securely in lockups account for the remaining 25 violations.
Arizona has reduced its violation rate steadily over the past decade. While some years produce
greater violations than in previous years, overall, the rate has been consistently lower in recent
years. For 2012, Arizona is committed to maintaining its current strategies as well as adding
additional training and awareness efforts to target violations of the JJDP Act regulations.
Arizona Jail Removal Violations and Rates 2007-2010
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
Violations
248
139
152
106
Rate
15.69
8.77
9.08
6.35
Disaggregating these violations further shows which incidents involved accused status offenders
and which involved accused delinquents over the same time frame.
Arizona Jail Removal Violations by Offender Type 2007-2010
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
Status Offenders
134
66
63
25
Delinquent Offenders >6hrs
115
73
89
81
Both tables highlight a favorable trend that has brought the number of violations down by 57%
since 2007 (92% reduction of status offenders and 30% reduction of delinquent offenders).
While there is much work to be done, progress made to date is due in large part to the numerous
strategies and activities implemented that reflect the commitment to reducing violations of
holding juvenile offenders securely in jails and lockups. These include an increased role by the
Arizona State Advisory Group in advocating for compliance throughout the State and
incorporating the JJDP Act core requirements into the statewide peace officer training held
annually, as well as partnering with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on statewide
projects.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
27
Role of the State Advisory Group in Monitoring Compliance with Jail Removal
The Commission reviews compliance issues on a regular basis. The Compliance Workgroup is
informed of various issues affecting compliance status around the state, and advised of
completed and pending site visits. The Commission members are also advised of the state’s
compliance status and invited to attend upcoming site visits.
As part of its data analysis efforts, a workgroup of the Commission, known as the Compliance
Workgroup, utilizes a process in which violations are mapped out into the various violations
categories (what type of violations, circumstances behind violations, following up measures,
technical assistance needs, etc.). This has allowed the Compliance Monitor and workgroup
members to have a better understanding of particular agencies violations, invite law enforcement
and detention center staff to work with the committee to find solutions, and to find appropriate
solutions that will work to avoid recurring violations. This process will continue throughout the
next 3 years as all efforts must be maintained due to ongoing turnover and staff rotations. In
addition, the workgroup will strive to achieve full reporting of all non-exempt facilities to ensure
that all juveniles detained in law enforcement agencies are being tracked and accounted for.
Alcohol Offenses
Substantial Jail Removal violation reduction from 2009 to 2010 has been due in part to the recent
OJJDP classification of Minor in Possession/Consumption of Alcohol (MIP) as a delinquent
offense. Prior to this change, MIP offenses were a major source of violations. Because the state
does not classify MIP as a status offense (ARS 4-244), these violations were seen as sanctioned
by state law. Despite this change, the GOCYF has continued to discourage the secure
confinement of juveniles charged with MIP absent additional delinquent offenses. Juveniles held
securely in lockups on MIP charges are documented and addressed with the agency to promote
alternative strategies.
Scared Straight Programs
The Compliance Monitor regularly questions staff during visits to facilities equipped with
holding cells or other restraint apparatus on the use of tours to deter juvenile delinquency.
Supervisory staff is made aware that placing a non-offender in secure custody, pursuant to public
authority, to experience incarceration is a violation of the Jail Removal and DSO core
requirements. These programs are not in widespread use around the state but occasionally are
requested locally by community members, often parents of incorrigible children, as a desperate
means to control undesired behavior. When such programs are disclosed, the Commission and
Compliance Monitor provide law enforcement staff with evidence based research and the
consequences of reduced funding to discourage this practice.
Status Offender Confinement
24% of Arizona’s 2010 Jail Removal violations were instances of status offenders being securely
detained in lockups. The most common factors attributed to these violations are officer safety
matters and training issues. As previously mentioned, this information is gathered by the
violation report and outreach is made to the agency supervisor, police officers, and departmental
heads to determine the appropriate strategies to address non-compliance. Programs funded by the
Commission, as described in Plan for Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, work to assist
law enforcement by providing alternatives to secure holding. In addition the GOCYF and
Arizona 3 Year Plan
28
Commission realize that police officers often have difficulty locating a safe place that can
provide temporary supervision for juveniles pending notification of family members or Child
Protective Services. Detention alternative centers for youth are in high-demand and knowledge
of available services is not always accurate due to the volatility of funding and policies of
confidentiality. For this reason, the Compliance Monitor and Commission will develop and
distribute an updated resource guide for law enforcement. This list shall be revised annually,
initially in written form with the future intent to post online as well.
Six-Hour Hold Violations
Under Section 220(a)(13)(A), accused delinquent youth can be securely detained in an adult jail
or lock up for up to six hours (to include time before and after court appearance), for the purpose
of identification, processing, and/or to arrange for transfer or release. Arizona’s 2010 Annual
Compliance Report showed that 76% of violations reported under the Jail Removal requirement
involved instances in which the 6-hour hold limit has been exceeded. Most of these incidents
were due to lengthy investigations of felony crimes. In order to address these violations, the
Compliance Monitor and members of the Commission have conducted outreach to high violating
agencies to discuss the 6-hour time limit and funding consequences of non-compliance. This
collaboration has led to increased awareness and modification of departmental policies to
conform to state and federal regulations in addition to exploring other strategies that meet the
agency’s need to conduct adequate investigations while maintaining the safety of youth in
custody.
Partnership with Arizona’s Peace Officer Training Academy
Arizona continues to maintain a relationship with the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and
Training (AzPOST) Board to enhance law enforcement training regarding juveniles. This
relationship has already resulted in academy training revisions. The AzPOST incorporated the
Four Core Requirements and associated procedures in processing juveniles under these
protections in its standard curriculum.
Activities, strategies, and timetable to address Jail Removal violations in Arizona
Strategy
Site Visits
Training Materials
Arizona 3 Year Plan
Activity
 Conduct regular site visits to provide regular,
on-site technical assistance and education
regarding Jail Removal requirement
 Advise regarding new facility plans to assure
Jail Removal compliance
 Collect policies to ensure and promote when
necessary consistency with Jail Removal
requirement
 Distribute training manuals to newly reporting
agencies/staff regarding core requirements
 Develop online access to training materials,
forms and other helpful compliance
information
Time Frame

Continuous, and on an
as-needed basis

Continuous (2012-2014)
29
Provide FacilitySpecific Training and
Technical Assistance
Follow-up on
Violations Reported
Updated Resource
List
 Conduct visits that provide training and

technical assistance to high violating law
enforcement agencies
 Provide agencies with a signed letter from the
Commission to encourage Jail Removal
compliance and emphasize importance of
JJDPA funding
 Document violation causes and follow-up when 
information not provided to disaggregate
sources of repeated violations and focus
training in these areas
 Provide updated statewide list of community

resources available to law enforcement and
courts for alternatives to detention of status
and/or low risk delinquent offenders
Continuous (2012-2014)
Continuous (2012-2014)
July 2012; annually
thereafter
In 2012, there have been no known changes that are predicted to impact the state’s Jail Removal
compliance status. The 2011 Annual Compliance Report will be submitted to OJJDP in June
2012. Preliminary findings suggest that Arizona will again be eligible for compliance with
numerical de minimis exception.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
30
E. PLAN FOR MONITORING COMPLIANCE FOR THE FIRST THREE CORE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE JJDP ACT
1. Policies and Procedures
* Please see Attachment 4 for a copy of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families
Compliance Monitoring Policies and Procedures Manual.
2. Monitoring Authority
The Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families has oversight of monitoring activities
conducted to demonstrate compliance with the JJDP Act. The Executive Order tasks the State
Advisory Group to support the Governor’s Office in monitoring jails, lockups, juvenile detention
centers and non-secure facilities in addition to ensuring the state has an adequate system of
monitoring for compliance with federal regulations for the secure holding of juveniles. While it
does not mandate that all agencies must participate in the monitoring process, the Governor’s
Office has had minimal difficulty in obtaining full cooperation from law enforcement personnel
and juvenile facility administrators around the state.
* Please reference section 1.4 on page 22 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
3. Monitoring Timeline
*Please reference page 20 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual) for a copy of the
Arizona Monitoring Timetable.
* Please reference section 2.5 on page 65 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
4. Violation Procedures
* Please reference section 1.2 on page 12 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
5. Barriers and Strategies
* Please reference section 1.1 on page 7 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
6. Definition of Terms
* Please reference section 1.5 on page 25 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
7. Identification of the Monitoring Universe
* Please reference section 2.1 on page 34 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
8. Classification of Monitoring Universe
* Please reference section 2.2 on page 38 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
9. Inspection of Facilities
* Please reference section 2.3 on page 42 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
10. Data Collection and Verification
* Please reference section 2.4 on page 48 of Attachment 4 (Policies and Procedure Manual).
Arizona 3 Year Plan
31
F. PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY
CONTACT CORE REQUIREMENT
PHASE I: IDENTIFICATION
Updated Identification Spreadsheets (Attachment 2)
The State of Arizona previously updated Relative Rate Index (RRI) data in the DMC Web-Based
Data Entry System on a bi-annual basis. Due to administrative changes at the Juvenile Justice
Specialist position, the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, in conjunction with
the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (Commission), will begin updating RRI every three
years. FY2009 RRI data was utilized for a third and final year when completing the plan below.
Arizona’s 2013 DMC plan will contain new DMC data for FY2012 which will be updated every
three years henceforth.
DMC Discussion
The Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families and the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission has an established a partnership with the Arizona Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC) to reduce incidents of disproportionality among Arizona’s youth and uphold this
core requirement of the JJDP Act. The AOC is responsible for collecting and compiling RRI
data for the State and has agreed to provide this data to the Governor’s Office and the
Commission.
Review of statewide 2009 RRI data continued to show disproportionality at every decision point
of the juvenile justice system with the exception of cases resulting in delinquent findings
(adjudication).
The following chart summarizes the statewide FY09 RRI analysis using the methodology
recommended by OJJDP. Statistical significance (S) was taken from the statewide RRI
summary. High magnitude of rate disparity (M) is defined as +/-.5 or more different from 1.0.
High volume of activity (V) is defined as >4,86, which is 0.5% of the statewide youth
population.
*DES Census, 2005 used for 2009 RRI data estimated the juvenile population in Arizona at
972,106.
**Minority groups represent 54% of the total juvenile population.
***RRI Data reported represent unduplicated counts of juveniles who experienced each decision
point.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
32
Black/
AfricanAmerican
**
1.82
0.80
1.55
1.33
0.98
0.94
1.67
1.46
STATEWIDE
Arrests
Referral
Diversion
Detention
Petitioned
Delinquent
Probation
Confinement
Transferred
Hispanic/
or Latin
Asian
**
1.06
0.96
1.35
1.17
1.04
0.93
1.61
1.21
**
0.32
1.28
1.05
0.90
1.04
1.03
**
**
Key:
Statistically significant results:
Results that are not statistically significant
Group is less than 1% of the youth population
Insufficient number of cases for analysis
RRI values with the greatest magnitude
American
Indian/
AK Native
**
0.94
0.76
1.55
1.36
0.97
0.98
0.85
**
Other/
Mixed
Race
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
All
Minorities
**
1.09
0.92
1.39
1.21
1.02
0.94
1.54
1.20
Bold font
Regular font
*
**
0000000
Statewide RRI Calculation - All Minorities
Transferred
Confinement
Probation
Delinquent
Petitioned
Detention
Diversion
Referral
Arrests
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
In breaking down the statistically significant rates with the greatest magnitude - detention and
confinement - by individual minority group (charts below), the higher disproportionality
appears to be associated with the detention of African American youth and Native American
youth, with rates of 1.55; and with the confinement of African American and Hispanic youth,
with rates of 1.67 and 1.61 respectively.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
33
Detention
Confinement
Native American
Native American
Asian
Asian
Hispanic
Hispanic
African American
African American
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Maricopa County
The following chart summarizes Maricopa County’s FY09 RRI analysis using the methodology
recommended by OJJDP. Statistical significance (S) was taken from the statewide RRI
summary. High magnitude of rate disparity (M) is defined as +/-.5 or more different from 1.0.
Maricopa County is the most populated county in the State.
MARICOPA
COUNTY
Arrests
Referral
Diversion
Detention
Petitioned
Delinquent
Probation
Confinement
Transferred
Black/
AfricanAmerican
**
2.10
0.80
1.92
1.49
0.95
0.92
1.63
**
Key:
Statistically significant results:
Results that are not statistically significant
Group is less than 1% of the youth population
Insufficient number of cases for analysis
RRI values with the greatest magnitude
Arizona 3 Year Plan
Hispanic/
or Latin
Asian
**
1.06
1.00
1.53
1.27
1.00
0.95
1.78
**
**
0.32
1.28
1.09
0.94
1.16
1.00
**
**
American
Indian/
AK Native
**
1.65
0.77
1.78
1.43
0.91
0.98
1.10
**
Other/
Mixed
Race
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
All
Minorities
**
1.16
0.95
1.61
1.32
0.98
0.94
1.69
**
Bold font
Regular font
*
**
0000000
34
Maricopa County RRI Calculation– All Minorities
Transferred
Confinement
Probation
Delinquent
Petitioned
Detention
Diverted
Referral
Arrests
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
While the number of youth referred to juvenile court increased slightly in 2009, the number of
Hispanic youth held in secure detention as well as those found delinquent decreased during the
same time period. Additionally, the number of cases involving Hispanic youth that were
diverted increased. Overall the number of youth sentenced to juvenile corrections decreased
significantly.
Areas of Concern
The RRI data for 2009 indicates statistically significant rates of African American youth being
referred, detained and confined. Data also reflects a statistically significant detention and
confinement rate for Hispanic and Native American youth.
Pima County
The following chart summarizes Pima County’s FY09 RRI analysis using the methodology
recommended by OJJDP. Statistical significance (S) was taken from the statewide RRI
summary. High magnitude of rate disparity (M) is defined as +/-.5 or more different from 1.0.
PIMA COUNTY
Arrests
Referral
Diversion
Detention
Petitioned
Delinquent
Probation
Confinement
Transferred
Arizona 3 Year Plan
Black/
AfricanAmerican
Hispanic/
or Latin
Asian
American
Indian/
AK Native
Other/
Mixed
Race
All
Minorities
**
1.97
0.78
1.37
1.27
0.97
0.84
1.48
**
**
1.23
0.85
1.37
1.19
0.99
0.95
1.11
**
**
0.39
1.06
**
0.90
**
**
**
**
**
1.23
0.95
1.21
1.23
0.93
0.95
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
1.26
0.85
1.34
1.20
0.99
0.94
1.18
**
35
Key:
Statistically significant results:
Results that are not statistically significant
Group is less than 1% of the youth population
Insufficient number of cases for analysis
RRI values with the greatest magnitude
Bold font
Regular font
*
**
0000000
Pima County RRI Calculation– All Minorities
Transferred
Confinement
Probation
Delinquent
Petitioned
Detention
Diversion
Referral
Arrests
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
The RRI data for Pima County in 2009 shows an overall improvement related to minority youth.
The total number of youth referred to juvenile court is down from 2007 which could be the result
of several strategies, including the Juvenile Alternative to Detention Initiative. During this
reporting period, the RRI data shows a 47% reduction in the number of minority youth sent to
juvenile corrections from 2007.
Area of Concern
Data indicates that DMC exists for African and Hispanic youth at referral, detention and petition
decision points. The statistically significant rate with the greatest magnitude occurs at referral
for African American youth at a rate of 1.97.
Yuma County
The following chart summarizes Yuma County’s FY09 RRI analysis using the methodology
recommended by OJJDP. Statistical significance (S) was taken from the statewide RRI
summary. High magnitude of rate disparity (M) is defined as +/-.5 or more different from 1.0.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
36
YUMA COUNTY
Arrests
Referral
Diversion
Detention
Petitioned
Delinquent
Probation
Confinement
Transferred
Black/
AfricanAmerican
Hispanic/
or Latin
Asian
American
Indian/
AK Native
Other/
Mixed
Race
All
Minorities
**
1.59
0.77
1.34
1.26
1.01
**
**
**
**
1.18
1.05
1.16
1.03
1.20
0.87
**
**
**
0.28
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
3.08
0.64
1.48
1.07
1.23
0.84
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
1.21
1.02
1.18
1.04
1.19
0.87
**
**
Key:
Statistically significant results:
Results that are not statistically significant
Group is less than 1% of the youth population
Insufficient number of cases for analysis
RRI values with the greatest magnitude
Bold font
Regular font
*
**
0000000
Yuma County RRI Calculation– All Minorities
Transferred
Confinement
Probation
Delinquent
Petitioned
Detention
Diversion
Referral
Arrests
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
The number of juveniles referred to the Yuma County Court decreased significantly from 2007
to 2009, however the number of Hispanic youth held in secure detention and committed to the
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections increased over the same time period. The number
of petitions filed against African American youth decreased during this time.
Areas of Concern
The increase in Hispanic youth with petitions filed, held in secure detention and committed to the
Department of Juvenile Corrections is a concern of the Yuma County Juvenile Court. A
Arizona 3 Year Plan
37
statistically significant rate with the greatest magnitude occurs at referral for Native American
youth at a rate of 3.08.
Summary
In comparing the RRI values with the RRI values nationally, Arizona had similar rates
for minority youth in total, except for a slightly higher confinement rate (1.54 for AZ
compared to 1.3 nationally). The higher confinement rate is most significant with African
American youth (1.67 for AZ compared to 1.3 nationally). Rates of referral for Arizona are also
higher than those nationally when looking at specific minority groups. African American youth
are referred in Arizona at a rate of 1.82 versus 1.20 nationally. It is important to note that
national data is not collected for Hispanic youth which make up a substantial portion of the State
population and are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.
In examining the local context for the RRI values, Maricopa, Pima and Yuma counties continue
to be feasible target populations for focusing DMC reduction activities in Arizona. All three
counties continue to work in close partnership with the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth
and Families, the Administrative Office of the Court and the Commission’s DMC work group to
assist in monitoring and reducing DMC within their respective jurisdictions. This is evidenced
by commitments to the JDAI model in Pima and Maricopa counties, the DMC Intervention
Model Project in Pima county, and the utilization of JUST Court in Yuma county.
The DMC workgroup will use the RRI data contained in the plan to identify specific systemic
mechanisms that may be contributing to DMC within each of the identified counties and make
recommendations about specific interventions that can be implemented to limit the
overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
38
PHASE II: ASSESSMENT/DIAGNOSIS
Initial assessment results for the state indicate that DMC does exist and is present at almost every
decision point along the juvenile justice continuum with the exception of adjudication. Some of
the contributing mechanisms in Arizona include: Immigration and Migration Related Mobility;
Programming Access/Eligibility; Simple Accumulation; and Legislation, Policies and Legal
Factors. These factors have been identified for a variety of reasons. First, Arizona is a border
state to Mexico. There continues to be an influx of families and youth into the U.S. across the
Arizona and Mexico border. This change in the population of Arizona combined with strict
immigration laws in the state contribute to higher instances of DMC. In relation to Programming
Access/Eligibility we continue to see the effects on DMC within the juvenile justice system since
immigrant families are often unable to access services because of language barriers and a fear of
retribution regarding their immigration status. There are also difficulties for tribal youth in that
eligibility for the state health system is set up on-line and access to the internet is often limited or
completely unavailable on the reservations. Arizona is home to 22 different tribes. Simple
Accumulation is evident when looking at the impact of these other mechanisms.
In 2012, Arizona began a comprehensive and methodological study with Dr. Nancy Rodriguez
and Arizona State University to assist with determining what factors most contribute to DMC
throughout Arizona’s juvenile justice system. The DMC assessment will consist of three phases
of data collection and analysis.
During the first phase, researchers will examine the possible contribution mechanism of DMC
which can be measured using secondary data (e.g., temporal/seasonal issues, community
location, population demographics, mobility, institutional effects, program eligibility, program
effectiveness, state and local policies, and accumulated or compounded effects), all delinquent
referrals in Arizona from January 2005 - December 2010 will be analyzed. Research staff will
work with the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice
Services Division Research Director and the respective research staff in the counties to review
and analyze data from the juvenile court data management system.
RRI data will be presented at the county and state level for the 6 years under review. Multivariate
analyses will then be conducted to identify if race and ethnicity (Hispanic/Latinos, Blacks, and
American Indians, and Whites) effects exist at various court outcomes.
During the second phase researchers will review a total of 400 case files of youth brought to the
attention of the juvenile court. Researchers will work with the Governor’s Office for Children,
Youth and Families, the AOC Juvenile Justice Services Division, the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission and respective counties to ensure that youth from urban and rural counties are
included in the review. The examination of qualitative data is meant to provide insight on how
specific risk factors (e.g., school performance, poverty, family setting) are in any way related to
DMC and court outcomes. Case file review will also be helpful in indentifying whether
unintentional biases (stereotypes) are at play in minority youth overrepresentation.
The third and final phase of the assessment involves analyzing qualitative interview data from
semi-structured individual interviews with detention/intake staff, probation officers, and judges.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
39
This data will provide insight on the perceived mechanisms at play and key factors in decision
making processes. A total of 100 key actors will be interviewed for approximately 60 to 90
minutes. Researchers will work with the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families,
the AOC Juvenile Justice Services Division, and respective counties to gain a sampling frame of
staff, enabling researchers to obtain a representative sample of the larger organization population
based on key criteria (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, sex, tenure with the department, caseload, and
geographic location within Arizona). Recruitment procedures will begin with a letter sent via
mail to the potential interviewee, with follow-up phone calls. All interview participants will be
guaranteed confidentiality. Interviews will be scheduled at the convenience of the interviewee in
terms of time and location. Unless the participants object, all interviews will be audio-recorded
and transcribed.
A final report will also be provided which will include a summary of the county and statewide
assessment development. A summary of the local and statewide multivariate analyses will be
presented. The contributing mechanism as identified in the secondary data analyses, case file
review, and key actors will be highlighted and discussed. Lastly, recommendations and
implementation strategies/interventions based on the analyses will be presented.
The data from the Arizona statewide DMC assessment will be included in Arizona’s FY13
OJJDP Title II update.
Statewide
Areas of concern are the groups and decision points that indicate statistical significance, high
magnitude and high volume of activity. The statewide 2009 RRI data show the following areas
of concern:
Referred to Juvenile Court
 Black/African American
 All minorities
Cases involving secure detention
 Black/African American
 Hispanic/Latin
 American Indian
 All Minorities
Cases petitioned (charged filed)
 Black/African American
 Hispanic/Latin
 American Indian
 All Minorities
Secure juvenile correctional facilities
 Hispanic/Latin
Areas of concern identified in 2007 RRI data continue to be areas of concern in 2009 data,
however overall numbers and disparity have decreased since 2007.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
40
PHASE III: INTERVENTION
Progress Made in FY 2011
Maricopa County
As part of a comprehensive strategic planning effort, Chief Vincent Iaria and his Executive Team
at the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department established an overall department goal to
address disproportionate minority contact and disparate outcomes for youth of color that states
the department will reduce overrepresentation of minority youth in secure detention by 10% by
June, 2015. The department will need to develop strategies that include education of
stakeholders, community involvement and staff recommendations to meet this aggressive goal.
Additionally, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department established the following
employee performance goal for FY 2011: Continue developing and increasing knowledge of
Evidence Based Practices and Disproportionate Minority Contact through training and staff
development, all Probation Officers (including Supervisors, Division Directors and Deputy
Chief) and Surveillance Officers.
All new Juvenile Probation employees received DMC training in 2011 and staff is currently
coordinating with the Juvenile Court to provide Disparity training for all court employees.
Yuma County
During the summer of 2011, the Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center partnered with the Yuma
Police Department to provide a program for 30 probationers utilizing the Gang Resistance
Education and Training (GREAT) curriculum. Two uniformed officers met with three separate
groups of juveniles six hours a week to participate in activities such as role playing, small-group
work, brainstorming and large-group discussion. Topics included the truth about gangs and
violence, empathy for others, responding to peer pressure, anger management and how to resolve
conflicts.
In December 2011, the Yuma County Juvenile Court terminated its contract with Pro-Tech
Monitoring, a global positioning system (GPS) / electronic monitoring (EM) provider, and
initiated a new contract with BI Incorporated. Since the average number of units being utilized
with Pro-Tech on any given day was 19, the new program was rolled out with 25 units and later
increased to 35. The program is a cost effective detention alternative, as it allows juveniles, who
would otherwise be detained, to remain in their homes under strict supervision.
Pima County
In 2011, Pima County continued work on the DMC Intervention model, which is a three-year,
multi-phase project being conducted by the Pima County Juvenile Court Center utilizing OJJDP
Title II funding. The goal of the project is to reduce disproportionate contact with and disparate
treatment by the juvenile justice system among youth 8 to 17 years old who reside in Pima
County.
The juvenile justice system comprises a series of distinct functions including referral, detention,
petition, adjudication and disposition that represent key decision points within the system. As
Arizona 3 Year Plan
41
such, each decision point represents an opportunity to reduce DMC and disparate treatment.
Therefore, the first objective of the project was to identify the factor contributing to DMC at
each of the key decision points and formulate recommendations to mitigate these factors.
In order to accomplish this goal Pima County formed work groups to examine DMC data at each
decision point. The workgroups included representatives from the agencies that have direct or
indirect involvement with decision-making at each point. The primary purpose of these
workgroups was to tap into the collective experience and expertise within these agencies to
discuss why DMC is happening and formulate approaches for reducing DMC.
Five DMC professional workgroups were formed that included representative from the juvenile
court, county attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, school districts, law enforcement,
child welfare services, and community based behavioral health and prevention providers. The
workgroup members identified 147 factors that are contributing to DMC and developed 89
recommendations to address these factors.
Pima County also conducted mandatory 2-hour DMC Trainings in 2011 and had approximately
347 court staff complete the training. Court personnel included probation, detention, and
management staff. Pima County will continue providing this mandatory DMC Training to all
new employees within probation, detention, and management, but is also open to any court staff
who would like to attend and extend their knowledge.
Planned DMC Reduction Activities for FY2012
Maricopa County
Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department will continue to collaborate with Dr. Nancy
Rodriguez at the Arizona State University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice on a grant
from OJJDP related to evaluating departmental strategies to reduce DMC in Detention. Data
analysis will continue into 2012. Additional staff will be trained in the specific topics relating to
DMC.
Additionally, the new Detention Index tool will be fully implemented throughout the court
during FY 2012. The revised tool was developed in collaboration with staff from probation and
Detention and representatives from the Juvenile Court Bench, the Maricopa County Attorney’s
Office, the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, ASU School of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
and the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families. The focus of the revised tool is to
reduce the potential for subjectiveness and bias in the instrument and enhance the tool’s ability to
appropriately identify youth who should be detained in detention.
Yuma County
Yuma County Juvenile Court will continue to implement the JUST Program in 2012 patterned
after a successful program in Hawaii referred to as HOPE (Hawaii Opportunity Probation with
Enforcement). In summary, HOPE allows for immediate consequences for adult probationers
who are assessed as high risk and have problems with illegal substances. This program reduced
the number of petitions to revoke filed on adult probationers and also resulted in a lower
recidivism rate.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
42
The goal of the JUST Program is to allow for the imposition by the judges of immediate
consequences for violations of probation. The judges will become familiar with the cases brought
before them, can engage the juvenile and parents/guardians in the cases, and can quickly provide
sanctions up to and including detention time. The probation officers assigned to the program will
no longer have discretion in the handling of probation violations through the use of intermediate
sanctions. All probation violation cases will require the arrest of the participant and immediate
referral into the court system for an appearance in front of the assigned judge.
Yuma County will continue the JUST Program with one caseload. Professors from Pepperdine
University are working to obtain funding to begin developing a formal evaluation of the
program. All juveniles, with the exception of one who initially participated in the program, have
been successfully released from probation. The other juvenile was placed on Intensive Probation
due to probation violations.
In order to provide a quicker turnaround for the diversion program, Yuma County modified the
existing 12-hour Delinquency Prevention Program to cover six hours of instruction over a four
week span. The program goals are to provide a generalized delinquency prevention curriculum
to diverted youth, whose ages range from 10-14, as well as their parents. Presentations are made
by Juvenile Court staff and cover topics such as self esteem, HIV/STD, family communication
and the dangers of substance abuse.
Yuma County will also continue the use of Electronic Monitoring devices, and continue to
support DMC efforts by providing education and strategies to key county stakeholders.
Pima County
In 2012 Pima County will work to implement the DMC intervention plan. The goal of the plan
is to reduce disproportionate contact with and disparate treatment by the juvenile justice system
among youth 8 to 17 years old who reside in Pima County will include: details on the action
steps that were adopted, the goals and objectives for those action steps, the agencies responsible
for implementing the steps, the implementation timeline, and the measures that will be used to
determine the extent to which the goals and objectives were met for each action step.
Pima County Juvenile Court Center (PCJCC) will also continue to be an Anne E. Casey JDAI
replication site, working collaboratively with the Haywood Burns Institute to address both the
appropriate use of secure detention and DMC. PCJCC has been asked to share many of its
positive outcomes at the local, state and national level.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
43
PHASE IV: EVALUATION
As discussed above, funds have been committed as a specific intervention strategy to reduce the
over-representation of minority youth in Pima County. This Project has been titled the DMC
Intervention Model Project and will be evaluated using the following measures:
Performance measures:
 Number and % of program staff trained
 Number of staff training hours provided
 Number of planning activities conducted
 Number of assessment studies conducted
 Number of data improvement projects implemented
 Number of decision-making tools developed
Outcome measures
 Number and percentage of agencies reporting improved data collection
 Number of contributing factors determined from assessment studies
 Number of DMC intervention recommendations developed from assessment studies
 Number of DMC intervention recommendations developed from assessment studies
 Number of contact points reporting reduction in disproportionality
 Number and percentage of recommendations from assessment study implemented
 Number and percentage of staff with increased knowledge of program area
PHASE V: MONITORING
The DMC Workgroup of the Commission will be responsible for monitoring DMC reduction
activities statewide. The Workgroup will work in coordination with the Administrative Office of
the Courts (AOC) and the GOCYF in reviewing RRI data. Additionally, RRI data will be
evaluated for the three local DMC reduction sites.
Arizona will continue to monitor and track changes in DMC trends through the calculation of the
relative rates indexes and an analysis of the level of system involvement based on minority youth
population. These activities will be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Specialist and will take
place each year in January as previous Fiscal year data is made available.
The State will receive quarterly reports and will conduct yearly site visits in order to monitor
funded programs which provide delinquency prevention, intervention, and/or systems
improvement activities to reduce DMC.
DMC Reduction Plan for 2012-2014
A new three-year DMC reduction plan will be developed in 2013 after the conclusion of the
State’s Comprehensive DMC Assessment. The data and recommendations that result from the
assessment will be utilized by the Commission and the DMC workgroup to formulate a new
DMC Reduction Plan.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
44
Timeline for 2012-2014
FY2012
Arizona State University will complete a comprehensive statewide DMC assessment, to assist
with determining what factors most contribute to DMC throughout Arizona’s juvenile justice
system. Additionally the Commission will continue to support DMC interventions identified by
the DMC Intervention Model Project and the DMC workgroup.
Budget: It is anticipated that a minimum of $50,000 in Title II Formula Grant funds will be
directed to disproportionate minority contact in FY2012.
FY2013
The DMC Workgroup and the Commission will evaluate the results of the Statewide DMC
assessment and will support specific interventions based on the results.
FY2014
Through the Title II Formula Grant, the Commission will continue to support county courts and
local communities in disproportionate minority contact activities that utilize best practice model
programs and strategies and evaluate the effectiveness of specific DMC reduction activities.
G. COORDINATION OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND DELINQUENCY
PROGRAMS
In addition to providing direction on juvenile justice related policy and programming and
assuring compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the Arizona
Juvenile Justice Commission membership has been directed to serve as Arizona’s
Multidisciplinary Task Force on Children’s Justice. This move is a reflection of trends to
integrate juvenile justice and child welfare systems as appropriate. This change uniquely
positions the Commission to better assess systems improvement needs, gaps and overlap to more
effectively target resources.
1. Reducing Probation Officer Caseloads
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(25) of the JJDP Act of 2002, the Governor’s Office for Children,
Youth and Families understands that it may provide incentive grants to units of general local
government that reduce the caseload of probation officers and that these funds may not exceed
five percent of the state’s total allocation aside from funds made available to the State Advisory
Group.
2. Sharing Public Child Welfare Records with Juvenile Courts
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(26) of the JJDP Act of 2002, the state must to the maximum extent
practical implement a system to ensure that if a juvenile is before a court in the juvenile justice
system, public child welfare records (including child protective services records) relating to such
juvenile that are on file in the geographical area under the jurisdiction of such court will be made
known to such court.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
45
In Arizona, if juveniles are dually adjudicated with both a dependency petition and a delinquency
referral, child welfare information is available to the Juvenile Court/Probation Department
through JOLTS, Arizona’s Juvenile On Line Tracking Systems.
3. Establishing Policies and Systems to Incorporate Child Protective Services Records into
Juvenile Justice Records
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(27) of the JJDP Act of 2002, the state must establish policies and
systems to incorporate relevant child protective services records into juvenile justice records for
purposes of establishing and implementing treatment plans for juvenile offenders.
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(28) of the JJDP Act of 2002, this section of the application must
provide an assurance that juvenile offenders whose placement is funded through Section 472 of
the Social Security Act (Title IV-E) (42 U.S.C. 672) receive the protections specified in Section
471 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 671), including a case plan and case plan review as defined in
Section 475 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 675).
Arizona has a policy in place and an associated system within JOLTS, Arizona’s Juvenile On
Line Tracking System, by which information will be available to denote if there is or has been a
Child Protective Services (CPS) referral that did not result in a dependency petition and other
pertinent child welfare information available on or through JOLTS. This information is currently
captured in the juvenile courts’ Case Planning Risk and Assessment screening tool.
H. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAN
The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections developed a Business Continuity Plan in 2005.
The plan has been updated annual since its development. A copy of the Business Continuity
Plan has been mailed to OJJDP.
I. SUICIDE PREVENTION
The GOCYF and the Commission recognize that suicide is a major public health issue. In order
to address this issue and its relationship to juvenile delinquency the Commission will collaborate
with the Arizona Department of Health Services, Suicide Prevention Project. The Project
involves developing the capacity of organizations to incorporate evidence based strategies into
their programs. Simultaneously, the project provides training in gatekeeping and climate
improvement for education, behavioral health and juvenile corrections.
The Arizona Suicide Prevention Project is a partnership among three organizations: The Arizona
Department of Health Services, Division of Behavioral Health Services (ADHS/DBHS), Arizona
State University (ASU), and the Arizona Suicide Prevention Coalition (AzSPC) and involves
implementation of key components of Arizona’s strategic plan for suicide prevention.
Universal components of the project involve establishment of a gatekeeper training network,
provision of gatekeeper training, and ongoing training for educators, behavioral health providers,
and juvenile corrections professionals in suicide prevention and in how to develop a safe and
supportive climate for at risk youth.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
46
An indicated component of the project involves pilot testing an emergency room intervention
with a hospital in Maricopa County. In addition, the project will work to develop referral
networks to increase access to need health services for at risk youth, as well as, expand
availability of support services for survivors of suicide.
J. COLLECTING AND SHARING JUVENILE JUSTICE INFORMATION
Description of Gathering Juvenile Justice Information and Data Across State Agencies:
Every justice agency is required to use the same general information flow model. Each is
constrained by the same rules and requirements. For example, arrest must precede booking,
booking precedes trial, and trial precedes sentencing. The law requires that the criminal process
follow certain steps and procedures. The applicable law is found, in part, in Arizona Revised
Statutes, Title 13, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Arizona Rules of Court, and the case
law of the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Courts. In many cases, information
flow cannot be changed without making changes to the legal process. However, there are
opportunities to share information between systems when appropriate and while following the
specific agency requirements for sharing of information.
Information is shared regularly when it does not contain identifying information or anything that
might violate confidentiality requirements or regulations. These data are found in regularly
published reports such as: the Arizona Juvenile Court Counts, published by the Arizona
Administrative Office of the Courts or the Arizona Youth Survey, published by the Arizona
Criminal Justice Commission. These reports provide the foundation for data driven decisionmaking for the 3-year plan, as well as other strategic plans developed across the juvenile justice
system. Reports are easily accessible on various agency websites and shared among
epidemiological work groups and/or data sharing work groups.
Barriers:
Gathering juvenile justice information and sharing data across state agencies does provide a set
of barriers. Such barriers include:
 State agencies use different software that does not allow the “systems to talk”
 All agencies do not capture the same data elements
 Data elements may be defined differently between agencies
 The fast population growth within Arizona causes data sources to quickly become
outdated requiring increased resources dedicated to ongoing maintenance.
As stated previously, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission is committed to supporting
ongoing efforts to develop and refine mechanisms for comprehensive information sharing.
Through support of information sharing projects and initiatives, the Commission continues to
facilitate enhanced capacities for the collection and exchange of relevant information, increased
efficiencies with regard to the extraction and application of information, and appropriate
accessibility to crosscutting information for multiple youth-serving agencies.
As an example, the Commission has supported system integration efforts at both the state and
local level. One of the outcomes of this initiative is the development of a Field Guide on sharing
information. The guide was developed in partnership with Arizona’s Administrative Office of
Arizona 3 Year Plan
47
the Courts (AOC) and the Departments of Economic Security (DES), Education (ADE), Health
Services (DHS), and Juvenile Corrections (AzDJC). It contains guidelines for the sharing of
information of children and families that are involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems.
The guide looks to address the barriers that have historically been in place which limit
practioners’ abilities to understand the unique and often dynamic needs of juveniles and their
families.
K. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM/PROGRAM NARRATIVE
Based on review and analysis of the needs and circumstances facing Arizona’s youth and the
current Arizona juvenile justice system, the problem statements below are priorities of the
Commission and will be addressed with FY12 Title II funding. It is important to note, however,
that the sharing of resources and collaboration with other juvenile justice stakeholders and
community providers is vital in order to address many of the areas outlined below. All budgets
are merely projections and do not obligate the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission to specified
funding. Funding allocations contained in this budget are subject to the State Grant Statutes,
A.R.S. § 41-2701, et. seq. and State Procurement Code, A.R.S § 41-2501, et. Seq.
Priority Area 1
Delinquency Prevention (Program Area 09): Programs, research or other initiatives designed
to reduce the incidence of delinquent acts and directed to the general youth population thought to
be at risk of becoming delinquent.
Program Goal: To increase prevention services throughout the state in ways that meet specific
needs identified at the local level. Research and data show that better gender specific
programming is needed throughout the state. Services for girls in the juvenile justice system
must address the unique needs of girls. Prevention as well as treatment services must address
gender and cultural differences to have the greatest positive impact on a youth’s unique needs.
This includes addressing substance abuse issues and issues of sexual or physical abuse.
Programming services must also be culturally competent for youth in the juvenile justice system
and should include family involvement. Other delinquency prevention and intervention efforts
address gangs in the community (including tribal land), mental health needs of children and their
families, youth homelessness, education and access to safe schools so that they have a safe
environment to learn, and that teachers and parents encourage their youth to recognize the
importance of education.
Program Objectives: The Commission will provide pass-through funding and services to
community and faith-based organizations:
1. To reduce juvenile delinquency with programs funded by the formula grant through
prevention and intervention strategies and support programs that coordinate with other
juvenile justice stakeholders.
2. To increase interagency coordination, collaboration, and availability of resources within
the juvenile justice system.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
48
3. To increase knowledge and training regarding gender issues and cultural competency
issues for state agencies as well as at the local level, especially ensuring that prevention
programs are gender specific and culturally relevant for the population they are geared
towards.
4. To improve data collection and sharing between juvenile justice and child welfare
stakeholders, including on tribal reservations.
5. To create a mechanism in which communities drive the needs identification process
rather than state agencies.
6. To support a system in which community-based planning is valued.
Activities and Services: The Commission will continue to collaborate with juvenile justice
stakeholders to address the above goals and objectives and to develop a common vision and
strategy to respond appropriately and effectively to the needs of at-risk and delinquent youth, and
their families. Through the Title II Formula Grant, the Commission will continue to support local
community’s prevention and intervention programming which include a wide variety of best
practice model programs and strategies. Each program addresses different community needs
based on a thorough community assessment and focus of the prevention of juvenile delinquency.
Several programs address the whole family, are collaborations, and demonstrate financial
stability beyond Title II funding. Programs also demonstrate cultural, age and gender
competency for youth and their families.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each program will
be required to collect at a minimum:
Output


Number of program youth served
Two additional output measures
Outcome
 Number and percent of program youth exhibiting desired change in target behaviors
(substance abuse, school attendance, antisocial behavior, family relationships,
pregnancies, etc as appropriate)
 Number and percent of youth completing program requirements
 Two additional outcome measures
Budget: The amount of federal funds to be directed toward Delinquency Prevention is $100,000.
Priority Area 2
Alternatives to Detention (Program Area 02): Alternative services provided to a juvenile
offender in the community as an alternative to incarceration.
Program Goal: The intent is to meet the variety of needs in local communities that relate to the
core protections and are focused on alternative options for juveniles. As already discussed,
continued research and data demonstrate that better gender specific programming is also needed
through improved alternatives to detention. The juvenile justice system treatment services and
alternatives to detention must address unique needs of girls. Gender specific juvenile justice
Arizona 3 Year Plan
49
system improvements and alternatives to detention must be culturally competent and include
family involvement.
Program Objectives: The Commission will provide pass-through funding and services to
community based and faith based organizations to:
1. Fund programs that serve as alternatives to detention.
Activities and Services: The Commission will continue to collaborate with juvenile justice
stakeholders to address the above objective and to develop a common vision and strategy to
respond appropriately and effectively to the needs of youth involved in the juvenile justice
system. Through the Title II Formula Grant, the Commission will continue to support
alternatives to detention which include a wide variety of best practice model programs and
strategies. Each program addresses different community needs based on a thorough community
assessment and focus on alternatives to detention.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each program will
be required to collect:
Output


Number of program youth served
Two additional output measures
Outcome
 Number of and percent of program youth who offend or reoffend
 Number and percent of program youth completing program requirements
 Two additional outcome measures
Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Alternatives to Detention is $50,000.
Priority Area 3
Compliance Monitoring (Program Area 06): Programs, research, staff support, or other
activities designed primarily to enhance or maintain a state’s ability to adequately monitor jails,
detention facilities, and other facilities to assure compliance with Sections 223(a)(11), (12), (13),
and (14) of the JJDP Act.
Problem Statement: The improvement of the compliance monitoring process in Arizona over
the past two years has had a significant impact on the number of violations reported. However,
there will continue to be a need to monitor compliance through the use of site visits, training,
technical assistance and regular reporting in order to achieve full compliance with the act.
Overall Intent: The State of Arizona must ensure compliance with the four core requirements of
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002. This includes:
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, Sight and Sound Separation, Jail Removal and
Disproportionate Minority Contact. The first three requirements are addressed through the
staffing of a Compliance Monitor position who is responsible for the collection an review of
Arizona 3 Year Plan
50
monthly reports from all adult jail and lockups and juvenile detention facilities as well as annual
site visits and training.
Objectives: To provide funding that supports a minimum of one full-time Compliance Monitor.
The Compliance Monitor will ensure compliance with the first three core requirements in
partnership with local law enforcement, juvenile courts and the Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections.
Activities and Services: The Compliance Monitor will be responsible for:
1. Collection and review of monthly reports from all adult jail and lockups and juvenile
detention facilities
2. The provision of training bi-annually to law enforcements officers, conducting site visits
to meet the 100% requirement every three years and 10% minimum for select facilities
each year.
3. Provide regular compliance data to the Commission and juvenile courts and for
submitting the annual Compliance Monitoring Report to OJJDP.
Monitoring and Measuring Success: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each
program will be required to collect:
Output
 Funding allocated to adhere to Section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act.
Outcome
 The submission of the completed Annual Compliance Monitoring Report is submitted to
OJJDP
Budget: Total federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Compliance Monitoring is
$100,000.
Priority Area 4
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (Program Area 08): Programs, research or other
initiatives to eliminate or prevent the placement of accused or adjudicated status offenders and
non-offenders in secure facilities, pursuant to Section 223(a)(11) of the JJDP Act.
Program Goal: Reduce the number of status offenders held securely throughout the State.
Program Objectives: To provide funding to community and faith-based organizations as well as
county courts to explore and offer alternative strategies to holding juveniles accused and/or
adjudicated for status offenses in secure facilities.
Program Activities and Services: The Commission will continue to support current
deinstitutionalization of status offender (DSO) programming as well as continue to collaborate
with juvenile justice stakeholders to develop a common vision and strategies to respond
appropriately and effectively to reduce the number of status offenders being held securely. New
Arizona 3 Year Plan
51
DSO programs will be based on best practice model programming and strategies that ensure the
appropriate processing and holding of accused and adjudicated status offenders outside of secure
facilities.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each program will
be required to collect:
Output
 Funds awarded for DSO
 Number of programs implemented
 Number of site visits conducted
Outcome
 Change in the number of DSO violations
Budget: Total federal funds anticipated to be directed toward the deinstitutionalization of status
offenders is $100,000. Directing funds to programs and strategies that ensure status offenders
are not held securely coupled with a full-time compliance monitor should have a positive effect
on status offender violations.
Priority Area 5
Indian Tribe Programs (Program Area 22): Programs to address juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention issues for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Program Goal: To provide funding, training and technical assistance to address juvenile justice
to tribes. This includes opportunities to secure funding for delinquency prevention and
alternatives to detention.
Program Objectives: To provide funding and services to the Tribes of Arizona to:
Work with American Indian communities on the importance of the JJDP Act and the core
protections of the Act.
1. Prevent juvenile delinquency, reduce the number of juveniles involved in the juvenile
justice system and currently placed in detention and to reduce the disproportionate
representation of American Indian youth in detention and correctional facilities.
2. Educate the American Indian communities on multiple funding streams, either state or
federal, and provide technical assistance on how to apply for funds.
3. Engage the behavioral health system and the Tribal Regional Behavioral Health
Authorities (TRBHAs) to find opportunities to promote the JJDP grant programs in a
meaningful way.
Program Activities and Services: The Commission will emphasize its commitment to the
increased collaboration by assisting American Indian communities in Arizona through ongoing
outreach opportunities and effective communication with other state and local agencies. The
Commission will continue to fund a tribal community above the mandated Native American pass
Arizona 3 Year Plan
52
through amount set by OJJDP. Programming is delivered to American Indian youth living on the
reservation.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each program will
be required to collect:
Output
 Number of program youth served
Outcome
 Number and percent of youth who offend or re-offend
 Number and percent of program youth exhibiting desired change in targeted behaviors
(substance use, antisocial behavior, family relationships, social competencies)
 Number and percent of program youth completing program requirements
Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Native American Tribes is a minimum
of $34,067. The amount budgeted is an estimation based on the required 2011 Pass-through
amount. This amount will be updated when the FY12 pass-through amount is made available.
Priority Area 6
Disproportionate Minority Contact (Program Area 10): Programs, research or other
initiatives primarily to address the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority
groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system, pursuant to Section 223(a)(22) of
the JJDP Act.
Program Goal: In accordance with the requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.93-415 (1974) and consistent with public safety, the
Commission will pass-through funds to address issues of DMC and support efforts that will
eliminate the disproportionate representation of and disparate outcomes for minority youth
within the juvenile justice system.
Program Objectives: Fund best-practice programs, projects and research that eliminate the
disproportionate representation of and disparate outcomes for minority youth within the juvenile
justice system.
Program Activities and Services: The Commission will illustrate their commitment to
eliminating disproportionate minority contact by collaborating with juvenile justice stakeholders
and community agencies to address the above objective and to develop a common vision and
strategy to respond appropriately and effectively to disproportionate representation of and
disparate outcomes for minority youth. Through the Title II Formula Grant, the Commission will
continue to support county courts and local communities in disproportionate minority contact
activities that utilize best practice model programs and strategies.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each program will
be required to collect:
Arizona 3 Year Plan
53
Output
 Number of planning activities conducted
 Number of hours of non-program personnel training provided
 Number of assessment studies conducted
Outcome
 Number of state agencies reporting improved data collection systems
 Number of local agencies reporting improved data collection systems
Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed to disproportionate minority contact is $50,000.
Priority Area 7
Juvenile Justice Systems Improvement (Program Area 19): Programs, research and other
initiatives to examine issues or improve practices, policies or procedures on a system wide basis
(e.g., examining problems affecting decisions from arrest to disposition and detention to
corrections).
Program Goal: To improve local and statewide juvenile justice systems to ensure the safety of
the community, while focusing on diverting youth out of the justice system whenever possible.
Attention will be given to developing policies that will protect the rights of juveniles and provide
discretion to the court to make the best decision regarding the consequences, detainment and
treatment of adjudicated youth.
Program Objectives: To provide funding, when available to support local efforts to implement
model juvenile justice system improvement strategies.
Program Activities and Services: The Commission will continue to collaborate with juvenile
justice stakeholders to address the above objectives and to develop a common vision and strategy
to improve the juvenile justice system statewide as well as within individual counties across
Arizona. Through the Title II Formula Grant, the Commission may allow local units of
government to apply for juvenile justice systems improvement monies if available.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each program will be
required to collect:
Output
 Funds awarded for juvenile justice systems improvement
 Number of system improvements implemented
Outcome
 Number of agencies sharing automated data
 Number of recommendations implemented
 Number and percent of non-program personnel with increased knowledge in program
area 19
Budget: At this time, no funding has been allocated to this program area.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
54
Priority Area 8
Mental Health (Program Area 20): Services include, but are not limited to, the development
and/or enhancement of diagnostic, treatment and prevention instruments; psychological and
psychiatric evaluations; counseling services; and/or family support services.
Program Goal: To coordinate with the Arizona Medicaid system, ensuring all qualifying youth
receiving Title 19 benefits. Special focus must be given to working with the local Regional
Behavioral Health Authorities (RBHA’s) to improve access to care for these juveniles and their
families.
Program Objectives: To improve the access and quality of mental health services being
provided to at-risk youth and their families, thereby reducing the demand to place these juveniles
inappropriately in detention and correctional facilities.
Program Activities and Services: The Commission will continue to collaborate with juvenile
justice stakeholders to address the above objectives and to develop a common vision and strategy
to improve the availability, access to and quality of mental health services for youth involved in
the juvenile justice system. Through the Title II Formula Grant, the Commission support local
communities in mental health programming.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each program will
be required to collect:
Output
 Number of program youth served
Outcome
 Number and percent of program youth completing program requirements
Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed to mental health programming is $25,000.
Standard Program Area
Planning and Administration (Program Area 23): Activities related to state plan
development, other pre-awarded activities, and administration of the Formula Grants Program.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measure, each program will be
required to collect:
Output
 Funds awarded for Planning and Administration
 Number of FTEs funded with Formula Grant Funding
 Number of subgrants awarded
Outcome
 Average time from receipt of subgrant application to date of award
Arizona 3 Year Plan
55
Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed toward Planning and Administration is a
minimum of $106,458.
Standard Program Area
State Advisory Group Allocation (Program Area 31): Activities related to carrying out the
State Advisory Group’s responsibilities under Section 223(a)(3) of the JJDP Act.
Performance Measures: As required in the OJJDP Performance Measures, each will be
required to collect:
Output
 Number of SAG committee meetings held
 Number SAG subcommittee meetings held
 Annual Report submitted to the Governor
 Number of grants funded with formula grant funds
 Number and percent of programs that used evidence-based models
Outcome
 Number and percent of plan recommendations implemented
Budget: Federal funds anticipated to be directed toward State Advisory Group activities is
$20,000.
SMART GIS MAPPING
Please refer to Attachment 6 for a copy of the standard SMART report for the State of Arizona.
SAG MEMBERSHIP
AJJC - STATE ADVISORY GROUP – MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
NAME
REPRESENTS
Cecil B. Patterson, Chair
Merissa Amiri
Robert Brutinel *
Alice Bustillo *
Chad Campbell *
Xaiver Cameron
Robert Duber
Tim Dunst
Charles Flanagan
Helen Gandara *
Dan Goldfine
Jessica Hermann
Carol Hirschberg-James
Derrick Johnson *
Rob Lubitz
B
Arizona 3 Year Plan
FULL TIME
GOVERNMENT
YOUTH
MEMBER
X
A
B, F
A, D
X
A
C, D, F
C
B
B
X
C
C, E
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
APPOINTED
RESIDENCE
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
Phoenix
Mesa
Prescott
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Florence
Phoenix
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Scottsdale
Tucson
Phoenix
Phoenix
Litchfield Park
56
16. Jane Kallal
17. James Molina
18. Cindi Nannetti – Vice
ChairPenns
*
19. Guy
*
20. Vada Jo Phelps *
21. Dennis Pickering *
22. Tom Pickrell *
23. Shaun Rieve
24. Sammie Robinson
25. Christina Schopen
26. Robert Thomas *
27. Nina White
28. Mary June Willson
29. Myrtle Young
Total in Category
C, D
C, D, E
B
C, D, F
C, D
C, D, E
C
X
X
X
X
X
B, C, D
B
X
C, D
B, D
X
(34%)
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
Phoenix
Peoria
Glendale
Peoria
Sierra Vista
Phoenix
Mesa
Tempe
Glendale
Phoenix
Glendale
Glendale
Globe
Bisbee
(21%)
A
Locally elected official representing general purpose local government
B
Representatives of law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies, including juvenile and family court judges, prosecutors,
counsel for children and youth, and probation workers
C
Representatives of public agencies concerned with delinquency prevention or treatment, such as welfare, social services,
mental health, education, special education, recreation, and youth services
D
Representatives of private nonprofit organizations, including persons with a special focus on preserving and strengthening
families, parent groups and parent self-help groups, youth development, delinquency prevention and treatment, neglected or
dependent children, the quality of juvenile justice, education, and social services for children
E
Volunteers who work with delinquents or potential delinquent
F
Youth workers involved with programs that are alternatives to incarceration, including programs providing organized
recreation activities

At least 20% (1/5th) of members must be appointed before the age of 24

Assure that SAG Chair is not full-time employees of federal, state, or local government

Assure that a majority of SAG members are not full-time employees of federal, state, or local government (>50%

Assure that at least three members have been or are currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system

Assure that SAG membership is no greater than 33, no less than 15.

SAG Serves as a Supervisory Board.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
57
FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM STAFF
Agency Organizational Chart
Please refer to Attachment 7 for the organization chart for the Governor’s Office for Children,
Youth and Families Formula Grant staffing.
Programs Administered by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families
The Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families also administers the Children’s Justice
Act grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, the STOP Violence Against
Women Formula Grant from the Department of Justice, the Rural Grant from the Department of
Justice, the Safe Haven Grant from the Department of Justice, and several AmeriCorps grants
from the Corporation for National and Community Service. The oversight of these federal grants
allows for the coordinated efforts in addressing juvenile delinquency as well as the welfare of the
youth across the State.
STAFFING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Name
Title
% JJDP
Funding Source(s)
Funding Source
for Match
John Raeder
Juvenile Justice
Specialist/Title II,
Administrator
100%
JJDP-P/A
State General Funds
Steve Selover
Compliance Monitor
100%
JJDP-Program Area 6
N/A
Esther Hernandez
Grant Auditor
5%
State General Funds
N/A
Sonya PierceJohnson
Program
Administrator - JABG
100%
JABG
State General Funds
Tammy Paz-Combs
Deputy Director
10%
JJDP
State General Funds
Juvenile Justice Specialist Responsibilities
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Specialist serves as the single point of contact for the Office of
Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention. The position is responsible for oversight of the
State Advisory Group as well as assisting in the development of plans to maintain and/or achieve
compliance with the core requirements of the Act. The Juvenile Justice Specialist is also
responsible for coordinating data collection across state agencies and providing information to
the Governor, State Advisory Group, state officials and community partners about the status of
compliance, disproportionate efforts, implications of non-compliance and juvenile justice issues
facing the state.
Additionally, the Juvenile Justice Specialist is accountable for facilitating State Advisory Group
involvement in the development of the Three-Year Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Plan, and annual updates, and ensuring compliance and programmatic reporting is complete and
submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
58
The Juvenile Justice also serves as the Program Administrator for the Title II Formula Grant and
is responsible for creating a competitive solicitation that highlights the purpose areas chosen by
the Commission for local units of government, community agencies and Native American
Tribes. The position is then responsible for monitoring programs that are funded and provides
oversight on program implementation and progress. The Program Administrator is also
responsible of annual program reporting to the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency
Prevention.
Compliance Monitor
The Compliance Monitor is responsible for reviewing and logging monthly reports submitted by
all reporting agencies. If a violation is noted or found on the report, the Compliance Monitor
contacts the agency to verify the violation and provides assistance to ensure such violations do
not occur in the future. This position is also responsible for conducting site visits to all facilities
that have the capability of holding juveniles. Semi-annual training to law enforcement and
detention center officers is also done by the Compliance Monitor. The training focuses on the
JJDP Act, the importance of the requirements and strategies to ensure compliance. The annual
compliance report is prepared and submitted by the Compliance Monitor.
Grant Auditor
The Grant Auditor is responsible for reviewing budgets proposed during a competitive funding
solicitation ensuring items proposed are allowable and allocable. Once awards are made, the
Grant Auditor reviews and processes reimbursement requests made by the programs funded.
The Grant Auditor again ensures that requests are allowable and allocable and that they reflect
the budget proposed during the competitive process. The Grant Auditor also assists the Juvenile
Justice Specialist in developing the budgets submitted to OJJDP for Title II funds.
Program Administrator, Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
The JABG Program Administrator is responsible for issuing letters of intent to all municipalities
once notified by the Federal Government. The JABG Program Administrator is then responsible
for collecting and allocating funds based on letters of intent and creating funding applications
based on purpose areas directed by the State Advisory Board. Once funding contracts are in
place, the Program Administrator is responsible for monitoring the programmatic portions of the
program, working with the Grant Auditor to ensure funds are appropriately used, and reporting to
the federal government through the DCTAT system.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
59
L. BUDGET DETAIL WORKSHEETS
Planning and Administration
Program
Areas
23
Standard Program Title
Planning and
Administration
Personnel
ERE
Travel In State
Travel Out of State
Office Supplies
Other
Indirect Cost
Total Funds
OJJDP
Federal Share
State
Match
$106,460
$53,229
$53,229
$53,000
$21,200
$31,800
$19,876
$7,950
$11,926
$1,060
$1,060
$0
$1,313
$1,313
$0
$1,500
$1,500
0
$6,512
$600
$5,912
23,197
19,606
$3,591
$106,458
53,229
53,229
State Advisory Group
Program
Areas
31
Standard Program Title
State Advisory Group
Allocation
Travel In State
Travel Out of State
Supplies
Other
Arizona 3 Year Plan
Total Funds
OJJDP
Federal Share
State
Match
$20,000
$20,000
$0
$2,002
$2,002
$0
$6,453
$6,453
$0
$3,600
$3,600
$0
$7,945
$7,945
$0
$20,000
$20,000
$0
60
Purpose Areas
Program
Areas
02
06
08
09
10
20
22
Program Area
Title
Total Funds
Alternatives to Detention
Compliance Monitoring
Deinstitutionalization of
Status Offenders
Delinquency Prevention
Disproportionate Minority
Contact
Mental Health
Services
Indian Tribe Programs –
Pass Through
Total
OJJDP
Federal Share
State
Match
$50,000
$50,000
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$50,000
$50,000
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$34,067
$34,067
$0
$459,067
$459,067
$0
BUDGET NARRATIVE
Planning and Administration
The Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families will utilize funds awarded under the
FY12 JJPD Formula Grant for Planning and Administration (Program Area 23). This will
include funding activities related to state plan development, other pre-awarded activities, and
administration of the Formula Grants Program. Specifically, funding will be used in the
following line items.
Personnel and ERE costs will cover expenses to fund one FTE position for the Juvenile Justice
Specialist. Employee Related Expenses (ERE) costs are calculated at thirty-seven point five
percent (37.5%) of personnel costs.
Travel costs may be utilized to conduct in-state monitoring of programs funded by the
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) in order to meet the monitoring
requirements of GOCYF and all mandates of OJJDP for program and fiscal grant management.
Out of State Travel Costs may be utilized for all JJDP Program Staff to attend any training (s)
deemed necessary to attend as part of its administration of the JJDP Act and/or administration of
funding awarded to Arizona under the JJDP Act.
Other Planning and Administrative costs include administrative expenses such as, but not limited
to, supplies, postage, and telephone.
State Advisory Group
The Governor’s Division for Children will serve as the fiscal agent for expenditures approved
and made on behalf of the Arizona State Advisory Group (Program Area 31). These activities
Arizona 3 Year Plan
61
will be related to carrying out the State Advisory Group’s responsibilities under Section
223(a)(3) of the JJDP Act.
In-State Travel costs may be utilized as necessary for State Advisory Group Members to carry
out activities related the business of the SAG. Out of State Travel Costs may be utilized for
SAG members to attend training and or conferences related to the implementation of the JJDP
Act and/or related to the administration of funding awarded to Arizona under the JJDP Act.
Other SAG related costs include administrative expenses such as, but not limited to, supplies,
postage, and non-capital equipment.
Budget Detail Worksheet
Please refer to Attachment 3 for Arizona’s FY12 budget detail worksheet.
Arizona 3 Year Plan
62